Sitting of 6 May 2003

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
MERSEY TUNNELS BILL(By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Tuesday 13 May.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Ukraine
    Mr. Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement on the effect of EU tariffs on Ukraine. [111594]
    The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): Tariffs on Ukrainian exports to the European Union benefit from most favoured nation treatment. That means that Ukraine is treated as though it were already a member of the World Trade Organisation.
    Mr. Bacon: I thank the Minister for his reply. There are serious concerns about possible arms exports from Ukraine to Iraq, allegations of money laundering and the murder of prominent journalists. If Ukraine is to be led along a path towards internationally accepted norms, does he agree that nothing should be done to make it more difficult for it to trade with its neighbours following the accession of the Baltic states to the European Union?
    Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I raised those points in a recent meeting with State Secretary Chalyi of Kiev, who is responsible for European affairs. Enlargement will be a big opportunity for Ukraine, giving it access to an expanded single market, and, overall, Ukraine's trade with its new EU neighbours should increase as enlargement generates greater wealth in those countries. We have what is called an active new neighbours policy, working constructively with the Kiev Government to try to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union.
    Mrs. Helen Clark: I was very interested in that reply. The Minister in turn may be
    512
    interested to hear that only last week I returned from a trip to Ukraine organised by Peterborough city council—my Peterborough constituency is twinned with the city of Vinnitsa. Members of our delegation were left in no doubt that Ukraine is extremely eager to become a member of the European Union. Will the Minister tell us how the UK Government may assist with that, especially in relation to developing trade links?
    Mr. MacShane: I congratulate my hon. Friend and, indeed, the city of Peterborough on those links. It is important that we look beyond the current enlargement of 10 new EU member states to the new neighbours who were all present, including President Kuchma of Ukraine, in Athens for the European conference—an idea initiated by Her Majesty's Government. We will work constructively with the Ukrainian Government to try to bring them closer to their ultimate ambition of membership of the European Union.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Mr. Speaker, you will remember the welcome visit that you kindly hosted only last week of the President of the Rada and other distinguished parliamentary colleagues. Will Her Majesty's Government follow up that excellent initiative with an intensification of the already good relations with Ukraine, an expression of thanks for Ukraine's participation in the coalition of the willing in the recent Iraq crisis—a courageous initiative on its part—and a determination to help Ukrainian agriculture, which has always been the backbone of Ukraine's economy?
    Mr. MacShane: We noted Ukraine's deployment of a nuclear, biological and chemical clean-up battalion to Kuwait earlier this month. The hon. Gentleman is correct to draw attention to the welcome commitment of the Ukrainian Government to the conflict to get rid of Saddam Hussein. We are now in discussion with Ukraine about how it might further assist the coalition. The question of Ukrainian agriculture, like the broad problem of agriculture in the whole of Europe, must be set in the context of the need to reform the common agricultural policy.

    Iraq
    Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement on the role of Iraqi opposition leaders in the Iraq crisis. [111595]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I attended the conference of Iraqis in Baghdad last week. That gave me an opportunity to meet internal leaders as well as members of the diaspora opposition. A wide range of local leaders, academics, clerics and secularists were represented. We aim to create a broad-based Iraqi interim administration in a few weeks' time that can lead Iraq towards democracy. It should reflect the Shi'a, Sunni, Chaldean, Kurdish and Turkoman people but also women as well as men.
    Andrew Selous: I am sure that the Minister shares my delight at seeing Iraqi opposition leaders elected to Mosul city council last weekend, but does he agree that

    513
    the Iraq crisis will not be over until the weapons of mass destruction, about which the war was fought, are found and secured? Does he further agree that, should the intelligence that the Government received before the war be shown to be wanting in that respect, a fundamental review of our intelligence service will be required?
    Mr. O'Brien: The coalition forces are actively pursuing sites, documentation and individuals connected with Iraq's WMD programmes. Both the United Kingdom and the United States have deployed specialist personnel and will send more in the near future. This investigation will not be a quick process. Saddam had ample opportunity to conceal his WMD programmes and he had considerable experience in concealment, dating back to the early 1990s. The process itself will be painstaking in detail. We want to establish the truth beyond any doubt. We cannot expect the coalition to conduct a proper forensic examination merely in a matter of weeks, so I ask hon. Members to bear with us while we conduct the investigation in what is still in some areas quite a dangerous environment.
    Ann Clwyd: Almost every week, I am telephoned by someone in Iraq who is concerned about the preservation of evidence. It is a matter that I have raised here time after time, but I still do not know what our Government are doing on this point. The point that I want to make now is that the mass graves are being uncovered not by forensic scientists or people who can assess the evidence that they are uncovering, but by people who are looking for their sons, daughters and relatives, which one can quite understand. But at the same time, we as the coalition, have a responsibility to preserve that evidence so that it can be used in the trials that will undoubtedly take place.
    Mr. O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a responsibility to seek to preserve evidence, but in some circumstances it is still a dangerous environment and, within that context, we need to seek to preserve not only some of the sites but some of the documentation, some of which has obviously been disturbed—in some cases deliberately removed and in others ransacked by looters. There is therefore quite a large task to be undertaken, but as soon as we can establish effective security, I agree that our objective needs to be to seek to protect the evidence on which those who have committed such appalling atrocities under Saddam Hussein can be brought to justice.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is there any reason other than security why the UN inspectors should not return to Iraq to fulfil the mandates given to them by the Security Council under resolutions 1284 and 1441? When does the Minister think that it will be safe for the inspectors to return to Iraq, and is there not now an overwhelming urgency about their return in view of the International Atomic Energy Agency's request today for access to sensitive sites?
    Mr. O'Brien: Hans Blix himself has said that he believes that the circumstances are dangerous, and it would have been unsuitable to date for the inspectors to seek to return to Iraq and complete their task. My right
    514
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that it is the Government's hope that inspectors will be able to return to Iraq in due course and that they will be able to give independent oversight of the process of the finding of WMD. However, their objectives will be different. The objective will no longer be detection, more a validation of findings, and our objective is to see if we can ensure that there is some independent oversight of those findings.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what the other restrictions are. Obviously, we will need to ensure that the United Nations Security Council is satisfied that that is the way to proceed, and we hope that we shall be able to obtain not only further resolutions from the Security Council, but agreement on how inspection and a range of other matters will proceed in relation to Iraq.
    Glenda Jackson: In light of my hon. Friend's previous reply, is he saying that validation of weapons of mass destruction, should they be discovered, will be the preserve of UN weapons inspectors, and will they also be responsible for the oversight of the destruction of any such weapons should they be found?
    Mr. O'Brien: Certainly, it is our view that there should be some independent validation. We hope that the UN Security Council will decide that it can undertake that task through the inspectors, but, to some extent, we have to discuss not only with the United States but with the UN Security Council and with others how we can take this forward. We hope that the inspectors will be able to have a role, but there are still some steps to be taken to ensure that they do.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: The vast majority of the people whom I met last week in Baghdad were deeply grateful to the coalition forces for liberating them from the regime of Saddam Hussein. I am afraid that a great many of them were also alarmed about the possibility of being shot, because there has been a huge increase in shootings. What steps does the coalition envisage taking to restore policing to Baghdad, as I believe is our obligation under the terms of the Geneva convention?
    Mr. O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman says, it is certainly our obligation to ensure that we establish law and order in Iraq, and we intend to do that. We have already begun the process in Basra, which we took before Baghdad was taken. We already have about 600 Iraqi police officers on the streets to patrol together with our British forces, so steps have been taken there. The Americans took Baghdad later and have begun to get a number of police officers to return to duty. They have begun making some patrols together with Iraqi police officers, so law and order is starting to come under some element of control. However, the situation is much more difficult in Baghdad in many ways. We still think that large numbers of foreign fighters remain in Baghdad and are taking potshots at people. Indeed, while the hon. Gentleman and I were in Iraq, we saw each other in Baghdad, and while I was doing an interview and he was watching, shots were fired in the background. There is still firing and it is still a dangerous place, but we are seeking to establish order.

    Middle East
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on progress with the road map for peace between Israel and Palestine. [111596]
    Mr. John MacDougall: What progress has been achieved with the road map for the middle east; and if he will make a statement. [111598]
    Helen Southworth: If he will make a statement on progress on the middle east road map. [111604]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The publication of the Quartet's road map on 30 April is a major opportunity for both sides to work with international support to achieve a just and lasting settlement to this terrible conflict. All in the international community have worked hard over recent months to reach this point. We expect both sides to respond positively and to start implementation without delay. We shall continue to do all we can to help the parties to reach a settlement.
    For the convenience of the House, I should like to announce here the appointment of our outgoing ambassador to Cairo, John Sawers, as the British Government special representative to Iraq. Mr. Sawers will work alongside Chris Segar, head of the newly opened British office in Baghdad, particularly in relation to the political process and our work in the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but will he outline to the House what role, if any, Yasser Arafat has to play in this process? Secondly, is he convinced that President Bush and Ariel Sharon are genuine in seeking some sort of settlement with the Palestinians?
    Mr. Straw: Yasser Arafat remains Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, but under reforms that we were happy to support, encourage and indeed facilitate in two sets of meetings in London earlier this year, there have been constitutional changes under which a Prime Minister has been chosen, his appointment endorsed by the representative Palestinian Legislative Council and a Cabinet appointed. Abu Mazen and his Cabinet will undertake most of the detailed work on the implementation of the road map, and we welcome that development.
    We believe that the Israeli Government are indeed committed to the process. As for President Bush, I am in no doubt personally of his profound commitment to implement the road map and to see implementation of resolutions 242 and 338, as well as resolution 1397, which for the first time laid down the commitment of the Security Council, with full United States backing, to a two-state solution—a secure state of Israel alongside a viable state of Palestine.
    Mr. MacDougall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only basis for a lasting settlement in the middle east will involve a secure state of Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state? Does he agree that that requires the
    516
    Quartet to deliver commitment, courage and determination to make that vision a reality: and, if so, will he encourage it to do so?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I would. The process requires courage and determination on all sides—not only from the Palestinians and the Israelis, but from the Arab states, which have clear responsibilities to end their support and financing of terrorism and, in due course, fully to recognise the state of Israel.
    Helen Southworth: Will my right hon. Friend make clear the Government's position on Israel's continued activity and settlement in the occupied territories, and does he agree that it is illegal under international law and an absolute obstacle to peace?
    Mr. Straw: It is a matter of legal fact that the settlements are unlawful under international law. Under the road map, we look first to an end to further settlement activity, then, as part of the progress that is mapped out in that document, to a progressive withdrawal by Israel from those settlements.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Do our Government take the position that our US allies are right to continue to include Syria in their list of states that are sponsors of terrorism?
    Mr. Straw: Syria is one of the states in the region that supports rejectionist terrorist organisations operating in Israel and the occupied territories, and we look to Syria to recognise the new realities on the ground and to end such support.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We all welcome the road map. I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary's reference to the neighbouring states. Does he agree that they could act as a road block, causing detours, if they do not recognise Israel's right to exist in the area?
    Mr. Straw: Let me make it clear that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that some of the neighbouring states have played a profoundly constructive role in getting to this point. I would particularly mention—this is not an exclusive list—the work of Jordan, the work of Saudi Arabia and the initiative of Crown Prince Abdullah, and the work of Egypt, especially that of President Mubarak and Omar Suleiman, the head of intelligence, in sponsoring and facilitating the process. The hon. Gentleman is of course right that every Arab and Islamic state has a responsibility to support the process, which will lead to what they say they want—namely, peace in the middle east.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the Secretary of State agree that the information that the British-born terrorists who last week committed the Tel Aviv nightclub outrage received support from Damascus reinforces the need for Syria to remove itself

    517
    from supporting terrorism? What specific actions are the Government taking to ensure that that end is achieved in order to give the road map to peace a chance?
    Mr. Straw: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The President of Syria and his colleagues have recently had many conversations on the matter, including with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who is the Foreign Office Minister responsible, and with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who visited Damascus last week and delivered, as did my hon. Friend, very firm messages to the Syrian Government about their need to take fully into account the changed circumstances in the region.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: I welcome the appointment of John Sawers as the special representative in Iraq. I am sure that he will be a great asset in bringing the process to a sensible resolution.
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we must be wary not to vest in the road map an element of magic, and that it will ultimately depend on the political will of the Israeli Government and the Palestinians to march along it and successfully to negotiate the details within it? Does he agree that the key is reciprocity—the confidence on each side that the steps laid out are being matched on the other side? What mechanisms will ensure that the reciprocal steps that are made are publicised, thus helping to build and sustain that confidence? Is it not essential that the Quartet, whatever their previous views, are now seen to he completely even-handed in their approach?
    Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his agreement and acceptance regarding the importance of the appointment of John Sawers. I should explain that Mr. Sawers will come to work for me as the new political director of the Foreign Office in the summer, and that his leaving Cairo provides a useful opportunity to make use of his talents in the intervening period.
    The right hon. Gentleman is also correct that the road map is no magic solution. Its steps have been well set out in the past in a series of documents, including the Tenet and Mitchell reports. The difference now is that there appears to be an international consensus on those steps, especially full backing for the process from President Bush.
    The right hon. Gentleman is right that the arrangement is reciprocal, but each side has a responsibility to take steps immediately and not wait for the other because unless there is good will and an initiative towards it, we will not get the final status settlement that we want in 2005. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the need for the Quartet to monitor progress, publicise that monitoring or its failure and act together.
    Mr. Ancram: From the experiences of other peace processes, is not it, sadly, odds on that extreme interests on both sides will try to undermine the progress in the road map through terrorist attacks in Israel and provocation against Palestinians in the occupied territories? What measures can the Quartet and neighbouring Arab states introduce to ensure that such
    518
    incidents are prevented as far as possible and not allowed to destroy confidence, without which the initiative cannot succeed? In particular, what assurances has the Foreign Secretary been able to give his Israeli counterpart about potential terrorist attacks from this country?
    Mr. Straw: It is an appalling truth that the extremist rejectionist terrorist organisations will try to prevent any democratic progress towards peace by both sides by resorting to bombing, shootings and especially the facility of suicide terrorism. That was apparent in a suicide bombing that was by no means accidentally timed as the Quartet's road map was being published. It is a matter of great regret that the two suicide bombers were British citizens.
    Last week, I spoke to Foreign Minister Shalom to express the British Government's—and, I believe, the British people's—condolences on the death of the Israeli citizens. I also said that we would do everything that we could to ensure that the suicide bombers' backgrounds were fully investigated and that such incidents were prevented in future.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome all that my right hon. Friend said, but may I remind him that, if the road map is to succeed, much responsibility will fall on the elected Government in Israel? They have the power to make changes in the area. If they do not allow Abu Mazen and his new Cabinet and Administration the room to exercise power, and simply demand that something happen but simultaneously frustrate it by continuing the occupations, road closures, targeted killing and house demolitions, it will be impossible for any new Administration to gain credence. It will also make it appear that the Palestinians do not want peace. Israel says that it is the only democracy in the area, so surely a greater responsibility falls on the elected Israeli Government to make a bigger gesture, even in the face of adversity.
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. However, I believe that the responsibilities lie evenly on the Government of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the states in the region. Israel is indeed a vibrant democracy; that is one of its great strengths. However, we must all acknowledge that the peace party has been undermined in Israel as a direct result of the suicide bombers who have operated so viciously in the months since the intifada was declared.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Am I right that phase 1, which seeks to end terrorism, is designed to be accomplished by this month? More important, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that phase 2—the creation of an independent Palestine—depends on the achievement of phase 1?
    Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question. I think that he is right, but in any event I shall make that clear in due

    519
    course. I read the whole of the road map over the weekend, but this just goes to show how other things can crowd it out. The answer is certainly very shortly.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: By the end of May.
    Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who tells me that it will be by the end of May. The time scales for the initial steps to be taken are certainly very swift. What we need to see is an indication of good will from both sides.

    Hong Kong
    Ross Cranston: What representations he has made to the Hong Kong Government about article 23 of the Basic Law. [111597]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I have discussed article 23 with senior members of the special administrative region Government in Hong Kong and in London. In those discussions, and in the statement that I issued on 27 March about the draft article 23 legislation, I made clear our concerns about certain aspects of their proposals.
    Ross Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It might be too early for him to make an assessment of the impact, if any, that severe acute respiratory syndrome will have on the progress of the Bill, but may I put to him this crucial point? The institutions that have made Hong Kong so successful—freedom of speech, press freedom, the independence of the judiciary, and the rule of law—must not be compromised by the implementing of the legislation.
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. and learned Friend far making that point. I very much agree that those key ingredients that have made Hong Kong such a success story need to be preserved through the passage of this legislation. I certainly welcome the fact that the special administrative region Government have made several changes in the draft legislation, compared with their original proposals. I also welcome their assurance that the basic rights and freedoms in Hong Kong will not be eroded. The devil will be in the detail, however, and that is why we shall follow this issue very closely indeed.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Minister tell us which of the concerns to which he referred in his first answer has met with the least positive response from those with whom he has been talking?
    Mr. Rammell: There has been some movement on all the issues. There are a number of concerns, but the key remaining issue is that of the proscription of organisations in Hong Kong that are subordinate to organisations that are banned in mainland China. Part of the success of Hong Kong since the handover is the autonomy of the legal system, and the concern is that a move in this direction would blur the distinction between Hong Kong and the mainland. That is the key point that we are continuing to make.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: If he will make a statement on the implications for security in Africa of UK policy towards the regime in Zimbabwe. [111599]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The United Kingdom wants the restoration of a stable, prosperous and democratic Zimbabwe. Poor governance in Zimbabwe has reduced foreign investment there, precipitated economic decline and exacerbated political instability. The crisis there has also damaged neighbouring economies. Zimbabwe's inability to pay neighbouring countries for power supplies, and the spread of foot and mouth disease, for example, clearly have major implications for the prosperity of southern Africa generally.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the economy of Zimbabwe is in a state of anarchy and that millions are starving? Is he aware that Opposition MPs have been imprisoned and tortured, and that the leader of the Opposition is on trumped-up charges of treason? Furthermore, the Mbeki mission has ended in farce, yet the United Kingdom Government are sanctioning a cricket tour that can only bolster the Mugabe regime. Surely the time has come for them to start to take Zimbabwe more seriously.
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the state of the economy. Gross domestic product is reckoned to decline by 12 per cent. this year, and to have declined by a quarter over the last four years. The official rate of exchange of the Zimbabwean dollar, which was until recently valued at 50 to the US dollar, is now 800 to the US dollar. The unofficial, black market rate of exchange is 1,500 to the US dollar. That is an indication of the wreckage that President Mugabe has produced from that once extremely prosperous and potentially very prosperous country.
    So far as the cricket tour is concerned, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that we are of course as committed as he is, and feel as strongly as he does, about the need to bring pressure to bear on the Zimbabwe regime. However, I have always taken the view that, even if we had the power to stop sportspeople from Zimbabwe visiting, we would be punishing ordinary Zimbabweans rather than punishing the regime.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What about the chaps with black armbands?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman talks about chaps who wear black armbands. Henry Olonga—
    Mr. Bellingham: A great man.
    Mr. Straw: Henry Olonga is a great man. He told the Daily Mail just the other day:

    "It is right for the cricketers of my country to be here"

    in the United Kingdom.
    Donald Anderson: There is perhaps a glimmer of hope that the leaders of the African union

    521
    are beginning to realise the adverse effect of what is happening in Zimbabwe on the perception of Africa generally. How important does my right hon. Friend consider the current initiative by the Presidents of South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria? I refer to their visit to Zimbabwe, which I think was scheduled for yesterday.
    Mr. Straw: I have yet to receive a full report of the visit, but I have no doubt that those three Heads of Government, and indeed virtually all Heads of Government across the continent of Africa, are fully aware of the damage that the Mugabe regime has caused to Zimbabwe, to the South African region and to the reputation of Africa generally. The issue between us often relates to tactics and how best to put pressure on the Mugabe regime, but I think everyone can see that whatever "consent" the regime may once have had is rapidly dissolving before our eyes.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary share the regret felt by many that President Mugabe has been unwilling to step aside? Is not the cruel truth that the failures of Mugabe's Government are a blight on the whole of southern Africa, and inevitably affect the levels of support and investment that the developed world gives the region—which in turn undermines NEPAD, the New Partnership for Africa's Development? Is it not outrageous that some of the poorest people in Africa must pay for the excesses of the Mugabe Government?
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. James Morris, director of the World Food Programme—who briefed the United Nations Security Council on 7 April—described the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe as "almost beyond comprehension".
    We are determined that the Zimbabwe crisis should not undermine NEPAD, although it has certainly not made NEPAD's implementation any easier.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Yesterday's visit to Zimbabwe by the three African Presidents was a belated but nevertheless welcome initiative, although the outcome was predictably disappointing. Is not the key element of any solution, quite simply, the restoration of the democracy and rule of law destroyed by Mugabe, and is it not true that progress will not be made until Government-sponsored rape, torture, ethnic cleansing and starvation are ended?
    Is it not the case that this is no longer just a domestic problem, but a matter of regional security and a humanitarian crisis? Is there not a role for the United Nations Security Council to play in coming to grips with it? Will the Foreign Secretary, even at this late date, shake off his self-confessed post-colonial guilt, take the initiative of the Security Council, and stop passing by on the other side?
    Mr. Straw: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was doing quite well until he reached the last bit, which was rather predictable.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Ask him what he would do! He has not told us what he would do.
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend points out—from a sedentary position, but I think everyone could hear
    522
    because he is a good Essex boy—that the right hon. Gentleman never says what he would do. He mentioned the Security Council. I would be the first to have the matter taken before the Security Council if I felt that there could be a successful outcome, but there is no evidence for that at present, which I greatly regret. If we tried and failed, Mugabe would clearly regard it as a victory for him.
    The circumstances are very different from those in Iraq. We are working to put the maximum pressure on Mugabe. Notwithstanding the predictions of Conservative Members, we managed to obtain sanctions supported by the Commonwealth and sanctions supported by the European Union, and to have those sanctions tightened. It is obvious that the pressure is working, and is destabilising the Mugabe regime.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not a tragic fact that what my right hon. Friend has said is an understatement of the current problem of decline in Zimbabwe? Following the recent visit by leaders of other African countries, is it not perhaps time to say to all those in ZANU-PF who recognise that Mugabe's time is up that if they want to save their country, they should tell him that now is the time for him to go if he wants to do likewise, and to stop the appalling decline that we have witnessed in the past few years?
    Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

    Iraq
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the coalition's plans for elections in Iraq. [111600]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): At the conference of Iraqis in Baghdad last week, there was a call for a conference in four weeks' time to agree a broad-based independent Iraqi government. It is envisaged that such a government will then call a constitutional assembly; this will agree a constitution, to be put to a referendum. An electoral roll will need to be drawn up; then, we hope that elections will take place to select a representative Iraqi government. It is difficult to be precise about the timetable, as requested, but an estimate would be 18 to 24 months in all.
    Dr. Cable: May I welcome the Minister's commitment to the free and fair elections that his answer seemed to imply? Can he explain the status of important political groups such as the Ba'ath party, the Communist party and the Islamic fundamentalists? Will they be allowed to compete freely and democratically in those elections, and if they won would they be allowed to win?
    Mr. O'Brien: Yes, we hope that there will he free and fair elections. Whether they are through proportional representation remains to be seen, but I would imagine that the Iraqis would have more sense. We hope that the 13a'ath party will not be able to involve itself in that election, and certainly not in the form that it took under Saddam Hussein. It is not envisaged, therefore, that it would be allowed to operate. However, other parties

    523
    would have to form and to put themselves in the normal way before the electorate. So it is a decision for the Iraqi people themselves as to exactly how they want to develop their political culture and go about creating a new and representative Iraqi government. Any birth is a difficult process, and the birth of a new democracy is going to be difficult; but it can also be a wonderful process.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: When Donald Rumsfeld says that America will not tolerate any outside influence in the affairs of Iraq, is the irony intentional, and by what authority does America—or, indeed, Britain—determine which countries should have any influence in the elections in Iraq?
    Mr. O'Brien: As my hon. Friend will know, under the Hague convention and the Geneva convention the coalition forces have a responsibility to ensure law and order and basic security in Iraq, and that is what we are seeking to establish in a difficult environment. Therefore, there is legitimacy in Donald Rumsfeld's saying that, and in warning others who may seek to disrupt law and order in Iraq not to do so. There are obviously one or two other regional players, and other organisations that are not governments themselves— Hamas, Hezbollah and various other groups—that might seek to play a role. We are simply flagging up that they should not seek to disrupt what we hope will be an orderly progress towards a democratic Iraq.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: When it comes to elections in Iraq, what philosophical differences does the Minister think might divide potential political parties there? This is a crucial moment for shaping Iraq's permanent institutions of justice, taxation, human rights and local government, and, indeed, for the whole scope of government itself. In terms of structure, does the Minister think that the Swiss model might be a good one to emulate, and do the Government think that it would be good for Iraq's longterm economy—and, indeed, for the well-being of its citizens—for Iraqis to have a health service that is free in respect of all health needs at the point of delivery, including even foundation hospitals, or are we to conclude that when it comes to Iraq, this Government have a two-tier set of principles?
    Mr. O'Brien: That was laboured—very laboured—but the philosophical differences between Iraqi parties are for the Iraqis themselves to resolve. Whether a Swiss or any other model—even a proportional representation model—is established will be for the Iraqis to decide. The same applies to foundation hospitals. They would be wise to listen to the arguments, but, in the end, it is entirely for the Iraqis to decide.

    South Africa
    Barbara Follett: If he will make a statement concerning the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with South Africa. [111601]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I know that the House will join me in mourning the death last night of Walter
    524
    Sisulu, one of the founders of the African National Congress and of modern South Africa. We share with all the people of South Africa their grief at that loss.
    On the question itself, our relations with South Africa are good. I will visit South Africa shortly, for the UK-South Africa bilateral forum, when a wide range of bilateral and regional issues will be discussed. I pay tribute to President Mbeki for the role that he has played in promoting the New Partnership for Africa's Development and in the drive for peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi.
    Barbara Follett: Given the inconclusive meeting of the three presidents of South Africa, Nigeria and Malawi in Harare yesterday, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to use Britain's good relations with President Mbeki of South Africa to ensure that he continues to put pressure on the Mugabe regime and finds a swift solution to the appalling situation in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Straw: I look forward to discussions with my opposite numbers in South Africa and elsewhere about bilateral and regional issues. Zimbabwe will feature high on the list of regional issues. As I have already told the House, I am in no doubt about the South African Government's concern about Zimbabwe.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: While I agree with the question asked by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), how does the Foreign Secretary feel that our bilateral relations with South Africa have been influenced by the tragedy in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that the security of the whole of central southern Africa might well be influenced by the tremendous damage that events in Zimbabwe are doing to other countries in southern Africa? Does he believe that we, as a country with influence in southern Africa and South Africa itself, can do anything else to bring about a change of leadership in Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge of the region. What has happened in Mugabe's regime in Zimbabwe has plainly damaged the wider region as well as that country. However, I believe that our relationship with South Africa is too important to be defined by Zimbabwe and, as it were, by the gross inadequacies of President Mugabe. South Africa is by far the most important country in southern Africa and it has a leading role to play in the economic development of the whole of Africa. We have very good bilateral relations with the country and the subject forms an important part of my agenda for discussion at my forthcoming visit.
    We have set a clear agenda for putting pressure on the Mugabe regime, including sanctions and the opprobrium of the international community. We have to work with our partners in southern Africa to achieve an acceleration of that pressure, which is already working, as can be seen on the streets of towns and cities across Zimbabwe. From a depressing position late last year, the opposition parties are winning by-elections and the Mugabe regime is becoming highly destabilised. It is my belief—it may be optimistic—that if we maintain that pressure, sensible people inside the

    525
    ZANU-PF regime will realise that, for their country's future as well as their own, they have to detach themselves from President Mugabe.
    Andrew Mackinlay: During the Secretary of State's forthcoming visit to South Africa, will he raise with his opposite number the contents of the written statement by Baroness Amos a few weeks ago about the appalling situation whereby, in London and South Africa, the so-called Northbridge group—a bunch of mercenaries—is actively recruiting Brits and South Africans to destabilise the region, particularly the Ivory Coast? Is it not about time that this Government and the South African Government took legislative powers to control and regulate those bandits who are doing great harm throughout the continent?
    Mr. Straw:My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We are taking a number of actions in respect of this company but, as he knows, the Foreign Affairs Committee—of which he is a member—has made important recommendations to the Government on legislating in this area and we have already offered a positive response.
    Mr. Richard Spring: The Foreign Secretary will recall the pivotal and direct role that the previous South African Government played in bringing to an end the illegal regime of Ian Smith. When he meets President Mbeki, will he remind him that, under the terms of NEPAD, African leaders have an obligation to speak out clearly and act against abuses of democracy by Governments in the region?
    Mr. Straw: I shall be happy to spell out to President Mbeki and other Ministers the nature of the Harare principles and the Southern African Development Community's parliamentary principles, and the importance of these being implemented right across southern Africa.

    Rwanda
    John Robertson: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Rwanda. [111602]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell):Progress is being made on rebuilding Rwanda and the lives of the people, but there is still a long way to go. The political situation is encouraging, with a constitutional referendum scheduled for 26 May and presidential and parliamentary elections later this year. We stand ready to help Rwanda with its election process. The Foreign Secretary is meeting President Kagami in London later this week.
    John Robertson:My hon. Friend will agree that the post-genocide transition period as defined in the Arusha accords is coming to an end and that it is a critical time for Rwanda. My hon. Friend will be aware also of the recent crackdown on the political opposition parties in Rwanda, particularly the largest opposition group, the MDR. Does he share my concern that, in the run-up to a referendum and constitutional elections, there is no serious opposition to the ruling RPF? As the biggest
    526
    bilateral donor to Rwanda, should not the UK play a critical part in ensuring that fair elections are held? Will he impress that upon President Kagami at the talks later this week?
    Mr. Rammell: I certainly agree that this is a critical time for Rwanda. With regard to the MDR, we will be urging the Rwandan Government to follow full due process and to demonstrate their commitment to an inclusive and democratic state. I am not sure that I would go so far as to say that there was no opposition; there are some 80 opposition parties in existence. Undoubtedly, we will be taking the opportunity this week to discuss with the Rwandan Government how they intend to manifest their commitment to establishing a democratic and inclusive state. I am sure that will be on the agenda for the talks with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

    Middle East
    Mr. Peter Luff: What plans he has to meet the new Palestinian Prime Minister to discuss the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [111605]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien):Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I regularly discuss the road map with our Arab colleagues. It was one of the subjects raised during our recent, separate visits to the region. I regularly brief Arab ambassadors in London on UK policy towards the middle east, including the peace process. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, to visit London.
    Mr. Luff:Does the Minister understand that what seems to be lacking from his reply and that of the Foreign Secretary is a sense of urgency? The new conditions that pertain in the world post-Iraq, with the President of the United States fully supporting the new process, demand a new sense of urgency from the world. When he next meets representatives of Arab Governments or the Israeli Government, will he remember the word of Brutus in "Julius Caesar"?

    "There is a tide in the affairs of men,

    Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

    Omitted, all the voyage of their life.

    Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

    On such a full sea are we now afloat,

    And we must take the current when it serves,

    Or lose our ventures."

    Does he agree that we are on such a full sea, that we must take that current, which is flowing strongly in the direction of peace, and that, if we fail, future generations of Palestinians and Israelis will never forgive us?
    Mr. O'Brien: Et tu, Brute. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been discussing this matter with the American President over a number of months, with more than a little success. The Government have shown throughout that we are aware of the urgency of creating an Israel that is free from terrorism, and a Palestinian state that is viable. In that way, there will be an end to the injustice that has been done to the Palestinian people. The Government are committed to supporting that peace process, and we are working with the Americans and others to ensure that there is full backing for the quartet's road map.
    Richard Burden: May I add my welcome to the road map? I should also like to echo the comments made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who said that the obligations on the parties were immediate and simultaneous, and not sequential, as some members of the Israeli Government have suggested. However, I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister about a related issue—the fact that a number of foreign nationals were shot recently as they attempted either to report what is going on over there, or to promote peace. What representations are being made to the Israeli Government, especially about the case of Tom Hurndall, who was recently shot, and is now in a coma? Yesterday, Israeli forces fired shots over a convoy carrying Mr. Hurndall, even though the convoy bore diplomatic flags and was accompanied by British embassy staff.
    Mr. O'Brien:My hon. Friend is right to say that we have serious concerns about the incident to which he refers. I spoke to the Israeli ambassador on Saturday and expressed our deep concerns about the matter. I also asked for a full report to be made after a proper inquiry into the incidents has been held. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also spoken to some of the families concerned. We will pursue these matters with the utmost vigour. They are very serious, and my hon. Friend need be in no doubt that the Government will treat them seriously, as consular matters. We will give as much support as we can to the families concerned, and we will make sure also that the Israeli Government are in no doubt about a problem that seems to occur all too often—the lack of discipline among Israeli defence force soldiers. That issue of discipline needs to be dealt with by the Israeli Government.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Even if the Minister cannot aspire to a Shakespearean vocabulary, will he at least use a jargon-free vocabulary? Can we discard "road maps" and "quartets" and talk about the peace process instead, and then get on with the job?
    Mr. O'Brien:Our aim is to get on with the job.

    Nigeria
    Ms Julia Drown: What steps the Government are taking to press the Nigerian Government to prevent the stoning to death of Amina Lawal for adultery. [111607]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell):First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she has done to raise this appalling case. The Government and our EU partners regularly raise our concerns about this case with the appropriate authorities in Nigeria. Indeed, my noble Friend the Minister for Africa, Baroness Amos, expressed to President Obasanjo our concern about the harsh sentences imposed under the sharia penal codes, and emphasised the strength of feeling against them in the UK.
    Ms Drown:The Nigerian state court will hear Amina's case on 3 June. Both Muslims and non-Muslims in my constituency have told me how appalled they are at Nigeria's interpretation of sharia law, which is in flagrant violation of the UN torture convention. They are also concerned about the other Nigerian women facing death by stoning who have not received the same international publicity and who do not have legal representation. Are the Government making equal efforts to raise those cases too? Human rights need to be protected, wherever people are.
    Mr. Rammell: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. We take every opportunity to raise all cases in which this extreme interpretation of sharia law is used, and we will continue to do so. I reassure my hon. Friend that, through our high commission, we also maintain close contact with the national human rights commission in Nigeria, and the non-governmental organisations. In that way, we will get advance warning in cases such as this, and that will allow us to do everything in our power to apply the maximum pressure.
    Mr. John Bercow: The integrity and good intentions of the Minister are not in dispute, but what indication has he had that the representations that he and his noble Friend Baroness Amos have made about the proposed barbaric penalty will, in practice, be heeded?
    Mr. Rammell:I take comfort from the fact that the Nigerian Attorney-General has made clear his view that the cases will ultimately be ruled unconstitutional in the federal court. We should none the less continue to apply pressure on an issue that is of serious concern across the House.

North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust
3.30 pm
Helen Jones: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,

the financial problems at North Cheshire Hospitals NHS trust and the action which needs to be taken to resolve them.

It was recently revealed that North Cheshire Hospitals NHS trust ended the last financial year with a deficit of £5.8 million. The director of finance has left—to take up another post, I understand—and the chief executive has tendered his resignation. The trust is therefore left to face its problems without two key officers. Rumours are rife in my constituency about what may happen at Warrington hospital, and the staff are seriously concerned.
We urgently need answers from our strategic health authority about how the deficit arose and what action it intends to take to deal with it. Unfortunately, it has proved difficult to obtain answers from the authority. I have written to it, and I know that hon. Friends have written too. The chief executive has arranged two meetings with me, but has cancelled them. She does not return phone calls. It is easier to get an audience with the Pope than with the chief executive of our strategic health authority. I have also raised the matter with the authority's chairman, who has declined to use her good offices to facilitate a meeting.
This is scandalous at a time when the health care of my constituents is at risk. My constituents deserve to know that future funding for their local hospital will be secured and that the improvements that the Government have made at Warrington hospital—and there have been considerable improvements—will be maintained and built on. My constituents are entitled to know exactly why the hospital is in this position when the health authority in north Cheshire has received a 48 per cent. increase in funding from the Government since 1997.
The current situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is causing great distress to my constituents and is undermining the morale of the hard-working staff at the hospital. I hope, therefore, Mr. Speaker that you will be able to grant my application so that we may know how future health funding for North Cheshire Hospitals NHS trust is to be secured, and so that my constituents may be assured that improvements in their health care will be maintained in future.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) has said. I must give my decision, without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

Children's Television (Advertising)
3.33 pm
Ms Debra Shipley: beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent food and drink advertising during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling.

Our children increasingly suffer from obesity and diabetes. These are potentially killer diseases, and they are of great concern to the Department of Health, which recognises that children eat too much fat, sugar and salt. In a written answer to me, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department—then a Health Minister—said that

"average intakes of salt are up to twice the recommended amount."—[Official Report,26 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 512W.]

She went on to say that 85 per cent. of children failed to meet recommendations on the consumption of added sugars, and that a huge 92 per cent. failed to meet recommendations on the consumption of saturated fats.
The Department of Health is tackling that appalling situation with an excellent national school fruit scheme, providing free fruit each day to thousands of pupils.
The Minister also claims to have in place

"major cross-Government programmes of work to improve healthy eating"[Official Report,15 April 2002; Vol. 383, c. 782W.]

Unfortunately, these programmes do not seem to have reached the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is responsible for the regulation of advertising during children's TV. It has failed to take action to prevent high fat, high salt and high sugar content food and drink advertising being targeted at pre-school children—two, three and four-year-olds.
Little children watching independent television channels are daily being bombarded with images of happy little boys and girls eating high fat, high sugar and high salt content food and drink. They repeatedly hear catch-phrases and jingles designed to appeal to them. They repeatedly see pictures designed to attract their attention and remain in their young memories.
Sustain, an alliance of more than 100 groups concerned about food issues, has recently campaigned to protect children from the marketing of food targeted specifically at children that gives an unbalanced nutritional message. Its campaign won support from the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of General Practitioners. Sustain supports of my Bill. The National Heart Forum has given its backing too. Its chief executive, Paul Lincoln, stated:

"The harm starts early in life. We are very concerned about the targeting of children and young people as a market for foods high in fat, sugar and salt. The marketing consists of a saturation diet of advertising around children's TV programmes."

He added:

"The marketing of these foods undermines the Department of Health's efforts to promote healthy eating from an early age."

My Bill calls for a ban on all food and drink advertising during toddler TV scheduling. The multinational, multi-billion pound food and drink and advertising industries oppose it. Obviously, their vested interest is not the health of our children. These industries say that children who suffer from diabetes and obesity are nothing to do with them. They say that

531
children should exercise more. I agree; they should exercise more, but they should also eat less fat, sugar and salt.
The obesity taskforce is pleased to see these issues raised by my Bill—so too is Diabetes UK. Diabetes UK believes that the aggressive marketing strategies of food companies, exposing children to high fat foods, have been partly responsible for increasing obesity and diabetes in children. Moreover, it is costing the national health service approximately £5 billion a year. That is an expense met by the taxpayer, not the multi-billion pound food and drink industry.
Spokespeople from the advertising industry claim that if my Bill is successful, less children's television will be broadcast. That seems to me rather threatening and also undermines the claims by the television companies that children's TV is a form of public service broadcasting.
My Bill simply calls for a period each day when children's television is free from food and drink advertising—free from marketing strategies that are becoming increasingly sophisticated. We are currently witnessing a step change in investment and direct targeting of an ever-younger cohort of children. My Bill would offer some brief respite and protection. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Shipley, Dr. Howard Stoate, Margaret Moran, Linda Perham, Vera Baird, Ann Clwyd, Ms Karen Buck, Dr. Brian Iddon, Glenda Jackson, Brian White, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Andrew Mackinlay.
CHILDREN'S TELEVISION (ADVERTISING)
Ms Shipley accordingly presented a Bill to prevent food and drink advertising during pre-school children's television programmes and related scheduling: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a. Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 101].

Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant Document: Minutes of Evidence from the Treasury Committee, Session 2002–03, on the 2003 Budget, HC 652-i to -iii.]
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.39 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Finance Bill is about enterprise and fairness—meeting our responsibilities to business, taxpayers, the environment, the international community and the most vulnerable members of our society. The context of this Bill is one of continued economic uncertainty around the globe. In the past two years, many of our strongest competitors—notably, the United States, Germany and Japan—have experienced recession. We have recognised that the global slow-down has brought challenging times for businesses. It is a sign of the strength of the economic framework that the Government have put in place over the past six years that the economy has remained stable and has continued to grow, unlike those of our major competitors and in contrast to the recessions of the past.
  Despite the economic uncertainty around the world, we are able to meet our military responsibilities, and we have met the requirements of the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule year on year, with the public finances strongly in surplus over the current economic cycle. We do not intend to be diverted from our priorities of record investment in public services, achieving full employment and tackling child and pensioner poverty—building a Britain of economic strength and social justice.
  In the past, in less severe world downturns, as a consequence of the short-termism and economic mismanagement that, I fear, characterised the economic stewardship of the Conservative party—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh no."] Ah, yes—Britain was first into recession, last to come out and suffered a deeper depression than other countries.[Interruption.]Conservative Members do not like hearing that.
  Mr. John Redwood: Does not the Minister accept that these 448 pages are designed to sandbag the British people with more taxes than have ever been imposed in the past? This is bumper, record taxation to smash enterprise in this economy.
  Mr. Boateng: I recognise no such thing, and I well remember when the right hon. Gentleman himself wielded the cosh, and taxation represented a burden on the ordinary taxpayer that it has not represented under this Government.
  Today, when 20 other countries have been in recession, Britain has had a record 43 consecutive quarters of growth—a record not achieved by the

  533
  Opposition—and the longest period of continued growth for half a century. We are predicted to outpace our European competitors in growth next year.
  Mr. George Osborne: Perhaps the Chief Secretary can explain why the British stock market has been outperformed by the American and French stock markets?
  Mr. Boateng: Taken from its peak, that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is simply not the case. He knows that global equity markets have suffered in the current downturn. and he would not expect the United Kingdom to be immune from that. However, the fact is that, in the early 1990s, when the hon. Gentleman peddled his wares as a researcher and Conservative party activist—we have got a note of his record on that matter, and it should be made more widely known—inflation reached almost 10 per cent. He well remembers the time. Today, we have inflation at its lowest level for 30 years—averaging just 2.3 per cent. since 1997. Under the Conservatives, interest rates hit 15 per cent. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh no."] Oh yes, and none of them is getting up now to defend a 15 per cent. interest rate. Today, at 3.75 per cent., the interest rate is at its lowest level for 50 years.
  In the past, under the Conservatives, unemployment was rising above 3 million, and Opposition Members will remember that. Today, Britain has more people in work than ever before. Almost 250,000 jobs have been created this year and, for the first time in 50 years, unemployment is lower than in Europe, Japan and America simultaneously.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Chief Secretary is painting a rosy picture of the economy. Can he tell my constituents and others who are very concerned about their pension deficits why, if everything is so wonderful, many pension schemes are in such serious trouble?
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman knows well why pensions inevitably cannot be immune from downturns in equities. He also knows, however, that in the long term, equities represent an important part of any pension portfolio, as he will be the first person to recognise.
  Jon Trickett: May I remind my right hon. Friend to tell Conservative Members that more than 3,000 pensioners in my constituency will welcome the extra £100 a year that they will all receive? In addition, many miners who were retired and pensioned off as a result of political malice by the Conservative party will very much welcome the new pension credit—as they have so far had to pay tax on their well earned income—and other things that the Government have done for pensioners.
  Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the pension credit, nor least because all Members will want to play their part in ensuring maximum take-up. I know that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, working with the Inland Revenue,
  534
  has made sure that a range of material is available to ensure that that is the case. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to make sure that they take up the cause of the pension credit, as that can only benefit pensioners in all our constituencies.
  Sir Robert Smith: I agree with the need to encourage take-up, as I did in relation to the minimum income guarantee campaign. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House, however, that if we encourage people to take up tax credits, this time, the computer system will be able to cope with the influx of applications that may be generated from such a campaign, and that people will not be left waiting for the payments should they decide to take them up?
  Mr. Boateng: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has that situation well in hand, and the computer systems are currently coping with the demand. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman will recall his party's predictions of doom and gloom in terms of take-up, and I welcome his commitment to increasing it. I hope that he will have the grace to admit, however, that the predictions of the Liberal Democrats that take-up for these credits would be low have proved to be lamentably wrong.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Before we leave the subject of pensions, will the Chief Secretary accept that the imposition by this Government of a £5 billion a year tax on pensions, coupled with the increased regulations that have surrounded pensions, the introduction of disincentives to pension saving, and the failure to deal with all those disincentives, means that pensions in this country are now thoroughly discredited in the view of most of the population?
  Mr. Boateng: I accept no such thing. The hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience of the House and more than sufficient experience of this subject to know that his party first put up advance corporation tax. He knows as well as I do that the pension system in this country bears examination and comparison with that of the rest of Europe, where the pension system is putting those countries' economies into some considerable difficulty. I hope that he will give us credit for that, and for the measures that we have taken to preserve it.
  David Cairns: Before my right hon. Friend moves off the issue of pensions altogether, will he assure me that, should the Government change pensions regulations, they will inform people of the effects of the changes, unlike what happened under the previous Conservative Government when a change was made to inherited SERPS but they did not tell the people who would suffer from it? That was another mess that this Government had to sort out on coming to power.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out, and he is charitable in not pointing out, too, the mis-selling that occurred when the Conservative party had stewardship of these matters.

  535
  The fact is that, with additional jobs, we now have lower unemployment than Europe, Japan and America simultaneously, and our hard-won economic stability has been the key to sustainable growth and to promoting employment and opportunity for all. Since early 1997, 1.5 million more jobs have been created, over half of which are in the private sector and almost 70 per cent. of which are full-time. In the past year alone, as I have indicated, 250,000 more jobs were created, almost half of which were in the private sector. It is important to get the balance between public and private sectors right.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point, because he said earlier that we had experienced 43 quarters without recession—virtually 11 years. Does he accept that Governments do not add to recession and do not bring us out of it, and that we should pay tribute to the manufacturing sector and the workers of our country?
  Mr. Boateng:The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the importance of both manufacturing and wealth creation. From my frequent visits to Northern Ireland, I know of people's concerns to ensure that they retain their competitiveness and that jobs are created there, too. Northern Ireland Members of all parties play an active part in ensuring that that is the case.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Chief Secretary is quite right to talk about wealth creation and manufacturing, and I am grateful for the support that he has given to small businesses over the years. Will he give the House the cost of the small business package in the Budget? Does he know the global total of the cost to small businesses—companies employing fewer than 50 people—of the national insurance increases that kicked in on 1April?
  Mr. Boateng: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman about the cost because I do not want to give him figures that might be misleading. He will know that tens of thousands of firms have been taken outside the scope of value added tax as a result of measures in the Budget. Many more firms will pay less tax and will benefit from our measures to reduce the burden of regulation on small businesses. He is right to point out that there is never any room for complacency about regulation and its impact on small businesses—that applies to successive Governments. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) pointed out the problems faced by the past Conservative Administration as a result of that, which is why we are determined that the Better Regulation Task Force and the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget should maintain our momentum to reduce the burden on business.
  Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend accept that investment in health from national insurance contributions is reducing the average time that a small business must wait before employees come back to work? At the same time, the tax credit system means that the average salary paid by many small businesses is a lot lower. In a sense, the working
  536
  families tax credit was a subsidy for small businesses, and if the measures are taken together they provide one explanation for the rapid growth of the success of small businesses throughout Britain.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the cost incurred by business due to sickness, and I shall talk about that in some detail later in my speech.
  Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know that seaside communities such as Scarborough and Whitby have probably experienced the most dramatic improvement to their employment potential since 1997. More than 40 per cent. more of my constituents—1,400 people—are now in work than was the case before. What further help will he give to encourage small businesses, especially in areas such as mine and around the coast, to ensure that we build on the solid foundations laid during the past six years?
  Mr. Boateng: The consultation document on equity finance that we published should assist small businesses in my hon. Friend's constituency, as should the development of enterprise areas and the advantages accrued by small businesses that start up and purchase commercial properties in such areas. It is important to recognise and understand clearly the problems faced in seaside and coastal towns. My hon. Friend has been a champion of that cause. It is largely as a result of work carried out by him and other Labour Members who represent seaside constituencies—
  Mr. Bellingham: And Conservative Members.
  Mr. Boateng: I hear the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that his constituency has a coast, but I do not think of it as a seaside town constituency—
  Mr. John Bercow: Gross discourtesy.
  Mr. Boateng: Not at all. I have crossed swords with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for many years, since he was in short trousers—although that was, of course, quite recently. No discourtesy is intended. I hope that all hon. Members who represent seaside constituencies will accept the Treasury's invitation to attend a seminar on the issues that affect such constituencies.
  Mr. Bellingham: I will be there.
  Mr. Boateng: I look forward to that. We need a clearer understanding of what we can do to improve seaside constituencies.
  Mr. Michael Weir: As someone who also represents a seaside constituency, I am pleased to hear the Minister's comments. This is the second Budget in a row in which the Government have changed corporation tax and trumpeted that as a help for small businesses, but does he recognise that many small businesses, which are the backbone of economies in constituencies such as mine, are self-employed

  537
  partnerships that pay income tax rather than corporation tax? They are receiving no help. Will the Government stop their thrust towards corporations and incorporation and help the self-employed in partnerships?
  Mr. Boateng: That is not a fair or accurate analysis. Allowances are available to the self-employed in partnerships, and those are of assistance. The package of reforms to improve small business access to finance, the consultation on the scope for introducing small business investment companies in the UK, the improvement to the research and development tax credits and the package of deregulatory reform for small businesses have all benefited small businesses. Although there is no room for complacency, small businesses have probably been helped more than anything by low interest rates and the stability that has resulted from the policies adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. All that would be put at stake were some of the wilder fantasies of the nationalists given their head. However, the signs from recent elections are that that will not happen.
  Kali Mountford: At a conference in west Yorkshire on Friday attended by representatives of the regional development agency and employers' confederations, employers made it clear that, although stability is key to their development, and notwithstanding the low interest rates, they still encounter the problem of unco-operative banks, especially when it comes to small businesses. I direct my right hon. Friend to the Select Committee report that highlighted that banking problem. Will he look again at what can be done to make it easier for small businesses to access finance?
  Mr. Boateng: I well remember that report and my hon. Friend's contribution to it as a Committee member. I am sure that her contribution is missed by her colleagues on the Committee, as it is by everyone. As a result of the Committee's work and a robust dialogue between business and the Treasury, the good news is that the banks are increasingly aware of their responsibilities to small business and of the opportunities for good business that arise from meeting their needs. That is why we have introduced a package of reforms to increase and improve access to finance for small business, and why the work of the Phoenix fund, the role of venture capital in this area and the consultation on the scope for introducing small business investment companies is important.
  For business, it is not just about delivering, as we have done, the monetary and fiscal frameworks that have kept the economy stable and growing in the good times, and indeed in difficult times. Reforms to the competition authorities, corporation tax, investment, innovation and skills are the prior conditions for the creation of a dynamic, enterprising and productive Britain.
  Mr. Michael Jack rose—
  Mr. Boateng: I should like to make a little headway, but I look forward very much to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, as he always makes interesting contributions to these debates.
  538
  International comparisons show that we have a law-tax environment that is friendly to entrepreneurship—the UN's trade and development commission ranked the UK second in the world in attracting inward investment in a report published only last September. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has said that the UK is the best place to start out and succeed in business, and its latest figures show that our corporate income taxes plus employer social security contributions as a percentage of gross domestic product in 2000 were the third lowest in the EU, lower than those of France, Germany and Italy. That is a record that the right hon. Gentleman should give us credit for, and I hope that he will now do so.
  Mr. Jack: I am always delighted when the Government follow the trend set by the previous Conservative Government in lowering marginal tax rates both at the personal and business level—it is nice that a good idea has been recognised. However, in the context of the Government's continuing consultation on reforms to corporation tax, will the Chief Secretary explain to the House what benefit will accrue to British business from the abolition of tax relief for allowances under the present arrangements for corporation tax and its replacement with allowances against the rate at which assets depreciate?
  Mr. Boateng: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have a continuing programme of reform and rationalisation of corporation tax, which has enabled us to reduce the burden of taxation on companies and is widely welcomed. One is always concerned about anything that increases complexity, but I have not heard it being seriously suggested that on balance we have not got it right and that our record does not compare favourably with the stewardship of corporate taxation when he was Financial Secretary. He is not one to blow his own trumpet—well, not much—but he should give us some credit for the reforms that we have introduced in this field. No doubt, during the consideration of the Bill in Committee—I hope that he will again grace us with his presence this year, as that Committee would not be the same without him—we will have an opportunity to explore these matters in a little more depth.
  We are not complacent. We are working to make the process easier still, and have identified more than 500 regulations introduced by previous Governments for reform or abolition. Our changes have already helped small businesses to employ almost 400,000 more people than they did in 1997, which tells us something about whether the Government are getting it right in relation to small businesses. I would argue that we are, and that the Opposition did not.
  This Budget and Finance Bill mark the next stage of reform to give greater flexibility in capital markets, product markets, housing and planning, and the labour market. Clause 136 provides support for people who regularly work at home under flexible working arrangements. Employers will be able to meet some or all of the incidental household costs incurred by employees who work at home without giving rise to a tax charge. The Bill provides necessary recognition of

  539
  changing patterns of business, making sure that the tax system does not bear down unfairly as an inhibitor on people who choose flexible working.
  Mr. Bercow: Perhaps I may be permitted briefly to return to the subject of macro-economics. Given the interdependence of fiscal and monetary policy and the favourable intra-European comparisons that the right hon. Gentleman made a few moments ago, what assessment has he made as Chief Secretary to the Treasury of the merits or demerits of the proposed changes to the voting procedures of the European Central Bank?
  Mr. Boateng: I must admit that I have not actually made an assessment.
  Mr. Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman should have. It is his job.
  Mr. Boateng: I am interested in the subject, but it would be quite untrue to say that I have made an assessment of it. One watches the development of the European Central Bank with interest, as all hon. Members would expect. I celebrate the fact that it was this Government who had the good sense to make the Bank of England independent, which the Opposition opposed and would never have had the guts to do. One would hope that at least one of them would have the good grace to stand up and congratulate us on the steps that we have taken.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, the hon. Gentleman has much too much form for us to believe that he is about to stand up to congratulate us on allowing our central bank the independence that was its due and that has so benefited the economy.
  Mr. Bellingham: Good idea.
  Mr. Boateng: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman congratulate us, albeit from a sedentary position, on the measures that we have taken.
  Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment. I want to make some progress.
  Clauses 132 to 134 freeze corporation tax rates. At 30 per cent., the main rate is lower than in any other major industrialised country, and the 0 per cent. starting rate means that 150,000 companies pay no corporation tax whatever.
  Clause 164 extends the 100 per cent. first-year allowance available to small businesses for spending on information and communications technology for a further year to March 2004.
  Clauses 158 to 161 contain a package of measures to simplify the capital gains tax system, including an extension of business assets taper relief to improve access to let property for unincorporated traders. I hope
  540
  that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who understandably expresses concern for unincorporated traders, recognises the step that that represents.
  Clauses 138 to 140 simplify employee share schemes to make them easier for companies to administer, give employees in such schemes more flexibility, remove anomalies and provide a statutory corporation tax deduction for contributions to those schemes.
  Following feedback from businesses, the Finance Bill improves the way in which the research and development tax credit works, allowing more businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and more types of expenditure to qualify, and helping to take us toward the American spend on research and development of around 2.8 per cent. of GDP. Any comparison between ourselves and the United States in the area of productivity—we still have a way to go to catch up with its success—recognises the need for us to address the issue of spend on research and development, and we shall continue to consult.
  David Cairns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that, and for the action that the Government are taking, but does he share my concern that in the frontier technologies, in biotech and software development—a growth market—with its high-value, high-paid and high-skilled jobs, Europe still lags well behind the United States? With specific reference to the electronics sector, what message can I take back to my constituents, many of whom are employed in that sector, to show that the Government are aware of the issue and are addressing the need for research and development in the frontier technologies?
  Mr. Boateng: One of the reasons why we have been considering the definition of research and development is precisely to ensure that the tax system recognises the very fast pace of development in the area to which my hon. Friend refers. A few months ago, I visited a company in Scotland that was looking at lasers and crystal technology. One of the messages that it gave to me—I have received the same message from others working in the area, not least in technologies that have been developed as a result of space research—was that continuing dialogue is vital. I know that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is anxious about developing dialogue between the Inland Revenue and industry, as well as with academia, to ensure that we get the definition right. My message to my hon. Friend's constituents is that we are absolutely determined to do just that.
  The Bill seeks to build on the steps that we have already taken and on the messages delivered to us by business, which said that it wanted the minimum spending requirement to be reduced from £25,000 to £10,000 to help small firms to qualify. Business also wanted us to simplify the rules for apportioning staff costs to ensure that staff doing small amounts of R and D are not excluded, and to extend coverage to agency staff, as smaller companies may need to buy in expertise to take them to the next stage. We wanted to ensure that that issue was recognised in the tax credits that are available, as it is very important for projects of limited duration.
  Mr. Butterfill: The right hon. Gentleman has been most generous in giving way. By way of recompense for

  541
  his giving way to me now and on another occasion, may I congratulate him on the extension of taper relief to unincorporated traders? The anomaly was long overdue for correction and that move is very welcome. However, will he say something about the justification for excluding the same level of taper relief in respect of quoted companies, many of which are smaller than some relatively large unquoted companies and some unincorporated traders?
  Mr. Boateng: One of the greatest challenges facing any Chancellor in coming to a judgment on such issues is considering the balance across the whole tax system. As those of us who have form in respect of the Finance Bill—I am afraid that I do, as has the hon. Gentleman in his time—know, getting that balance right is important; indeed, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is constantly extolling its virtues. The judgment has to be made and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity, others would arrive at a different judgment, but on balance I think that he has got it right, and hon. Members would not expect me to say anything else.
  All the reforms have been designed for business and with business. We have listened to businesses of all sizes and in all sectors, and to the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and the TUC, which has been at the forefront in calling for improvements to the R and D system. All those organisations have made their voice known and have had an important contribution to make—a contribution that has been reflected in the Budget.
  I should like to say a few words about public services. Economic dynamism goes hand in hand with social justice. The Budget and the Finance Bill take forward our policies for enterprise and innovation, but not at the price of fairness. They take forward the agenda that we are promulgating, but underwrite it with fairness. To reduce the cost to business of locating and investing in disadvantaged areas, and to support the regeneration of brownfield sites, we announced in the Budget the removal of stamp duty from all non-residential property transactions in the 2,000 enterprise areas. That measure, which is covered by clause 57, is part of a package of measures to encourage business investment in our most disadvantaged communities—measures to encourage enterprise that complement, not conflict with, our priorities of full employment, tackling child and pensioner poverty and delivering high-quality public services through investment and reform. The 2002 spending review set out our plans for an extra £61 billion of spending on public services by 2005–06, with three quarters of the additional spending going towards health, education, transport, housing and the fight against crime.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who is in his place, urged us to cut that investment by 20 per cent.—a call that was never denied and that was confirmed by the Leader of the Opposition.
  Mr. Andrew Love: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Budget debate the right hon.
  542
  Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) called not only for a 20 per cent. cut, but for a cut of up to 100 per cent.?
  Mr. Boateng: That is a very alarming prospect, but nothing surprises me in relation to the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) might have said that I was talking about cutting 100 per cent. of waste and unnecessary expenditure in order to spend more on teachers, nurses and doctors.
  Mr. Boateng: That is a lot of paperclips.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Mr. Boateng: We have touched a raw nerve.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: My right hon. Friend was talking about the fact that there are more hospital administrators than beds.
  Mr. Boateng: I have here a quote from the Leader of the Opposition, which makes it clear that Conservative Members were not talking about cutting hospital administrators, but about cutting costs across the board, rejecting extra NHS staff who do not deliver and so-called wasted expenditure on consultants. We look forward to hearing about more areas where they are going to make those 20 per cent. cuts.
  Roger Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 20 per cent. cut in public expenditure would not only be a mean and misguided policy, but would bring about the demise of public services? Just as 200 years ago doctors thought that they had to bleed all the blood out of people to make them well, cutting that amount of money from the health service would bring about the death of the whole system. We must absolutely reject that ridiculous option offered by the Conservatives.
  Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The cuts would mean losing £13.6 billion from the NHS budget.
  Mr. David Cameron: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that since 1997, when his party came to office, the cost of running central Government has increased by £3.5 billion; and can he tell us what percentage increase that represents?
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to accept his figures. He knows that it is grossly irresponsible for Conservative Members to call for cuts of 20 per cent. and maintain that no doctors, nurses or police officers would consequently lose their jobs. That would be the effect of the Flight plan.
  Kevin Brennan: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that although many Conservative Members have leaped to their feet to change the subject, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has not been tempted from his seat? Should

  543
  he not defend himself against the accusation of proposing cuts of 20 per cent. instead of simply sitting there?
  Mr. Boateng: I suspect that he will defend himself at some length, not only here but Upstairs in Committee. However, he will not deny his words:

  "I am digging through current spending, finding opportunities for cuts. It's too early to say how much but it could be up to 20 per cent."

  It was later confirmed that that would apply across the board. The hon. Gentleman went further and became more specific about the NHS. He said:

  "The reforms, which we will be proposing, will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for healthcare services."

  Charges and cuts are Conservative Members' prescriptions. They cannot deny that because I have their words in black and white, and such a policy would be implemented it they were ever given stewardship of the economy again.
  Kali Mountford: I point out that I was a civil servant when civil service jobs were perceived as throwaway items and unemployment rose to 3 million. I also want to endorse my right hon. Friend's point about investing in areas of social exclusion. At Moor End high school in my constituency, only 28 per cent. of pupils achieved five GCSEs at grades A to C. The figure has now increased to 58 per cent. Does not that show the true price of investing in public services? It makes things better for people.
  Mr. Boateng:My hon. Friend is right. That should be celebrated by hon. Members of all parties.
  Mr. Bercow:Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Boateng:No. I have given way many times and the hon. Gentleman will have his chance. I shall come back to him.
  A healthy, skilled work force in strong communities are essential to maintaining economic stability and building the foundations of future innovation and prosperity on which we depend. The Budget confirmed that that would continue to be our policy. The 1 per cent. increase in national insurance that was announced last year and will be paid from April will go entirely and directly to the NHS. Consequently, by 2008, there will be 80,000 more nurses and 25,000 more doctors than in 1997.
  The shadow Chancellor described the increase in national insurance contributions as a tax on jobs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They say, "Hear, hear", but he used the same argument against another policy that was abhorrent to the Conservative party: the national minimum wage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman described that as an axe on jobs. He is well known for his play on words, but however one plays on the words the policy was no such thing. We created 1.5 million more jobs. That was the measure of our success, which the Opposition could not hope to replicate.
  Everyone benefits from a national health service that is free at the point of need, so everyone who can contribute to its long-term financial future should do
  544
  that. The Opposition claim that the rise in national insurance is a burden on business, but it means that employers will pay approximately £10.50 a week for an employee on average earnings compared with £30 in Germany and £60 in France. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said in his infamous memo that the Conservative party should consider France and Germany. Yet employers pay £30 a week in Germany and £60 in France. Does anyone seriously suggest that that is a better way to fund the NHS than the measures that we have introduced? The answer to that can only be no.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Chief Secretary now answer the question that he ducked 22 days ago at the conclusion of the Budget debate? Given that the increased expenditure on the national health service has not been matched by a commensurate increase in clinical activity, and that the Government say that they favour reforms, will he name three that will make a difference?
  Mr. Boateng: It simply is not true to say that there has not been an increase in clinical activity.
  Mr. Bercow: I said "commensurate".
  Mr. Boateng: Well, it depends what the hon. Gentleman means by "commensurate". I suspect that he and I will have different definitions of the word. There are now more operations, and more treatments being given outside in the community, closer to people's homes. There are better treatments for cancer, and better dispensation of drugs. All those things are happening, as well as there being additional nurses, doctors and people working in radiography and on the front line to improve people's health. By any count, on any indices, the NHS has improved, and to say otherwise is, quite frankly, an absolute travesty of the truth.
  It is unfair when the burden of tax falls on businesses or individuals who play by the rules and who pay their fair share, while tax cheats distort competition and push up the tax rates that the rest of us have to pay to make up the difference. That is not fair, and taxpayers rightly expect the Government to close tax loopholes and to tackle tax fraud so that the burden is not unfairly placed on normal taxpayers because a minority abuse the system. I suspect that we shall spend much time in our deliberations on these clauses Upstairs. Of course we need to get it right, but I hope that it will be possible for Members on both sides of the House to welcome the measures to close tax loopholes that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will be taking us through in detail.
  This year's Budget announced a compliance and enforcement package to enable the Inland Revenue to counter direct tax avoidance and to contribute an additional £1.6 billion of revenue over three years. The Finance Bill includes a wider package of measures to ensure a level playing field for taxpayers who fulfil their obligations.
  Mr. David Laws: In respect of tax avoidance, and of the loopholes that the Chief Secretary says that he is now closing, what action have he and the Chancellor taken since the Treasury Committee looked

  545
  into the issue of tax avoidance by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in respect of the Mapeley STEPS—strategic transfer of the estate to the private sector—transaction?
  Mr. Boateng: We replied to the Treasury Committee on Friday, and it will want to consider carefully what is outlined in that memorandum. The hon. Gentleman might wish to return to that issue when the Committee has had an opportunity to reflect on it.
  We are introducing measures to tackle VAT fraud and avoidance—in particular missing trader fraud, which costs us billions and makes billions in profit for organised crime—and measures to close down other schemes that a minority of businesses and individuals had been using to avoid paying their fair share of tax. All those important measures are contained in the Bill and I think that they will all be welcomed. We are also taking action to prevent tax avoidance through manipulating share schemes, coupled with giving support to companies that want to implement employee share schemes in line with the legislation. We have also included clarifications because we have listened to business; it has said that it wants greater clarity in this area so that it can implement such schemes to give people a sense of ownership and a stake in the success of their company.
  There is action to counter capital gains tax avoidance through offshore trusts and second-hand life insurance policies, and action to close a loophole in the controlled foreign company rules allowing some companies to escape UK tax on profits from extended warranties and credit protection insurance. Those measures follow the Budget announcement of a compliance and enforcement package to enable the Inland Revenue to counter direct tax avoidance and thus contribute an additional £1.6 billion over three years. There is also a comprehensive modernisation of stamp duty to counter widespread tax avoidance, which distorts the commercial property market and business decision making, and has given rise to contracts and artificial vehicles for the transfer of property.
  I do not think that any of the activities I have described could be justified by any reasonable person.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: The Chief Secretary said that consultation with business is extremely important, which indeed it is. He has now mentioned the new land tax—or, at any rate, what he describes as a modernisation. Can he explain why Ministers instructed the Revenue on 21 January to end all consultations? Elements of the Bill have not been mentioned, were not consulted on, and do not have the support of business.
  Mr. Boateng: No such instruction was made known to me, or to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General.
  In modernising stamp duty we want to ensure that it is better targeted. We are taking comprehensive powers to address widespread tax avoidance. We are reducing the burden on smaller businesses, and reforming and modernising the framework of tax, bringing it into line with other modern taxes. The modernised charge will be
  546
  mandatory, and there will be new enforcement and compliance powers. We are levelling the playing field across different types of transaction, which can only increase fairness. We are clamping down on the avoidance of stamp duty, while removing duty on property other than land, interests in partnerships and shares, and securities.
  All those measures emanate from consultation and listening, and I believe that they will be widely welcomed by business.
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Do not the proposals relating to VAT fraud and Customs and Excise come too late? As is shown by recent cases, the Government have failed to crack down adequately on fraud, which has led to the loss of hundreds of millions of pounds in VAT, and have failed to control Customs and Excise as well.
  Mr. Boateng: That is not true. Over the years, Customs and Excise has learned from what some of those cases have brought to light. I believe that Customs and Excise in this country is widely recognised as a world leader in the field. When I went abroad as Financial Secretary I encountered nothing but admiration for it, not least in the Customs community, and I know that the current Economic Secretary is finding the same. We should be very careful before doing down the hard-working men and women involved in law enforcement in Customs and Excise, who take great risks on behalf of the Revenue. They should be congratulated on their vigilance and determination.
  Mr. Prisk: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Boateng: Not at this point.
  We want to create that level playing field, and to end the highly complex artificial arrangements into which some people enter to avoid paying. In the long term, the modernisation of stamp duty will facilitate electronic commerce and electronic conveyancing. It will allow fairer treatment of house purchases funded by certain types of alternative mortgage product. The double charge on so-called Islamic mortgages, for instance, will be removed.
  Mr. Prisk: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Boateng: Not at this point.
  By raising a fair share of tax from large commercial deals, we shall further the interests of small businesses and give them more protection. The proposed £150,000 threshold for commercial transactions will eliminate the charge on about—
  Mr. Prisk: Peanuts!
  Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman shouts that out, but he really ought to reflect on his own Government's record in this area. The fact is that when the Conservatives had the opportunity, they did absolutely nothing at all to ensure modernisation and reform of stamp duty.[Interruption] It is no use their wittering on about this being a new tax; the fact is that they ought to have seen the need for reform. Simply to dismiss this as

  547
  a new tax or a new burden does no service at all to the impulse for reform that existed for many years before this Government took office, but to which the Conservatives singularly failed to respond. This new proposed threshold, which will exempt 35,000 small business transactions a year from tax, certainly does not constitute peanuts; it is something to be welcomed. The removal altogether of stamp duty on non-residential properties in 2,000 enterprise areas will be widely welcomed by small businesses throughout the country, including in the constituencies of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  We are meeting our responsibilities to the environment in terms of the sustainable use of resources. This Finance Bill contains carefully calibrated tax and economic incentives that will encourage this, while not undermining the competitiveness of British business. There are new duty differentials for sulphur-free fuels and bioethanol, and a new, low-carbon band of vehicle excise duty for the lowest CO2 emission cars, which will allow motorists to save up to £110 per year by choosing such vehicles. We are listening to the calls for an increase in the landfill tax rate of £1 per tonne for this year and next, to provide business certainty.[Interruption] Conservative Members mock the notion that we have listened, but the fact is that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been calling—not least through the good offices of the Environmental Audit Select Committee—for such an increase for many years. We have listened, and now we have it.
  We are demonstrating through this Budget a commitment to fairness, a commitment to flexibility, a commitment to public services and a commitment to ensuring that we meet the needs of these times, whereby we deliver where successive Conservative Governments have failed to deliver, recognise and meet the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises, and move forward with investment in public services, tackling poverty and social exclusion despite the global slow-down. As such, I commend this Bill to the House.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance Bill because the provisions contained in its two volumes of 447 pages increase the burden of taxation on the economy, fail to take account of the effects of inflation and will lead to a further decline in the competitiveness and relative attractiveness of the UK as a location for investment."

  Notwithstanding the Chancellor's absence today, may I add my personal congratulations to him and his wife on their recent announcement? I am sure that the whole House wishes that all goes well for them. I also hope that the experience of the costs of raising a family will in due course convert the right hon. Gentleman to the merits of a lower-tax economy. I should also like to draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.
  548
  I want briefly to mention the programme motion, which we will reach later. It provides a guillotine for the Committee stage to finish on 12 June, leaving only seven sitting days to debate a complex, if not very constructive, Finance Bill. I suspect that that will not allow sufficient time for a full discussion in territory that is, candidly, not particularly party political, so we will oppose the programme motion.
  After the Chief Secretary's interesting speech this afternoon, I am sure that the whole House will feel relieved to have been spared a repeat of the rant in his winding-up speech to the Budget debate. The Chief Secretary will be disappointed by the local election results, particularly by the fact that his and his party's attempt to misrepresent and smear what I said about the scope for reducing waste and cutting non-productive bureaucratic costs failed to affect the outcome. It was a pathetic attempt by the Labour party to divert attention from the Chancellor's economic failures.
  I remind the Chief Secretary of Labour's 1997 general election promise to root out

  "waste and inefficiency in public spending"

  and to

  "conduct a central spending review and departmental reviews to assess how to use resources better".

  Rather than misrepresenting what I said, the Chief Secretary would do better to get on with precisely that. I also remind him of the debate earlier this year on the Public Accounts Committee reports, which had identified more than £20 billion of waste in public spending in the period that was assessed.
  Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that action against the waste identified by the Public Accounts Committee has, along with 90 per cent. of its recommendations, already been implemented. He is calling for a further 20 per cent. reduction in overall public expenditure. Where specifically will those cuts be made—out of thin air, or is he talking rubbish?
  Mr. Flight: I get rather fed up with Labour Members misquoting what I said. Some items in the Public Accounts Committee recommendations, particularly VAT fraud, are beginning to be dealt with, but it is pathetic that the Government have been in power for seven years and done so little to address waste and fraud. They have enormously increased the costs of bureaucracy—by £3.5 billion on central Government. They have wasted more than £1 billion a year on information technology systems that have gone wrong. They have failed to address effective procurement in the public sector, wasting approximately £4 billion a year. In short, they have been completely hopeless at securing good value for taxpayers' money. If the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) bothered to read the interview, he would find that I was not talking about reducing expenditure on health or education. Indeed, I was talking about realising resources to increase effective online delivery. It is time that the hon. Gentleman ceased to misrepresent what I said.
  Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in a memo dated 12 November 2001—predating his interview by some time—he said to the shadow Chancellor:

  "The reforms, which we will be proposing, will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for healthcare services"?

  Does not that amount to charges, or does he deny those words?
  Mr. Flight: The Chief Secretary refers to a confidential memo that the Labour party intercepted improperly, which had nothing to do with the interview about cutting waste. Had the Chief Secretary been party to the entire discussion, he would know that we were talking about how to make the best use of the French system in this country. We were not talking about any programme—for which it would not be my responsibility—to levy charges in the health service. If the Labour party plays dirty by intercepting electronic mail, as in this case, it may find that it gets only half the story. The issue is this: why have the Government not addressed the reduction in waste much more effectively?
  Mr. Boateng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: I am afraid that the Chief Secretary has had more than sufficient time to lie and to misrepresent what I have said.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw one of the allegations that he has just made.
  Mr. Flight: I withdraw with pleasure anything improper that I have said, but my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor pointed out in this Chamber that Labour party suggestions that the Conservatives had a programme to cut expenditure on health and education were lies. It was that to which I referred.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would contribute beneficially to the progress of the debate if he specifically withdrew the allegations that a right hon. Member lied.
  Mr. Flight: I am happy to withdraw an allegation that the right hon. Gentleman lied and say that I wish he would cease playing the game of misrepresentation.
  The Bill—likely to be the Chancellor's last Finance Bill is a rather poor and lop—sided effort.
  Mr. Bellingham: Has not my hon. Friend nailed the ridiculous and absurd idea peddled by the Labour party that the shadow Treasury team wants to cut 20 per cent. across the board? Should not the Government desist from making such accusations?
  Mr. Flight: My right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor made the position clear, and the electorate were not in any way impressed by the Chief Secretary or the Labour party's misrepresentations. In
  550
  fact, they gave Labour a thoroughly negative vote, with the Conservatives gaining more than 550 seats. Even the BBC—the Government's propaganda organ—expressed surprise that the Conservatives had done better than expected.
  Mr. Redwood: Did my hon. Friend, like me, experience many doorstep conversations in which people asked where all the money had gone? They have not seen it go to teachers, nurses or doctors, or for more operations. They are as upset as my hon. Friend about the waste and the nonsense from the Government, who rip us off but do not provide the service.
  Mr. Flight: That is precisely the point. The public want to know where the 50 per cent. increase in taxes raised has gone, because it has certainly not gone on improved delivery of public services.
  Let us focus on the Bill; 447 pages, 214 clauses and 43 schedules. Strangely, more than 50 per cent.—51.5 per cent. by volume, or 230 pages—deals with just two territories. The first is the new stamp duty tax and the introduction of the lease duty, and comprises 139 pages. The second is the issue of employee share schemes and the major changes to the law on employee share acquisition, and amounts to 91 pages. Both of those are massively complex proposals and reflect similar problems. The Government have endeavoured to increase tax takes substantially but have failed to draft effective legislation. On stamp duty, there is the issue of the favoured enterprise areas, where stamp duty does not apply. The Government are surprised that businesses react to that by endeavouring to minimise their stamp duty liabilities elsewhere. Similarly, in the area of employee share arrangements, the attractions of the business taper, with capital gains tax coming down to 10 per cent., have, not surprisingly, served as a motivation to others to construct share schemes that reduce their tax liabilities.
  The proposals on lease duty were not included in the draft legislation on the reform of stamp duty. They amount to a major new stealth tax, and not the promised reform of stamp duty. The new tax should be called the land transfer tax. We believe that the Chancellor should have referred to it as a new tax in the Budget.
  Roger Casale: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government raise tax so that the money can be spent on public services such as health, hospitals and new schools. The hon. Gentleman criticises individual tax rises in the Bill. What other elements in the Bill would allow us to raise the money for that expenditure in a different way, or is he simply looking for ways to finance his cuts to public services?
  Mr. Flight: I would not want to prejudge what the Standing Committee will do, but we have objected to taxes being raised that are not being spent effectively. The hon. Gentleman seems to miss the point that no benefit is achieved if taxation is raised yet public services are not improved. That is our criticism of the Government's return to Labour's old tax-and-spend policies. It is the same old failure that has been evident throughout most of my lifetime.
  Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: In a moment. I want to make some points about the new tax.

  551
  Ministers promised reform, but then broke off consultations arbitrarily and without warning last February. That has been regarded as a breach of faith, and the Government have not explained their actions. The Government have missed the opportunity to reform stamp duty for home owners, and also to remove some of the iniquities in the market and the high rates of marginal taxation. Indeed, the new tax has some of the same iniquities as the old stamp duty. It retains some of the arbitrary price bands, and the new stamp duty lease tax applied to value added tax is a double tax—a tax upon a tax.
  Because it includes leases, the new tax will hit many more people, especially many small and medium-sized businesses, and charities. Their tax burden could be between four and 10 times higher than at present. The new tax will serve to shorten leases, and thus could often reduce capital investment, which would not be economic on a shorter lease. All of that comes at the wrong time, in the wake of the national insurance contribution increases and with business rates and liability insurance costs rising dramatically.
  What estimates have the Government made in respect of small business? Will the Chief Secretary say how many firms and jobs will be affected?
  Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government's fiscal stance, and denied what was said earlier about his proposals for Government spending. Will he therefore say what he considers to be the appropriate proportion of gross domestic product that the Government should devote to public expenditure?
  Mr. Flight: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should ask that. He will know that the Treasury Committee spent a considerable amount of time asking the Chancellor the same question, and he refused to give any answer. If the Chancellor refuses to answer that question, I do not see why I should answer it.
  No Labour Member can possibly be satisfied with the extent to which the Government have raised taxes. Taxes have gone up 50 per cent. since the Government came to power, yet there has been a complete failure to deliver improvements in services. The electorate gave the Government the benefit of the doubt at the last general election, but I suggest that the local election results made it clear that the population is fed up with more and more tax and no delivery. The new stamp duty tax occupies about one third of the Bill, and the compliance costs are likely to be high and to add to already high UK property costs, reducing our international competitiveness. How will that help inward investment? In our view, the proposals are the wrong way to tackle tax avoidance. What is needed is genuine reform and a collaborative approach to business.
  The Chartered Institute of Taxation is dismayed by the abrupt termination of the consultation process without effective explanation at a time when several major issues require further consultation. The institute believes that any decision to go ahead without further discussions and to implement in December could produce unworkable legislation that might adversely affect the property market. The particular worry is the impact on smaller and middle-sized companies. The
  552
  tenants of pubs may find themselves facing up-front bills for £6,000. A modest London-based service business leasing 4,000 sq ft in the Victoria area would be likely to face an increase from £3,000 to more than £12,000 under the new tax proposals. The measure will have damaging effects, particularly on small and medium-sized service businesses.
  Mr. Boateng: If what the hon. Gentleman has just said is true, why did Bill Moyes, director general of the British Retail Consortium, describe the measures as especially good news for small retail businesses? Why did he also say:

  "It is good to know that the Treasury have listened to the retail sector."?

  Mr. Flight: I suggest that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury awaits further evidence at the Committee stage. He will find that there has been some major misunderstanding about what the Government propose.
  Mr. George Osborne: Perhaps the Chief Secretary is unaware of the comments made by the director general of the CBI, who said:

  "It is clear that these proposals will seriously increase the cost of leased business properties for many companies … could be devastating for high street businesses."

  Mr. Boateng: Bill Moyes says different.
  Mr. Flight: I gently advise the Chief Secretary, who is commenting from a sedentary position, not to indulge in such complacency. The arithmetic, as he knows, is such that tax applies on the present value of leases above the figure of £150,000, and not on the value per annum. When the Chancellor first made his announcement, in language that was not entirely clear, a number of people misunderstood what he was saying. Most reaction since has been similar to the example that I quoted a moment ago, to the effect that the tax will bear hard on smaller and medium-sized businesses.
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: May I assist my hon. Friend in answering the comments made by Mr. Moyes by saying that many members of the British Retail Consortium, of which Mr. Moyes is chairman, are deeply unhappy and dissatisfied with those comments?
  Mr. Flight: 1 thank my hon. Friend for that.
  My final quotation on the proposals comes from the head of stamp tax at Deloitte and Touche:

  "I wonder if the Chancellor is using the new lease duty to recapture the revenue he is going to be losing in enterprise areas."

  Schedule 22, made effective by clause 139, is the second major lump of this lop-sided Bill, with 72 pages that completely rewrite the law on employee share acquisition. We welcome attempts to stem avoidance, but the Government should examine why avoidance is happening. In this case, it is because national insurance contributions have been increased and capital gains tax reduced to a level where the incentive to arbitrage has been rendered that much greater. Like other schemes that the Labour Government have introduced, the

  553
  10 per cent. business asset capital gains tax rate is welcomed by those who benefit, but it inevitably risks incentivising distortions in behaviour.
  It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that the Government wish to stem avoidance; a clear statement of policy is needed. When is a share gain capital and when is it to be taxed as income? What about equity incentives, which are given in management buy-outs or venture capital transactions and which typically feature performance-related enhancement to management's share rights? We have, in aggregate, 82 pages of legislation, published a week after some of it has come into effect, without any warning or consultation, which is widely regarded as unacceptable unless, first, there is a major revenue loss, and secondly, legislation can deal with the problem unambiguously. Neither of those two tests has been passed.
  The rushed and unsatisfactory nature of the Bill is illustrated by the fact that I have spotted yet another mistake in the Treasury's advice. In at least one instance, the explanatory notes contain a contradiction. On page 281, new section 446L(6) refers to non-commercial increases; the explanatory notes refer to noncommercial reductions.
  I asked the leading lawyer on employee share schemes to comment on schedule 22. He said it is massively complicated and impossible to explain, even to a highly sophisticated person. He said that it is scandalous that schedule 22, in all its Technicolor complexity, is being introduced without any consultation or draft legislation. He also said that it imposes many new charges and burdens, some of which are retrospective. Those two lumps of legislation make up over half of this unsatisfactory Finance Bill.
  There are, of course, some welcome items in the Bill. We welcome the fact that, at last, the Government are making some attempts to crack down on VAT fraud and missing trader fraud. We welcome the anti-avoidance VAT measures dealing with property, although we understand that the loophole of which the Labour party made use in respect of its party headquarters has not yet been addressed, but perhaps there will be an opportunity to tackle that in Committee.
  We welcome the reduction in the minimum expenditure threshold for research and development tax credits to £10,000, but this country is fast becoming uncompetitive in the area of R and D incentives. The UK regime is already materially less favourable than those of Spain, Portugal, Australia and Canada.
  We welcome the increase in the qualifying threshold ceiling for capital allowances for small and medium enterprises up to £20 million, and we welcome the increase in the VAT exemption ceiling on turnover up to £56,000, although, as others have pointed out, the Government persist in their unwise anomaly of having a nil corporation tax rate for small businesses that are incorporated but no matching or evened-out arrangements for unincorporated businesses. The Government are then surprised when that leads to a massive and unnecessary incorporation of small traders trying to benefit from that anomaly.
  554
  We welcome the abolition of petroleum revenue tax on new business contracts involving third-party use of pipelines in the North sea, which will apply from next January, but we remain of the view, as expressed in debates on the previous Finance Bill, that petroleum revenue tax will have a net negative effect in terms of overall revenues and costs and will severely damage the continuing exploitation of North sea reserves.
  We welcome the clarification of tax relief for adopters and foster parents and we welcome the climate change levy exemptions. Finally, we welcome the fact that National Savings is about to introduce cards to facilitate withdrawals and deposits—arrangements for savers who have lost their passbooks have hitherto been highly unsatisfactory.
  What has happened to the child trust fund—one of the stars of the Chancellor's announcement? There is nothing about it in the Finance Bill and no announcement has been made about when legislation will be introduced. There has been a statement to the effect that something will be said in the summer, but will the Paymaster General kindly let the House know when such legislation is likely to be introduced and when citizens will be able to avail themselves of the child trust fund? I understand that the fund may not now go live until early 2005, so precisely what has happened?
  The reality is that the Finance Bill adds as much additional stealth tax as the Chancellor dares without risking pushing the economy into recession. The Chancellor's growth forecasts have been branded as wildly optimistic by the much-revered ITEM Club think-tank, which uses the Treasury's model. This year, ITEM forecasts 1.9 per cent. growth, whereas the Chancellor forecasts growth of 2 to 2.5 per cent. ITEM forecasts 2.6 per cent. growth next year, whereas the Chancellor forecasts growth of 3 to 3.5 per cent., and it expects the Chancellor to be forced to raise £10 billion a year more in tax until 2006.
  This is the first year for 20 years in which real household disposable incomes will fall. Indeed, the UK's growth potential and the UK's productivity growth potential are both declining, with the transfer of resources to the public sector, where productivity growth is now negative.
  Extra public sector spending is not delivering extra output. At least the Office for National Statistics now measures real output, not just increases in public sector employees. The 2002 ONS figures showed inflation in the public sector rising to more than 5 per cent., and on a rising trend. The ONS figures for the last quarter of last year—the latest available—showed public spending up 9.2 per cent., but net public sector output up only 0.2 per cent. Last year, a 22 per cent. increase in health spending produced only a 1.6 per cent. increase in hospital cases treated. Indeed, public sector inflation is running at nearly twice the Government's targeted figure.
  The Government's spin on the Finance Bill and the Budget was that they would build a stronger and more flexible enterprise economy. Ernst and Young's 2003 survey revealed that entrepreneurs' view of the Government and Whitehall is at rock bottom. Since 1997, there has been a continuing run-down—a managed decline—in the UK economy's growth and productivity growth.
  Mr. Bercow: Once again, my hon. Friend pertinently highlights the disparity between increased investment in

  555
  public services and the failure to achieve a commensurate rise in activity. Given that the responsibility for public service delivery ultimately rests with the Treasury, does he agree that it is a matter of very considerable concern that the Chief Secretary, when challenged to identify the structural reforms that will improve service delivery, was singularly unable, for the second time in succession, to do so?
  Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am not sure whether the Chief Secretary even understood his question, but the Chief Secretary seems also to be remarkably complacent, as I commented earlier, about his commitment to reduce waste in public spending. All he can do is laugh about that, so it seems.
  Mr. Redwood: On that very point, can my hon. Friend tell me what advantages commuters from his part of the world have got from the £15 billion so far wasted by the Government on "Notwork" Rail? In my constituency, there has been no improvement whatsoever from Network or "Notwork" Rail, and it is £15 billion down the drain.
  Mr. Flight: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention. I am afraid to say that my constituents' trains either get cancelled or do not even stop. There is a desperate need for infrastructure investment on the Brighton line, for which the Strategic Rail Authority has no money. The lease that the SRA has granted to the operator is too short; as a result, the operator will not make the necessary investment. The service is declining dramatically, much to the fury of those who live in the area and commute to London.
  I asked a well-known economist, who has participated in the deliberations of the Bank of England, for an opinion on the Finance Bill. The comment that I received was that the micro-measures in the Finance Bill were typical of the economic distortions that third world economies pursue, of which it is the job of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to get rid. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was it?"] The Government sought accolades for a number of minor measures that will simply interfere with the economic process.
  The Finance Bill adds to the measures taken last year, together with the council tax stealth tax, to raise taxes this year by a staggering £26.5 billion—by 7.1 per cent., as set out in the Red Book. Last year, the tax increase was 1.9 per cent.—a mere £6.8 billion—so this year's tax increase is nearly four times last year's total. The major burden of the extra taxation will fall on individuals, £19 billion of which will come from increases in income tax and national insurance. Of that, £8.8 billion will come from income tax, which is 7.8 per cent. up, helped by the freezing of personal allowances, which are worth £700 million. Furthermore, we must bear in mind the wider knock-on effect, with nurses and policemen now finding themselves in the 40 per cent. tax bracket. The council tax stealth tax will raise £2 billion. Stamp duty is forecast to yield 4 per cent. More—up to nearly £8 billion—and it has doubled in the past three years. The national insurance yield is to increase by 16 per cent. to£10.2 billion, and the VAT yield will go up by 4.8 per cent. to
  556
  £3 billion—the one positive measure, as most of that is forecast to come from getting rid of VAT fraud.
  Kali Mountford: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously asking the House to accept that people's increased earnings, and the commensurate increase in tax payments, is somehow undesirable?
  Mr. Flight: I am sure that those whose earnings have increased, particularly those in the public sector, where increases are running at twice the level of the private sector, will be very Pleased with those increases. Of course, if people's earnings increase, their tax goes up. I am talking about a far greater increase, however: an increase in taxation four times the increase in the year that has just finished, and an increase of nearly 8 per cent. in the tax take in a single year. If the hon. Lady is not surprised by that, and is not worried by what might be the economic effects, I suggest that she spend a little more time looking through the Red Book to see where those effects will bite.
  Vehicle fuel and excise duty are to increase by £1.1 billion. That reflects a mixture of vehicle excise duty increasing by more than inflation, and the 38 per cent. increase in red diesel. Landfill tax revenue is to go up by 40 per cent., with rates rising to 14 per cent., 15 per cent. and 16 per cent. in the coming years.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Member for Colne Valley(Kali Mountford) referred to fiscal drag, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out that two thirds of the tax increases cannot be attributed to fiscal drag but are caused by measures, which is exactly what my hon. Friend is pointing out from the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. My point was that last year's tax increases were roughly in line with fiscal drag, whereas this year's increases are enormously higher.
  The Chancellor claimed virtue from the freeze on the rate of insurance premium tax, although it will yield a further £325 million this year. That is a windfall increase as a result of the massive ratcheting up of employers' liability insurance premiums. Chambers of commerce believe that the Government have missed the opportunity to use the windfall to relieve serious problems that they said they would address. Indeed, a review by the Department for Work and Pensions was due this spring, but it has so far failed to appear, and nothing in the Bill will address the problem. Clause 191 will merely block the use of protected cell companies to avoid the higher rate of insurance premium tax. A recent survey showed that a s many as 210,000 small and medium-sized businesses operate without cover. I hope that in her winding-up speech the Paymaster General will say how the Government propose to address that serious problem.
  Mr. Love: The hon. Gentleman has produced a litany of so-called tax increases, although many of them lie outside the scope of the Budget. If he opposes the increases, his alternatives are either to allow borrowing to rise, which I assume he would condemn, or to cut public expenditure. Where would he make those cuts?
  Mr. Flight: For the third or fourth time, our criticism is about the failure to deliver. If delivery had succeeded, the financial arithmetic would look much better.

  557
  I want to make a further point because the more one digs the more one finds little stealth taxes. The Inland Revenue is reversing a decision on changes to the corporation tax treatment of depreciation in stocks following a Hong Kong court case. That will lead to a further £25 million to £30 million bill for the Scottish spirits and distilling industry because corporation tax will effectively have to be paid at the time of production rather than the time of maturity.
  Mr. George Osborne: In response to the intervention made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), surely it is true that a low-tax economy is also a buoyant economy with successful businesses, which causes tax revenue to flow to the Government.
  Mr. Flight: That is what makes an economy successful, and we need only compare the poor performance of continental Europe with the performance of the UK over the past 10 years for proof of that.
  The reality is that there has been a 50 per cent. increase in taxation since 1997. The tax take has risen from £270 billion per annum to £403 billion, which equates to £5,500 per household per annum. The rise has not been matched by anything like a similar improvement in the delivery of public services. Those who will be hurt most by the Chancellor's increased taxes will be the savers of today, who are the pensioners of tomorrow. The Government do not seem to be concerned that people who retire today will receive half the pension that they would have received in 1997, despite the fact they saved the same amount for the same time.
  The Labour Government are losing hearts and minds among British business. As Digby Jones said,

  "we are bearing witness to a continual erosion of our competitive position. If the Government wants a low-tax, flexible economy, we are not heading in the right direction."

  Last April the Chancellor predicted that he would have to borrow £13 billion this year, but we all know that that has more than doubled to £27 billion. Just two Budgets ago the Chancellor told the House that he would need to borrow £35 billion between 2002 and 2006. He has now admitted that: that has increased to £98 billion. The deterioration in Britain's finances has been worse than that in the moribund EU economies. We are swinging from a 1.5 per cent. surplus to a 2.5 per cent. deficit; the eurozone average is moving from a 1 per cent. deficit to a 2.5 per deficit. The UK has also increased taxes as a proportion of gross domestic product by more than any other EU country since 1997.
  Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Flight: No.
  The reality is more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more promises, more failure, more excuses and no delivery. The Chancellor's micro-economic policies are taking Britain back whence it came, to high taxes, high public spending and third-rate public services.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  As I believe that the Budget is right for the country, the Finance Bill must also be right for the country. It continues to give fiscal support to a stable economy, low unemployment and low inflation. Those targets cannot be met in our competitors' economies. France, Germany and the United States have higher unemployment and higher inflation. The stable policies that the Government set in motion six years ago are reinforced by the Bill and should be given the full support of the House.
  I must enter one caveat, however. I have reservations about the expenditure that the Bill raises for the war on Iraq. I consider that to be mistaken and misplaced. I would have preferred it to be spent on our hospitals and schools and in the Ministry of Defence so that it could provide better equipment and conditions to enable our forces to defend this country's interests when they are called on to do so. I know, however, that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not want me to go further down that road. Tempted as I am, I shall concentrate on other matters.
  I want to address the way in which the Bill and Government economic policy tackle regional economic and social inequality. Some of the Bill's direct measures make a good start on that. The size of the Bill has been commented on—it is pretty thick—and I am not claiming to have identified every golden nugget on regional assistance in its two volumes, but I draw hon. Members' attention to clauses 163 to 167, which will help regional development.
  Clause 163 extends capital allowances for small business. Clause 164 extends first-year allowances for information and communications technology expenditure by small companies. Clause 165 provides tax consideration for software sub-licensing and clause 166 extends first-year allowances for expenditure on environmentally beneficial plant or machinery. Clause 167 extends support for research and development.
  It could be argued that those things affect economic activities outside the regional development areas. Of course they do, but they also benefit economic activity in areas undergoing regional development. Relatively underdeveloped regions, such as my own in the northeast of England, are heavily dependent on companies that rely more on such measures than the average company. Manufacturing is a more important economic activity in the north-east than, for instance, along the M4 corridor, so such measures help us disproportionately. Two thirds of research and development assistance goes to the manufacturing sector, so the provision and the accompanying measures certainly help regional economies such as that in the north-east. Measures on stamp duty, including relief on stamp duty in the regeneration areas, again help some areas disproportionately. They help some deprived areas in London with the same economic problems as regions in the north of England, but help disproportionately areas in my city of Newcastle, as well as Liverpool and other areas where there is an incentive to provide such assistance.

  559
  Accompanying the fiscal measures in the Bill was the Chancellor's announcement that about 20,000 civil services should be dispersed from areas of congestion to areas of relative underdevelopment, which I very much support. I should have liked more direct measures in the Bill to reinforce that announcement, as I know what sometimes happens with Government announcements, especially when they involve civil servants. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will keep his eye on other opportunities to reinforce the announcement with fiscal measures. I do not think that the proposal will work if it rests purely on the stick of Westminster we need a carrot for the development regions as well. Local authorities, private developers and regional development agencies need incentives to persuade central Government that X number of additional civil servants should be based within their territories. My right hon. Friend may well consider tabling an amendment in Committee to achieve that and reinforce the Chancellor's desire to accomplish change.
  The core of my contribution concerns the need for such a change. There have been regional development policies in this country for well over 70 years, dating from the Macmillan committee of inquiry and what flowed from that in, I think, 1933 with a measure on special areas. Measures continued to be introduced in the late 1940s, the 1960s, and the 1970s, and included schemes for grants, loans, regeneration areas and development areas. There is no doubt that all those measures have had some effect. Employment in Wallsend would be very much depleted without the DSS or, as it is now called, the Department for Work and Pensions, which is located at Longbenton, where 3,000 or 4,000 people are employed.
  Many regional economic development policies have been successful to some extent. I do not believe that the Government can do everything, but what has been more effective than many measures has been the dispersal of Government activity to the regions. Governments drawn from Conservative and Labour parties have accepted the arguments for that. The Labour Government of the 1960s began the process of dispersal, which also took place in the private sector. There were incentives for private companies to move out of London, and penalties for those that expanded in certain employment areas in London. The Heath Government of the early 1970s and, indeed, the Thatcher Government of 1979 accepted the arguments for the dispersal of a number of civil service sites, with the Thatcher Government implementing measures to achieve that in 1980 and 1981. There has therefore been cross-party support for the economic arguments for dispersal.
  Some people would say that none of that works because if it is not economic engineering, it is social engineering. In fact, it is neither. The Bill and the Chancellor's statement—I hope that future Bills will contain further fiscal support—are a catalyst to market forces.
  Geraint Davies: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that manufacturers are moving out of my area of Croydon to lower cost areas in the north. Will he support the Chancellor's strategy of flexible labour
  560
  markets on a regional basis, both in the public and private sectors, in order to achieve full employment, as I do?
  Mr. Henderson: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As I said earlier, the Government cannot do everything. Private sector initiative and investment is equally important. Companies making such decisions should have the Government's full support.
  I think that all will accept that the south of England is overcongested. It is probably the most overcongested area in Europe. It is certainly as overcongested as anything in the United States, save perhaps the Los Angeles area. All the economic diseconomies flow from that. People do not have the same quality of life. Leisure pursuits cost more in the south than in the north. Housing is so overpriced that many public sector, and indeed private sector, employers, especially in central London, cannot attract the staff that they would be able to elsewhere. Staff turnover is extremely high in various economic activities, especially in London and some other areas in the south-east. I remember from my period at the Ministry of Defence how difficult it was to obtain certain categories of staff, and once they were obtained they left quickly for better opportunities elsewhere. Many other Departments will have similar difficulties.
  Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that there is an urgent need for a review of London weighting for public servants, particularly as in the private sector there is an average mark up of about 40 per cent. in London? If we are to recruit enough public servants, such as nurses and teachers, we need a proper balance that reflects the supply and demand and costs in different regions.
  Mr. Henderson: I am not sure that I totally agree with my hon. Friend on that. A strong economic argument could be made that the public expenditure that would be involved in that would be better spent on attracting staff to the regions. A little more research on that is necessary.
  Transferring civil servants directly creates jobs in areas such as the north-east. About two thirds of staff in a typical Department do not move when the Department moves, so the Department has to recruit locally in the regions. It can usually obtain a good supply of labour and skill programmes can be put in place before dispersal. Most employers would accept that the quality of labour is certainly as high in the regions as in London and the south-east, and arguably better.
  This issue addresses the staff shortages that become a critical problem when the country is in full employment, as we essentially are or very near it at the moment. But the dispersal of Departments has other benefits. The most obvious benefit is that it boosts the local economy. If 3,000 people are working at Longbenton in Wallsend, the money that they spend largely benefits the economy in Longbenton rather than the economy in an already overcongested central London. It makes the task of whoever is responsible for macro-economic policy easier in the future because they will not have to take measures to take the steam out of an economy to the

  561
  same extent in the south, which is often damaging to some of the economic situations in the north, in places such as Newcastle.
  There are other efficiencies to be made. Land is clearly much cheaper and often of a higher quality, allowing staff to move into a better location.
  Organisational improvements can also increase efficiency. An interesting study was conducted in 1990, when social security benefit centres were dispersed from central London locations to Glasgow, Belfast and Wigan. The centres had been spread over 21 locations in central London because of accommodation difficulties, but moving them to three locations clearly improved efficiency.
  The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers have a difficult task ahead of them. It will not be easy to persuade civil service departments or civil servants to move from the south to the north. Sir Humphreys will not always prefer Sevenoaks to Sunderland, but I think that they will generally do so. Of course, scope for such dispersal does not exist in all civil service departments. There is a perception throughout the country that armies of civil servants work in London, but about 35 per cent. or 40 per cent. of them work in their current locations because they are dealing with a population-related activity. The staff of the Department for Work and Pensions certainly need to work on that basis, and the Inland Revenue claims that the same is true of its employees. There is certainly some validity in the assertion that Inland Revenue advice has to be available where people need to seek it. Together, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue account for about 35 per cent. of civil service employment, and I do not think that they will have great scope for much more dispersal.
  One must therefore consider which parts of the civil service can be dispersed in line with the proposed policy, which I hope will receive broad support in the House. I have identified five areas in which I think that such dispersal is possible. The Home Office currently employs 12,000 of its 17,000 staff in England and Wales in London and the south-east; the Lord Chancellor's Department employs 5,500 out of 10,000 staff in London and the south-east; and the Department for Transport employs 5,000 out of 10,000 staff in London and the south-east. Customs and Excise employs 9,500 out of 21,000 staff in the United Kingdom in London and south-east.
  The main candidate for dispersal, however, may be the Ministry of Defence, which employs 90,000 people. Scotland and Wales get a proportionate share of that employment, but other areas do not. In the Ministry of Defence, 26,000 staff out of 67,000 in England and Wales are located in London and the south-east. That excludes the south-west, where about 20 per cent. of its staff are located —and some of the locations involved are pretty near London and the south—east. However, these are the telling statistics: only 470 Ministry of Defence civil servants are located in the north-east; only 2,000 are located in the north-west; and only 750 are located on Merseyside.
  A similar pattern emerges in the armed forces. There are about 200,000 members of the armed forces in this country. Only about three quarters of armed forces
  562
  personnel are based in the United Kingdom, while others are based in Germany and so on. Some 20.9 per cent. of those based in the United Kingdom are located in the south-west; 29.2 per cent. are located in the southeast; and 11 per cent. are located in the east of the country, which is generally a prosperous area. That compares with the following: 0.8 per cent. of personnel are located in north-east England and 0.9 per cent. are located in the north-west.
  The Ministry of Defence used to argue that its staff had to be based near the armed forces because of strategic considerations. I do not think that that is now a valid assumption, because of new technology and all the rest of it. There is not even very much of an argument for the strategic location of the majority of our armed forces in the south-west, the south-east and London. They now tend to be deployed overseas. If somebody is travelling to Bosnia or Iraq, it does not make any difference whether they fly out of Newcastle or Newquay. The time difference to Iraq, or to wherever one is going, is more or less negligible. Defending the cliffs of Dover is no longer a priority in the sense that it was in 1945, when people had to be located near to the part of the country where there was a danger to our national security. Nowadays, the mobility of the armed forces means that few of those arguments apply. There is a strong argument for persuading the Ministry of Defence to devolve the location not only of forces personnel, but of civilian personnel. It will be extremely difficult for the Chancellor to meet his targets if he does not take on that reallocation as part of the task that he faces.
  There is a strong case for tackling regional inequality at this time of relatively high employment and over-congestion in the south-east, because those characteristics do not apply in my region, the north-east, and the same is true in the north-west and on Merseyside. That makes not only social sense, but economic sense. The task is to identify and prioritise appropriate Departments; that means facing up to the opposition of certain vested interests. I do not believe that staff in the civil service are a vested opposition: they can be persuaded to co-operate by policies of incentive that give them a better deal in the north than they would get in the south. The measure in the Chancellor's statement is sound in terms of policy design. I hope that the Government will make it a reality and that the House will support them in doing so.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. David Laws: It would be difficult to pretend that we are discussing one of the great Budgets of the past 10 or 20 years. Despite the amount of time that we have taken in doing so, the truth is that most economists and independent commentators will consider it one of the thinner Budgets of the period, at least in terms of its policy content and the effect that it will have on particular groups in society. Indeed, among the evidence that was given to the Treasury Committee, John Whiting of PricewaterhouseCoopers said, when asked who were the notable winners from the Budget, that he could think only of

  "young couples, with a new child on the way, non-smoking, whisky drinking, with a grandmother over the age of 80 who plays a lot of bingo."

  563
  That is verified by the serious figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on the effects on particular income groups. The Budget has not had the substantive effect on income distribution of even the last few of the Chancellor's Budgets.
  Mr. Flight: Even those in the category that the hon. Gentleman describes will be disappointed, because the new bingo taxation is not what it appears to be. There is a hidden stealth tax in that both the bingo tax and VAT are payable.
  Mr. Laws: The shadow Chief Secretary is right to note that a measure that the Chancellor sought to pass off as a tax reduction will be significantly amended or neutralised when the new taxation for all forms of gambling is introduced.
  Although this was a thin Budget in terms of its content, it was yet again a thick Budget in terms of the size of the Finance Bill and the amount of legislation and bureaucracy that it will lead to. Several hon. Members alluded to the fact that this is the fourth-largest Finance Bill on record, with 447 pages. Perhaps less noted is the fact that the Red Book that accompanies the Budget has also swollen to its largest-ever size, with 293 pages, compared with 250 in 2002 and 225 in 2001. The fear must be that, in spite of the Budget's rather insubstantial measures, we need again to remind the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers of the need to try to simplify the tax system to reduce the amount of bureaucracy for firms and for individuals, and not to seek to micro-manage the tax system and other parts of the national finances in ways that usually do not work but serve simply to introduce incentives that are economically inefficient.
  Mr. Bercow: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's previous point. Does he agree that it is incongruous and reflects the lack of joined-up thinking in Government that the Paymaster General will wind up tonight's debate? She will celebrate a lengthy and complicated measure, although she commended to hon. Members the tax law rewrite project and the ostensible benefit of simplification that it would confer.
  Mr. Laws: I agree. Ministers tend to speak the language of simplification and reduction of bureaucracy and complexity, but it is difficult to find where that has been achieved here or in preceding Finance Bills.
  Before examining specific clauses and major provisions that we will debate in Committee in the next few weeks, I should like briefly to consider the Budget's macro-economic context, especially as it is traditional at this stage of our deliberations to refer to the hearings of the Treasury Committee on the Budget. It is usual to consider the high-quality report that the Committee compiles over time. Last year, the report to which we contributed was widely commented on. It is a pity that, this year, we do not have the Committee's final report to consider alongside the Bill. The reason for that must be the time constraints that this year's late Budget placed on the Committee and its overlap with the parliamentary recess.
  The Treasury should accept the Select Committee's recent recommendation that Budget statements should be programmed and timetabled not days and weeks but
  564
  months beforehand In a fiscal framework that the Government claim is about transparency and honesty, there is no good reason for the Chancellor to pick Budget dates out of thin air and shift them backwards and forwards, as happened this year, without bothering to provide an explanation.
  It is fortunate that we have the evidence from this year's Treasury Committee hearings, which shed much light on the macro-economic if not the tax issues that we must debate, and that are central to the Chancellor's Budget statement. We also have some interesting exchanges between the Chancellor and Labour Members on foundation hospitals. You would not want me to stray on to that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, given that it will be debated later this week. Nevertheless, they shed some interesting light on the divisions in the governing party on public services.
  I congratulate the Treasury Committee on its comprehensive job of examining the macro-economic background to the Budget and the Bill. It sets the context for the changes in the tax rates. As the Treasury Committee has accurately identified, the context is the forecast increases in public sector borrowing, which the Budget included this year and the pre-Budget report and the Budget contained last year.
  The forecast for net borrowing in the current fiscal year has been revised up from some £10 billion in the 2001 Budget to £27 billion in this year's Budget. We can tell that the Government are getting nervous about that, because the Red Book used to include the table that compares borrowing in successive Budgets on page 5 or 6, and it was labelled table 1.1, but this year it has been demoted to page 246. I suspect that that is no accident. Watching the tables that are given priority in the Red Book is rather like watching old pictures of those who stood on the Politburo platform during parades. One could tell who was in and who was out by their distance from the Soviet leader. We can tell which measures are in or out, and which ones the Government are more or less embarrassed abcut, by their position in the Red Book—or, in some years, by whether they appear at all.
  Kali Mountford rose—
  Mr. Laws: I would be delighted to give way to my former colleague on the Select Committee.
  Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House by giving the page on which those charts on borrowing appeared under the Tory Administration, given that, even with the rising borrowing that we have now, their borrowing exceeded Labour borrowing? Where does he think that such charts would appear under any prospective Liberal proposals? Would they be on page 1?
  Mr. Laws: I am certainly not going to account for the Budget documents produced by the Conservative party when it was in power. They were considerably shorter than the current ones, although I acknowledge that they did not always contain all the information that they should have. The hon. Lady will have to wait for the imminent arrival of the Liberal Democrat Government

  565
  to see where we place such tables, but I can assure her that they will be right up there near the front of the Red Book, and not on page 246.
  Mr. Jack: In one of the two Red Books that bears my signature, the answer to the question about where the borrowing figures appeared is page 7. In those days, the document was only 160 pages long.
  Mr. Laws: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that insight. He might also take the credit for the fact that the Red Books were considerably cheaper in those days, although public borrowing as a percentage of gross domestic product was then considerably higher even than it is today.
  So far as framing the fiscal context for this Budget is concerned, the Treasury Committee looked at a number of major macro-economic issues. The first was the growth forecasts that the Chancellor has adopted. We have already discussed that in some detail in the previous Budget debate, but it is still noteworthy that the growth forecasts that he has chosen to make, particularly for 2004, are considerably in excess of those made by independent commentators. He appears to be taking a punt either on a continuing strong performance by the consumer sector—which might be unlikely given the slowdown in the housing market—or on a sudden expansion of exports.
  Her Majesty's Treasury seems to be basing its forecasts on those factors, and the Chancellor claimed, in front of the Select Committee, to be very optimistic that the forecasts will prove accurate. We shall find out when we return to this matter in the autumn and in next year's Budget whether he has adopted forecasts that are not only much rosier than those of most independent commentators but have proved to be inaccurate. If that is the case, it will lead to a further upward revision of the borrowing forecasts, which will undoubtedly cause the Government some problems as they come up to the next general election.
  Perhaps more seriously, even if the Chancellor is right in predicting that growth will be stronger than the average of independent forecasts, the main problem identified by the experts who gave evidence to the Treasury Committee this year relating to the structural financial position is that it would still be possible, in those circumstances, for the Government to have a significant problem with their projections for public borrowing, simply because they are assuming a recovery in certain taxation receipts that is way in excess of the amount that most independent commentators think likely.
  Robert Chote of the Institute for Fiscal Studies gave evidence to the Treasury Committee on 14 April. He said that his judgment

  "that taxes will be more likely to have to go up than not is based essentially on a structural view, and not on a view about growth."

  I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to comment on that, and to say how optimistic she is that some of the growth of revenue forecasts will be sustainable in practice, and in particular the forecast that corporation tax as a percentage of GDP will bounce back from the current level of some 2.5 per cent. to 2.9
  566
  per cent. next year, and then to 3.4 per cent. That forecast has been greeted with great scepticism by most independent commentators, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies believes that it is extremely optimistic.
  When we discuss the Budget each year, we inevitably look back on some of the experiences and mistakes of previous years. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) was at the Treasury in 1990, at the time of Norman Lamont, but if he looks back at the Budget statement for that year, he will see Lord Lamont's optimism about borrowing going down again and the economy turning up again. Then, too, we were involved in a war with Iraq, and having a major debate about local authority taxes and our relationship with Europe. There are many similarities between then and now, and the Chancellor must hope that the Budget that we had a couple of weeks ago, which was not significant in terms of its substance, will not be significant when we look back on it in terms of his career and of the mistakes that he might have made through complacency about growth forecasts and about the revenue coming in.
  One of the interesting debates in the Treasury Committee this year was on whether and how we could introduce more transparency and credibility into the Budget process and the process of fiscal policy, so that they might stand alongside the monetary policy framework in the UK, which is now regarded by most independent commentators as very credible and a model of its kind. There was a discussion between the Chancellor and a number of members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)— who is obviously in the Chamber today—about whether there should be more independent scrutiny of the assumptions that the Chancellor makes in each Budget.
  While we give credit to the Chancellor for introducing some measure of scrutiny since Labour came to power in 1997, by involving the National Audit Office in scrutinising some assumptions in the Budget, it is clear that that does not go far enough. It is also entirely unsatisfactory that it is the Chancellor himself who determines which aspects of the Budget assumptions are to be audited. What serious auditing process in the private sector would tolerate a situation in which the entity that was being audited was able to point out which areas it wished to have audited, and to brush under the carpet or into the bottom drawer those sensitive or embarrassing assumptions that might prove unable to stand up to the audit process? I hope that, however difficult it is to do so, the Treasury will grasp the possibility raised in the Treasury Committee—and, I hope, in its report—of bringing in more independent scrutiny, possibly through the National Audit Office, of the Budget assumptions. Although that might lead to some uncomfortable decisions and conclusions in the short term, it should improve fiscal credibility and performance in the longer term.
  Before I move on to the major clauses in the Bill, and to consider in outline some of the big issues that we shall examine in Committee, I want to touch on some of the issues that the Chancellor covered in the Budget, in the hope that the Financial Secretary might be able to shed some light on the concerns that have arisen since then. One such concern was raised by the shadow Chief Secretary and relates to the major issue of the child trust fund, for which children who were born in or after

  567
  September 2002 will qualify. It seems possible that we shall not find out what the rules and regulations for the trust fund are until later this year, or possibly even until 2004 or 2005.
  Given the very thin Budget that the Government have produced this year, one can understand their wishing to rush the announcement of the trust fund out for publicity purposes. Is there not, however, a real danger that many people will wonder why they have announced such a proposal without thinking it through? What mechanisms will there be to compensate those individuals who, in theory, have a child trust fund that started in September 2002, but whose parents will not have the ability to invest that money until such time as the Government make a decision. Will the Minister confirm that there will be some form of compensation for those affected, between the setting up of the child trust fund in September 2002 and the time when the Government put some flesh on the bones of this proposal?
  The Chancellor made an announcement about pensions for those who remain in hospital for more than a set number of weeks. The impression given was that the measure would be effective from Budget day, which I think was 9 April. However, I am told by a constituent whose relative, sadly, is in hospital now and has been since January that the pension will continue to be deducted for the current time in hospital, at least until the end of May. Can the Financial Secretary tell me whether that is true, whether it is Treasury policy, and whether there will be compensation for such people dating back to Budget day?
  Will the Financial Secretary say a little more about the assumptions relating to higher council tax over the next two years—an increase of 13 per cent.? Why has the Treasury come up with such extraordinarily high projections? How can a Government who profess to be trying to make the tax system more progressive sign up to a rise in a local tax that hits many elderly people particularly hard, and takes some 7 per cent. of the income of the poorest decile compared with only 1.5 or 1.6 per cent. of that of the upper decile?
  Perhaps the Financial Secretary can tell us when the review of local government finance—which we understand is in the worrying hands, the unreliable hands, the somewhat shaky hands of the Deputy Prime Minister—will produce a report. Will the Treasury be directly involved, and does it take any view on whether the current means of financing local expenditure—through a very regressive tax—is satisfactory and should be continued?
  Mr. Redwood: During the local elections, Liberal Democrats in many parts of the country offered £100 off, signed by the leader of the Liberal Democrats for the time being. Is the hon. Gentleman tabling amendments to guarantee the £100 off, and how much extra income tax will a family have to pay to qualify for this apparent bonanza?
  Mr. Laws: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that was not hidden under the carpet. It was raised directly by the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman in a debate just a couple of weeks ago, and published as part of our alternative Budget proposals. I do not think
  568
  there can be any doubt that this is our policy, and that it is clearly on record. Of course there will be all the necessary follow-through to ensure that we have an opportunity to debate the issue still further, and I hope we shall discover the Conservatives' position then.
  The shadow Chancellor is not here today. I suspect that he is nursing his bruises from the result of the elections in Shepway. I am afraid that when, a few weeks ago, he was asked by none other than The Daily Telegraph what he would do about the increase in council taxes this year, he said, "I do not know." At least the Liberal Democrats have a policy on the issue. It is disappointing that the Conservatives have yet to develop one.
  We shall have a good deal of time to debate the specific tax measures in the Budget in Committee, both on the Floor of the House next week and in Standing Committee subsequently, but I should like to touch on some today. One of the big issues that we shall need to debate this year is, I suspect, tobacco and alcohol duty, along with the implications of the differential between this country and the European Union in relation to smuggling. The Government have had to grapple with that issue, as is shown by this year's figures from the National Audit Office. It is clear that they have had to change their assumptions about the amount of tobacco revenue they will receive.
  For many years our party believed, especially in respect of tobacco taxation, that there was an argument for the escalator that has operated. We argued some time ago that the extra finances should be earmarked for the health service, and a number of years ago the Chancellor did that, at least in theory. In a single European market, however, it is increasingly difficult to construct barriers; attempts to do so have been overturned in the courts, as we saw last year in respect of limits on non-dutiable goods brought back from the continent. It is becoming harder to maintain the duty differentials. That is a consequence of the tax competition that I would welcome—in contrast to a deliberate attempt to harmonise taxes, which I think neither necessary nor desirable.
  According to the Government's own figures, even given their current measures to reduce tobacco and alcohol fraud and smuggling, some 20 per cent. of the tobacco market consists of smuggled tobacco. The figure is extraordinarily high for hand-rolled tobacco, which seems almost to constitute a majority of the tobacco consumed in this country. If we add that to legitimate cross-border shopping, we find that some 28 per cent. of tobacco consumed here—not far short of 30 per cent.—comes from the continent, with no duty paid.
  I do not think that the case for a reduction in tobacco duty has yet been made. It is clear that any resulting upturn in consumption would prompt significant health concerns—although such concerns must be moderated by the fact that a huge amount of consumption takes place already, at very low prices, because so much tobacco is smuggled. It is certainly time that the Treasury engaged in a serious debate in the House, and an analysis of the costs of persisting with the current large duty differentials. We should be able to discuss what gains could be made if those differentials were reduced, at least to an extent that might make smuggling less attractive. I hope that those in all parts of the House

  569
  would engage in that debate, not least because the Treasury—stuffed full of economists as it obviously is—should be sceptical about any system that, in a single market, involves two such different tax rates, creating huge incentives for smuggling.
  Perhaps we can learn something from other continental countries, as the Conservative party has allegedly tried to do. Perhaps we should be learning something about the deliberation that is under way in EU countries, including Denmark, which I understand voted for a fair-sized reduction in tobacco duties to become effective later this year. I hope we shall table amendments in order to elicit a debate, and to encourage more consideration of the costs and potential benefits of such a policy change.
  Kali Mountford: When considering cost implications, we should take account of parts of Europe where there is far more cirrhosis of the liver and lung cancer than there is in this country. We should consider treatment costs, and the human cost. We cannot discuss only the differential between duty rates in the debate that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Laws: Those are precisely the issues that need to be considered, but if the hon. Lady looks at figures comparing duty rates across Europe with the amount of illness caused by alcohol and tobacco she will find that there is far from a one-to-one relationship. Alcohol abuse in particular seems to be related not just to price but to other social factors, which need to be considered.
  Since the days when our Treasury spokesman represented Gordon, in Scotland, it has been traditional to touch on issues relating to spirits. Such issues are relevant not just to cross-channel smuggling, but to some of the measures in this Bill and last year's that affect the Scotch whisky industry. The Financial Secretary probably knows of the industry's representations on changes in the corporation tax treatment of stock depreciation; if she does not, she may have to by the time the Bill is enacted. I understand that the treatment that was introduced last year will have a particularly damaging effect on this business. Stock has to be held until it can mature, before being passed on to the market and consumed. This could cost the industry up to £30 million.
  The next issue—it was raised by some of my colleagues in another place, and several hon. Members have touched on it today—is stamp duty land tax and relief on commercial property in deprived areas. As usual with most of the Chancellor's well-motivated measures, it sounds like a good idea. However, the issue that we need to debate in Committee is its practical impact: whether it will have the beneficial effects that the Chancellor claims, and whether the cost that he anticipates—some £90 million—will prove realistic. As my colleagues in another place have shown, the 2,000 most deprived wards contain not only residents and businesses that are experiencing great deprivation and pressure on profits but large regional shopping centres such as Lakeside, and big property developments such as Canary Wharf; indeed, the latter is in one of the 50 most deprived wards. I wonder whether the fact that such developments and their owners may benefit from
  570
  this measure is entirely in line with the Treasury's desires, and whether the resulting economic effects will match the Treasury's wishes in all cases.
  Who will monitor the cost of this measure and assess its benefits? This House has discussed many times the film tax relief that the Chancellor introduced to much fanfare several Budgets ago. It was supposed to cost in the region of £15 million to £20 million, but it had to be curtailed severely one or two Budgets later, when it was discovered that it threatened to cost a couple of hundred million pounds, because individual episodes of "Crossroads", "Emmerdale" and other programmes were being reclassified as films. The fear exists that other such well-intentioned measures may have precisely that effect.
  The final issue relating specifically to the clauses is VAT fraud. Abuse and avoidance of the tax system is clearly a major problem, particularly in respect of missing trader VAT fraud, which continues to cost the Government billions of pounds. As the shadow Chief Secretary has said, it is of course right that we seek to close such loopholes. However, I understand that clause 18, on

  "joint and several liability for unpaid VAT of another trader",

  will allow the Treasury to take action against suppliers and recipients of certain specified commodities, even in cases where they are potentially innocent parties. In the explanatory notes, the Government say that they will take steps to ensure that innocent businesses are not caught up in these new measures, and I hope that the Financial Secretary can say a little more today to reassure us that businesses that are trading perfectly legally and legitimately should have nothing to fear from them.
  This was a very thin Budget in terms of substance, but a fat one in terms of the new regulations and complications that it introduced. As my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats said, it was a "hope for the best" Budget—a crossed-fingers Budget—the results of which will not be seen until later on this year and next. I fear that the Chancellor will have to return to the House to revise up his Budget forecasts yet again. He has got away with excuses for a long time because of the strength of the consumer sector—a temporary boom in the housing and retail markets, which now seems to be coming to an end. I suspect that we will look back on the Budget of 2003 as a significant one not because of what was in it but because it may mark a turning point in the Chancellor's and the Government's reputation for economic management.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Nigel Beard: It is a major achievement of this Budget that an unprecedented programme of investment in our public services has been maintained, despite Britain's being in the trough of the economic cycle, and despite a synchronised world recession. The Government's economic strategy has been stress-tested at home and abroad in the past year and has come through unscathed.
  The hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) raised the issue of increased borrowing, and during this financial year borrowing will indeed stand at £27 billion, compared

  571
  with a budget surplus two years ago. But public borrowing when the economy is in the recessionary phase of the economic cycle is part of the strategy, subject to two conditions; first, that borrowing can be paid off as the economy expands again; and secondly, that the total interest to be paid on public debt is not so large as to be unsustainable. Those are the Chancellor's two fiscal rules. They have been met, and they will be met in years to come.
  By reducing debt two or three years ago, when the economy was at a peak and taxes were rolling in, the ground was prepared for safe borrowing in the trough of the economic cycle, when it would prevent the economy from sinking into recession. The Opposition may not be familiar with that basic concept—it is called foresight. We should contrast that with the Conservatives' strategy over 18 years. When times were good and taxes came rolling in, they gave tax relief to the better-off. That money was spent, the economy overheated and it promptly went bust. In the following recession, when taxes no longer covered public spending, the Conservatives cut public spending and deepened recession. Thus did they convert the undulation of the economic cycle into the big-dipper ride of boom and bust that we must never forget.
  Mr. George Osborne: If the hon. Gentleman opposes the income tax cuts made by Conservative Governments in the 1980s and 1990s, would he like the level of income tax to be raised?
  Mr. Beard: As the hon. Gentleman heard me say, I was opposed to the process of balancing the budget in the trough of the cycle by cutting public spending because that deepens recession. That is exactly what the Governments of the hon. Gentleman's persuasion did, creating two very severe busts during that period, and that is what they will be ever remembered for.
  Today, the Conservatives' strategy is to cut public spending by 20 per cent. whatever the circumstances, so they probably have changed. They are not quite like the Bourbons, who learned nothing and forgot nothing; by the sound of it, they would abolish the boom so that the economy would be permanently bust. The Government's economic strategy—
  Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman is a reasonable guy—we serve on a Select Committee together—so, in his heart of hearts, does he really believe that the Conservative party has ever advocated 20 per cent. cuts in public spending? Does he not think it possible—indeed, probably likely—that the interpretation placed on those remarks by the shadow Chief Secretary today is accurate?
  Mr. Beard: No—the shadow Chancellor has endorsed those figures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they are preposterous, but I have heard no adequate refutation of them. Nor have I heard—this is the issue that I am getting at—how they fit into any rational macro—economic strategy, but perhaps all will be revealed when the hon. Gentleman speaks.
  We on the Labour Benches must not let the intellectual incoherence of the Opposition lull us into any complacency. Harold Wilson's Government of the
  572
  1960s was blown off-course by international financial speculation, and the Callaghan Government of the 1970s had to trim policy to accommodate the International Monetary Fund.[Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) grins too widely, I should point out that in the 1980s, the pound almost reached parity with the dollar, destroying a swathe of manufacturing industry in the process. And of course, we should not forget Black Wednesday, in 1992, from which the Conservative party may never recover.
  Mr. Flight: Surely the fall of sterling to near parity with the dollar was encouraging, not discouraging, for the economy. It was the brief rise of the dollar to $2.48 against the pound in the early 1980s that caused the problem.
  Mr. Beard: I doubt whether the people who had to join the pool of the unemployed enjoyed their bathe. Great structural damage was done to the UK economy and much of our manufacturing industry was wiped out in that period. The hon. Gentleman is certainly wearing rose-tinted spectacles in assessing that period.
  Among the developed countries, Britain's economic health is uniquely affected by the ebb and flow of international trade and the maverick forces of international finance We are coming through the most recent downturn in international trade very well, but it would be foolish to believe that, on that basis, we could be permanently unaffected by international economic conditions.
  In economic and monetary union, we have the prospect of reducing the effects of the international economic weather on Britain. Conversely, if we are not in the euro, there is a danger of the economic weather becoming much rougher—and very rough indeed—as Britain sits between the euro and the dollar.
  The Treasury Select Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, recently published an all-party report on the UK and the euro—
  Mr. Love: All-party?
  Mr. Beard: Indeed. It is in the nature of such a report that it sets out the issues to be taken into account rather than drawing a conclusion. Nevertheless, the wealth of evidence accumulated over recent months gives a strong lead on the answers to the five tests that the Treasury wants satisfied before recommending that Britain should join the economic and monetary union.
  The first test asks whether the UK economy has converged with those of the eurozone. Essentially, it has converged, though for Germany special problems arose from reunification when 20 million people living in a derelict economic infrastructure were added to a population of 60 million. For Britain, however, any further adjustment after joining the euro would be far less difficult than it was for present EMU members after they joined—and none of them experienced unmanageable problems.
  There may be claims that the decision should be delayed until economists have drilled further and further down into the detail, but it is doubtful whether that would add anything to the assessment of the salient issues. We would end up better informed, but none the

  573
  wiser. That road leads too easily to analysis paralysis, because there is always another beguiling bit of research that could be done before taking a decision. The judgment required now is whether the present degree of convergence is sufficient, which is a political rather than an economic question.
  Flexibility is the second test—it is necessary so that the economy can absorb any shocks without damage. It is clear that the UK economy is the most flexible in the European Union and so the most capable of absorbing shocks and minimising economic damage.
  Would joining EMU create the conditions for firms to make long-term investments in Britain? That is the third test. Overwhelmingly, major companies such as Alsthom, Siemens, Nissan and Unilever, which have given evidence to the Select Committee, have answered yes. The only doubtful companies are those whose business is unaffected by the exchange rate. All the major companies that we heard from say that, if Britain remains outside the eurozone, they will reduce investment in Britain in favour of the continent. The reason is that they want to avoid fluctuations in the pound-euro exchange rate. When avoiding exchange rate risk is so manifestly in their business interest, it is dangerous to assume that those companies do not mean what they say.
  If manufacturing in Britain is to have the confidence to innovate, invest and improve productivity, it needs a lower exchange rate than has prevailed for the last six years. The rise in the value of the euro in the last two years now gives a real prospect of negotiating an entry rate that is equitable to manufacturers in the United Kingdom and to those in the eurozone.
  Financial services and the City, whose competitive position constitutes the fourth test, have consistently told the Select Committee that they can operate internationally with ease whether or not Britain joins the euro. They are therefore neutral on the question.
  The fifth test asks whether joining EMU will promote growth, stability and jobs. It relates to a central point of the Budget and Finance Bill—measures to improve Britain's productivity. Productivity is to a healthy economy what fitness is to a healthy athlete. Strategy will not compensate for an athlete who is unfit, nor will it compensate for an economy that is weak on productivity. Strategy can ensure that the full potential is reached, but fitness and productivity determine how good that potential really is.
  The Chancellor has mastered macro-economic strategy, but UK productivity is still substantially poorer than that of the USA, France and Germany. The continued evolution of the Chancellor's strategy of economic strength, public service investment and social justice beyond the next five years depends on improving the productivity of the United Kingdom. Micro-economic measures to improve productivity are useful, but to have a major lasting effect we need to change the economic climate within which British business operates. For that, it is essential that the United Kingdom joins EMU.
  If the Government's conclusion were to be "not yet", they must face the question "if not now, when?" Waiting could mean losing opportunities to establish a leading
  574
  position in an expanding European Union and to influence the way in which the operations of the European Central Bank and the stability and growth pact are reshaped. Those changes are widely recognised as necessary by other members of the European Union, but Britain can influence them only from inside the eurozone. The technicalities are certainly not reason enough to stay outside the eurozone.
  The decision depends on comparing Britain in EMU, not with Britain today, but with Britain outside EMU in a rapidly evolving world. There will never be any certainties. If we wait in vain for certainties, opportunities for Britain could move out of reach. The evidence examined by the Treasury Select Committee provides no justification for leaving Britain in that limbo.
  6.28 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the register.
  This debate is about the biggest tax bill in history ever presented to Parliament and the British people. The Government have the audacity to bring before us today a claim for an extra £26 billion of taxation this year in comparison with last year. They have the audacity to field the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who made a speech as if he were presenting a tax-cutting Budget by highlighting two or three morsels from a table that had otherwise been denuded of good dishes, for which a huge bill had been sent to the starving diners in the private sector. The Government have perfected the art of rip-off government and found 100 new ways to pillage the purses, tills and wallets of the nation, but still found it impossible to hire the teachers necessary to secure the improvements in schools, and the nurses and doctors necessary to get operations done, that we all so desperately want.
  The background to the debate is a teaching profession in uproar and against the Government. I had always thought that many teachers were sympathetic to the Labour and Liberal Democrat view. It is fascinating to see that Ministers are now unable to face a teachers' conference and unable to answer criticisms coming from the teaching profession. Ministers must know that they have bungled it and that so much of the extra £26 billion that we are asked to approve in the Bill is going walkabout and being wasted. It has not gone to hospital operating theatres or classrooms where it is needed and could be better used.
  This mighty Bill includes so many tax increases that the Government wished the Opposition and others had not teased out. Most people have understood the massive hit on national insurance rates, which was heralded many months ago, but we are still to count the costs. The Government told us that the shadow Chancellor was wrong to dub it a tax on jobs. We will see, but I support my right hon. and learned Friend; it is undoubtedly a tax on jobs. It is a simple rule of economics—one that even this Government cannot duck—that if one increases the price of something, the quantities that can be bought decline. In this case, the Government have deliberately increased the cost of

  575
  labour by a swingeing increase in employers' and employees' national insurance. The result will be job losses and fewer people employed.
  Mr. Love: Exactly the same argument was used about the national minimum wage. We were told that it would increase costs, yet employment has increased since the introduction of the national minimum wage. How does the right hon. Gentleman explain that?
  Mr. Redwood: The forecasts that I and others made about the national minimum wage were absolutely spot on. We said that it would have a particularly damaging impact on low-paid work in manufacturing, the sector most likely to be exposed to its impact. It was in that sector where the world market was highly competitive and where there were some people on too little money in terms of the income paid by their employer who were then exposed by the national minimum wage to job loss. We recommended not that we should leave people with inadequate sums of money for their family needs, but that we should carry on with the benefits top-up system for those in work so that jobs would not be destroyed and families had a reasonable income to live on.
  The Government decided that they knew better. As a result, under this Government, there have been 600,000 job losses in manufacturing industry. It is a disgrace. The Chief Secretary regaled the House with a story, he said, of economic success. He did not mention the tragedy of manufacturing. He told the House that the Government had not yet presided over a recession. He failed to tell the House that the Government have already presided over three manufacturing recessions; boom and bust, boom and bust and now bust and bust for manufacturing. We cannot see how manufacturing can be lifted out of the mire and the gloom. Day after day, we see factory closures and job losses, statements from companies that cannot pay the bills and the transfer of massive numbers of jobs to cheaper labour markets.
  Kali Mountford: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in terms of textiles and steel, where there has been a definite slow-down, but does he really want to compare that with any period of Tory government, when it was not a question of thousands of jobs going, but millions? For example, the city of Sheffield faced almost total collapse and in one year lost more jobs than the coal industry did under the Conservative Administration. Textiles fell into almost complete disarray under his Government. Would he really like to compare the records?
  Mr. Redwood: It is not our task to compare the records of Governments, but if the hon. Lady wishes to draw me in that direction she would be right to say that there was one short but unpleasant period under the Conservatives, when too many jobs were lost. Let me remind the House why that was; it was because the Conservative Government foolishly accepted the advice of Labour and the Liberal Democrats to join the exchange rate mechanism. It was because we did what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) now wants us to do on an heroic scale: join the euro. We joined a European exchange rate project, and we were told by all and sundry—including the Labour
  576
  party—that it would be good for jobs and would get rid of exchange rate unpredictability. It was, of course, a disaster. The euro would be a disaster that we could never get out of.
  Mr. Beard: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the ERM was a disaster, first, because the Government went in at far too high a rate; secondly, because they had not negotiated with colleagues in the ERM, so when difficult times came, they were not ready to bail the Government out; and, thirdly, because the ERM left cracks into which speculators could get, as happened on Black Wednesday?
  Mr. Redwood: The whole thing was negotiated with partners and was welcomed broadly by the Labour Opposition at the time. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the rate at which we went in is very similar to the rate now. He says that he wants us to go in to the euro now, so I presume that he wants us to go in at the same rate. Why is the rate that was clearly wrong and a disaster then now miraculously right? There is no right rate for the pound in perpetuity against the European currencies. Our economies are very different.
  I give one piece of praise to the British economy under Labour, as well as under the Conservatives. It is great news that we run our economy with such a lower rate of unemployment than that of France or Germany. The last thing I want to see my country do as a result of this Budget and a move to the euro, as recommended by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, is to converge with the continent by creating the joblessness and the job destructicn machine in place there. How do the Europeans do that? They do it by combining the wrong interest rate, through a rigid single currency scheme, the wrong monetary policy and very high taxation.
  The burden of my criticism of the Bill and of the Government's policy is that this rip-off Government are proposing taxation that will be extremely damaging to British individuals and business. It is part of the process by which they would erode the most important competitive advantage that this country and our economy have built up—under several years of Conservative government and the first couple of years of Labour government—by keeping taxes well below those on the continent and staying well clear of monetary union, which would be a bodge and a mess on an heroic scale; a scale that would make the ERM look like a rather pleasant interlude in our economic affairs.
  In his rose-tinted survey, the Chief Secretary—ignoring all the realities facing business and hard-pressed British families—failed to mention the way in which high taxation imposed by the Government in recent years has demolished the telecoms and internet industry by taking £22 billion out of it through the auction of licences. That procedure took money out of the industry at the very point it needed to expand and make new investment. It destroyed jobs, investment and success and helped the stock market to crash.
  The Chief Secretary made no reference to the £5 billion a year sandbagging of British pension funds, which has led directly to part of the stock market crash; it is one of the reasons why the stock market has fallen

  577
  further here than in the United States. It led directly to those funds being chronically short of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said, it is a disgrace that many people now face the prospect of retiring on about half the pension they were looking forward to in 1997–98, before the tax on pension funds and before the stock market crash. That loss is a direct result of a Labour Government, who inherited the most successful pensions industry in Europe by far and thought that they could use it as a ready source of money without people noticing. If we wanted any proof that stealth taxes do enormous damage and end up costing the country rather more than they gain in extra revenue, surely it is the pension funds. It will now be extremely difficult to meet all the bills and make good the deficits and trouble created by that hated tax.
  Mr. Love: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the imposition by the previous Government of employers' contribution holidays from pension schemes was a major contributory factor in the so-called halving of pensioners' current incomes?
  Mr. Redwood: Of course not. It was not the previous Government who introduced them. Under pensions law approved by Parliament under Governments of both parties over the years, it was reasonable for a company with more money in its fund than it needed to meet its liabilities as assessed by an independent judge or actuary to reduce its contributions while the surplus lasted. Alternatively, a firm in that position could consider increasing benefits. It could also choose some combination of the two approaches. Many funds did a bit of both, to get rid of or reduce the surplus.
  There was no problem when this Government came to power. Funds were very solvent and they had the marvellous choice of increasing benefits or cutting contributions. They could also choose a combination of the two. It is under this Government that funds face the awful choice of cutting benefits or winding up the funds because they cannot find the money to pay the bills.
  Mr. Beard: How does the right on. Gentleman arrive at that conclusion? The tax introduced by the Chancellor at the beginning amounted to £5 billion a year or thereabouts, but the stock market has lost more than £100 billion in the past two years or so. Why is it the £5 billion that is having that dire effect, and not the fall of the stock market? In the contorted logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, how does he believe that this Government are responsible for the stock market falls around the world?
  Mr. Redwood: I specifically said that I was drawing attention to the extra fall in the London stock market, as compared with other stock markets. The hon. Gentleman greatly underestimates the extent of the total fall, but his figure of £ 100 billion is very fortunate for my argument, which he must want to support. That amount, £100 billion, is exactly the capital fall that one would expect from a tax on companies of £5 billion a year. When the tax was imposed, the stock market tended to value company earnings on a multiple of
  578
  about 20. Multiplying the £5 billion taken away from companies each year by the multiple of 20 by which the stock market valued earnings, one arrives at exactly £100 billion.
  I made that point when the Chancellor wanted to impose the tax. I said that he should expect a fall of about £100 billion in the stock market, in addition to anything else that might happen elsewhere around the world. That is what happened. Much of that fall of £100 billion was directly due to the pension fund accounts. The Chancellor should have known that British pension funds have traditionally had between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of their investment in equities—for good reason, because they tended to do well. When the Chancellor sandbagged British business with taxation, it was bound to cause trouble.
  The Chief Secretary argued that British business should be grateful for the one or two very small tax reductions in the Budget, and in previous Budgets, but I find that extraordinary too. The CBI and other bodies—none of them well known supporters of the Conservative party—have come to their own independent conclusions. They believe that the Government have imposed a massive increase in the tax burden on businesses. That imposition was achieved by sleight of hand, through the pensions and telecoms taxes that I have mentioned, and above all by changing the timing and incidence of corporation tax payments. The Government were therefore able to claim that they had made a very small reduction in the rate, while at the same time collecting far more revenue because they had changed the cash flow impact on business, which is what matters. The Government had also removed quite a lot of money from business that firms needed to pay the wage bill and to continue investing in the future.
  I should have liked a different kind of Finance Bill, although I suppose that that was too much to hope for from this Government. Occasionally, Ministers say that they would like lower taxation to make us more competitive. They accept that lower tax rates can produce more revenue and attract more business, jobs, prosperity and investment. So why cannot the Government produce a Finance Bill of the kind that I would like, doing just what I have described? Why do they find all sorts of ways to clobber all the main interest groups in this country?
  This Bill continues the Government's hate campaign against the motorist. It further increases the charges on motorists. It is getting to the point where people need to be very rich if they want to drive around the country, because so many of the charges are imposed on people with relatively low incomes. The aim, presumably, is to tax them off the road to allow more space for the chauffeured cars of Ministers—who do not pay their own tax on such things.
  Kali Mountford: That is silly.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady says that that is silly, but she may not realise that, for people who are not

  579
  Ministers, it costs £5 a day to drive in the centre of London. That comes to £25 a week, which comes out of net income. People need large incomes to pay such bills.
  Mr. Beard: Did the right hon. Gentleman have the use of a car when he was Minister?
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman asks whether I had the use of a car when I was a Minister, and I can tell him that of course I did, but the Government whom I supported did not impose these very high charges on motorists. We did not try to tax people with low incomes off the road, as this Government are attempting to do.
  Mr. Laws: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Budget statement made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) in the last Conservative Parliament? He announced that there would be charging on motorways. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that policy?
  Mr. Redwood: No such charges were introduced by the Conservative Government. I favour charges if a new motorway, an additional facility, is financed with private money. I see nothing wrong with the Birmingham northern relief road, which I think is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) had in mind. That was a Conservative scheme, for which I see this Government are going to take some credit, after a bit of delay. There is at least bipartisan support for the notion that a new facility that is privately financed should result in a charge for those who use it. However, I do not think that the same applies to roads that we have paid for already, many times over, through taxes. That could be justified only if all sorts of other changes were made that improved rather than worsened the motorist's lot.
  The Government have also decided to sandbag people who wish to buy properties. The stamp duty proposals are complicated and very expensive, but it ill behoves the Govt to tax people buying quite modest properties in London and parts of the south-east. It shows that they do not believe in fairness or justice around the country, as stamp duty has become a tax on anyone who needs to buy a property in the south-east and in London. As a result, many people—especially in central London—will have to pay the full 4 per cent. rate, given the very high level of house and flat prices, and the low level at which the highest rate applies. The Government should look again at the injustice around the country that their stamp duty taxes represent.
  What have the Government got against young people and families struggling to buy a property in London and the south-east? Why do the Government weep crocodile tears about the difficulties experienced by key public-sector workers trying to buy property in London and the south-east, when they are making those workers pay a stamp duty tax? Given the level of house prices over which the Government have presided, that tax is very high in some cases.
  According to the Chief Secretary, this Government claim to be very good at attracting inward investment. That was true of Governments for many years. It was true under the Conservative Administration of the 1990s, and of the first years of this Labour
  580
  Administration, demonstrating that a country did not have to be in the euro, or seeking to join it, to attract inward investment. We were told many times, when the Conservative Government were in power, that, if Britain did not pledge entry to the euro, investment would flee or be driven away. That turned out not to be true. In the early days of the Labour Government, some people in business told us that investment would flee if they did not get on with joining the euro. However, investment kept flooding in.
  Britain was the preferred destination for investment for many years—at the end of the Conservative era and at the beginning of the Labour era. Now we can see a problem developing. The Chief Secretary did not refer to it, but the volume of inward investment is now lower than in the good years. Why should that be so? I think it would be surprising were it otherwise. The Government are taxing and regulating business away from this country. The process that I described in manufacturing is beginning to spread to services. Companies are not going to France or Germany to seek the euro. They are going to countries in eastern Europe or Asia, where they get more flexibility, and much lower labour costs.
  That is the serious threat to the British economy. Ministers would be well advised not to ignore it or bury their heads in the sand. They should understand the process, and should be seeking to reduce the tax burden on British business. In that way, we can return to being the premier location in western Europe to attract business, rather than pricing ourselves out of the market by stealth.
  In response to my requests for lower business and individual income taxes, the Labour Government will ask where the money to pay for public services will come from. The most disreputable part of the debate has been the consistent attempt by Labour spokesmen and Back Benchers in this House to claim that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and his boss, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), wish to cut public expenditure by 20 per cent. across the board. They have never said that: it is clearly not Conservative policy; nobody believes that we would go to the electorate with such a policy; nobody believes that we would be elected on such a policy; and nobody believes a democratic Government would ever put through such a policy. It is complete nonsense.
  What my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs has rightly said, as he explained again today, is that there are parts of government—not teachers, nurses, doctors, hospitals and important frontline services—where he, modestly, would like a fifth off the cost. I have said before, and will say again, that I should like to see more than that taken off my regional government: I would Like 100 per cent. off my regional government.
  Ms Meg Munn: is the right hon. Gentleman saying that his hon. Friend would want to cut 20 per cent. of waste or that he would, in reality, cut public services by 20 per cent., which is what we all believe.
  Mr. Redwood: There is no way that anyone in the Conservative party has ever said, or will ever stand on a

  581
  platform and say, that they want one fifth off public expenditure across the board. That is complete nonsense. No one has said it, no one ever would, and I hope that we can move on from such trivia.
  On whether my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Down would like to cut one fifth off waste, I think that he would like to cut all waste, but he is starting off by saying one fifth of waste because he knows, from watching others, how difficult it will be to get rid of all the waste that this Government have created. Billions of pounds have been wasted under the Government, who have singularly failed to cut waste in benefit fiddles or the over-provision of civil servants. They have allowed the civil service to expand to 500,000 people; I should certainly be happy to see a fifth off the civil service. The civil service is not all waste, but a fifth off would be a good start.
  Mr. Cameron: My right ho n. Friend makes a persuasive case for why the debate about 20 per cent. is entirely sterile. Does he agree that it is remarkable that although so much time in the Ho use is spent bandying around the 20 per cent. figure, not one senior political journalist in this country believes that it is our policy to cut 20 per cent? They think that that is a complete joke put around by the Labour party.
  Mr. Redwood: I think that we should move on. I agree with my hon. Friend that that figure is not taken seriously outside the House, and the Government demean themselves by resorting to such statements.
  Mr. Love: It is the easiest thing in the world to say that we will cut all waste. However, the only way in which anyone can validate such a statement is by looking back at previous experience. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee for three years, during which time it scrutinised the expenditure of the previous Government. I could go into examples of housing benefit, over-expenditure on the national insurance computer system and lots of other problems that arose in public expenditure. Can the right hon. Gentleman honestly say, on the basis of that experience, that the electorate could have any confidence that the Conservatives would be able to cut out waste?
  Mr. Redwood: Having had considerable ministerial experience, I do not for one moment believe that an incoming Conservative Government could cut out all waste, or even most of it. But t hey could do a much better job of curbing and reducing waste than the present Administration. In fact, the present Administration have made the job much easier for an incoming Conservative Government because their waste is so monumental. Huge sums go into the machine, but very little of value extra comes out. It is like going shopping. When I go to a shop, the only two things that interest me are whether it has the goods I want to buy and whether they are at the right price—can I get the quality and the price that I want?
  Mr. John Randall: Come to my shop.
  Mr. Redwood: I am not sure that I am allowed to advertise my hon. Friend's shop in this place, but I am sure that things are very good in Uxbridge.
  582
  What I want to know is whether the shop has the right goods at the right price. In the Labour shop for public services, the answer is no. The goods are not available—one has to wait 15 months for an operation, and the school results are not good so one cannot get the quality that one wants. The price is astronomical, as we can see in the Bill before us. What do the Government do, then? They do not satisfy us by increasing the supply and quality or reducing the price. On the contrary, they lecture us, saying that it is wonderful news that although they do not have the operation that we want in the hospital and that we cannot have it for 15 months, they are delighted to tell us that they have taken a huge extra sum from our pay packets and are spending it somewhere in the health service, although they cannot tell us where and although it will not provide the operation. If my hon. Friend's shop were not as good as it is and were unable to supply me the goods I wanted at the price I wanted, and if he gave me a lecture saying that I would nevertheless be delighted to know that he had forced a levy on his customers, had spent it and had no clue where the money had gone, I would not go back to his shop, and I would have some pretty unprintable things to say about what it had done. Yet that is Labour's public service shop—no service, huge bills and endless arguments about how the Government have spent a huge sum, for which we ought to be grateful.
  Mr. Beard: Does the right hon. Gentleman honestly believe this travesty? Indicators for the health service all show improvements over the past two years. Primary school literacy and numeracy have gone up unbelievably. Schools and hospitals recognise that big changes are happening. The right hon. Gentleman seems to fall into the trap that his whole party falls into by trying constantly to talk down services while ignoring the real indicators of improvement.
  Mr. Redwood: Some schools have done well, and some have done a bit better. However, if the hon. Gentleman examines the overall record, he will see that the health service has gone backwards and that more people are waiting longer in pain without the treatment that they want.[Interruption.] I speak as I find in my constituency; my constituents would not want me to say that everything is wonderful in our local health service when it is far from so. Far too many people are waiting too long for treatment that they ought to receive either immediately or very quickly.
  The transport system is in chaos. The underground is far worse than it was five years ago and is not able to provide the transport needed at a time when the congestion charge stops all but the rich from travelling by car. There is chaos and dislocation on the railways after a back-door renationalisation that has backfired, costing the Government and the taxpayer a fortune, and which is delivering a worse service than the Government inherited in 1997.
  I have more government than I want, more government than I need, and more government than my constituents and I can afford. The Government are not delivering. Public services are not getting better, and in many cases, such as transport, they are getting a lot worse. In Labour's public sector shop, the price goes ever upwards, the goods are either not available or of an inferior quality, and there is no choice. I will vote against

  583
  the Bill with relish. It is a Bill from a rip-off Government who are charging us far too much for a lousy range of public services, a Government who are unable to tell us where all the money goes and how it is wasted. I look forward to supporting my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor and my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary in the Division Lobby. When we return to power, they will undoubtedly be able to deliver more for less than this wasteful, rip-off Government have done.
  6.57 pm
  Geraint Davies: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) so that I can put him right on a few general points. I shall cover a range of issues. The first is overall investment. Given the enormous increases in public expenditure that the country is now able to afford for schools, hospital and transport, the British electorate will clearly choose to support public investment and do not want the 20 per cent. cut that we would otherwise have.
  It is all very well saying. "Lots of money has been spent, but what is there to see for it?" The reality is that, thanks to the stability that we created by making the Bank of England independent and through prudent management, the British economy now has 1.5 million more people paying tax instead of taking benefits. Because Britain is working again and because we have macroeconomic stability and such things as working families tax credit to make work pay, we have people back at work, providing money. The money is being invested in our health service, our schools and our transport infrastructure. There is a lot more to do, but business responds to a better-educated work force.
  Locally, the number of people obtaining five or more GCSEs in Croydon has gone up from 45 per cent. to 49 per cent. in a single year. Last year, Croydon also had an extra 227 nurses and record numbers of people being treated. On the ground, people are seeing benefits. If one runs a business, as I have done, the fact that people are more healthy and not waiting as long is good news. We are seeing returns. Interest rates are at a 20-year low, and the position on inflation is similar. People can plan with security, knowing they can pay back the investments that they make in their own homes without fear of repossession and bankruptcy—a situation that is unprecedented in British economic history. They know now that the economy is safe in Labour's hands, when formerly they felt completely insecure about their future. That is good and should be acknowledged.
  Hon. Members have spoken generally about productivity. Productivity is continuing to grow, but Opposition Members occasionally say that the rate of growth is not as much as it might be. The reason is that if one rapidly increases the number of people working in an economy—we have had an increase of more than 1.5 million—the marginal productivity of the extra people entering the job market is less than the average productivity of the people already in the market, so one would expect a reduction in productivity. Instead, we are witnessing marginal increases.
  Now that we have so many people back in work, the big challenge, which the Chancellor has identified, is to gear up their productivity. We are doing that by
  584
  investing in IT, encouraging training and investing in the regions. Overall investment is up, as a premium for the fact that people are in work. Alongside that, we have had record levels of debt repayment—more debt repaid in Britain than ever before. Debt in Britain when compared with gross domestic product is lower than in any other European country.
  The Opposition say, "Oh, look: the forecast is slightly out"—because of the world recession, obviously—but if one puts that in context, one realises that. Britain's finances are completely sound. They are stronger than they have ever been. I n the context of the EU stability pact—I am not a great fan of it—if Britain did borrow more than 3 per cent. of GDP, it could easily do so given our level of debt. France and Germany may breach that stability pact.
  Those are some of the issues that are rightly being considered by the Treasury as it weighs up whether the time is right to move forward and recommend joining the euro. I do not feel that the time is right; there are some issues concerning the structure of EU finance and the stability pact and the European Central Bank that need refinement. The Treasury recognises that.
  Already, France and Germany are likely to breach the terms of the stability pact. It is a great tribute to the Chancellor that he has introduced a model for the Bank of England that is so much better than that used by the European Central Bank. Specifically, my right hon. Friend's symmetrical inflation targets mean that if inflation drops more than 1 per cent. below the 2.5 per cent. target, or goes above it, in essence the Bank of England will adjust interest rates so that the economy is either reflated or deflated to maintain stability, whereas in the case of the European Central Bank there is simply a ceiling.
  In addition, we have the advantage of transparency in terms of what is decided in the Bank of England, so that the markets can be confident and comfortable with the reasons for those changes, which is not the case with the European Central Bank. So in terms of stability, managed growth and a regime that encourages reflation as well as holding a lid on overheating, we have a very good model, which explains the remarkable growth that we, as opposed to our European friends, have enjoyed.
  Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman paints a rosy picture of the economy under Labour, but why has the UK's share of inward investment into Europe fallen so dramatically? What does he put that down to?
  Geraint Davies: It is worth remembering that Britain is still the leading player. There are issues—do not misunderstand me—about big companies operating in Britain, using Britain as a platform into the European marketplace. They are very strong advocates for joining the euro because if one is an investor, and for argument's sake 80 per cent. of one's products will be consumed in Europe and 20 per cent. in Britain, it is obviously better to invest in mainland Europe, because one can produce in the currency that it is being consumed in, so there is no currency risk in production. The cost of production is known, the selling price is known and it is possible to work out the business plan. The company knows that if it exports some products to

  585
  Britain, there is only a 20 per cent. risk. On the other hand, if the company invests in Britain, it has 80 per cent. risk. That is why big investors are taking a medium to long-term view on whether Britain will join the euro. Many big investors from Japan or America, for example, want to see us join the euro eventually.
  We need to get the conditions right. The Chancellor is right to focus on sustainable convergence, not on a one-off hit. He is right to think about what is right for Britain overall, and to consider, as he did in the Budget, ideas such as those to take the risk to home owners out of the equation, in order to combat the one-size-fits-all argument about interest rates. Presumably, the rationale behind his statement is that if people have fixed-rate mortgages and there is an adjustment to the interest rate, they will be insulated from that, whether the interest rate is set by the Bank of England or the European Central Bank. There are certainly strong arguments for going into the euro. The Leader of the Opposition and others are completely wrong to say that we will name the date and go in irrespective of the conditions and irrespective of whether we satisfy the five conditions for sustainable convergence.
  Moving on from the macroeconomic situation that has delivered us such a bonanza in terms of economic success and investment in our public services, I shall speak briefly about distribution. Some of my colleagues have mentioned regional and sustainable economic growth, and the Chancellor has focused on full employment by the region.
  Mr. Cameron:Before the hon. Gentleman moves off macroeconomics, perhaps he could say why, after 10 years of economic growth, the Chancellor needs to borrow £;24 billion this year.
  Geraint Davies:Obviously we must adjust to the peaks and troughs of the overall global economy. I think everyone would accept that forecasts for economic growth in the global economy have been massively pared down, as have those in all the major economies, although the reduction in economic growth forecasts in Britain has been less than in the rest of Europe and in America and Japan. It is sound finance that we borrow and spend more when we are in a dip than when we are on the way up, but we are not in a recession in the way that other comparable economies are, because of prudent economic management.
  Mr. Cameron:If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Chancellor's forecast, he will see that the Chancellor is forecasting growth of over 2 per cent. for this year and over 3 per cent. for next year and the year after; that is hardly a trough. In that case, why are we borrowing £24 billion this year and £81 billion over the forthcoming four years? If that is a trough, I would hate to see a really bad trough.
  Geraint Davies:Obviously, growth forecasting is not a perfect science, but those people who doubt for a moment the accuracy, within reasonable tolerances, of
  586
  the Chancellor's forecasts should look carefully, as I am sure they have not, at the world price of oil as a stimulant of growth. I mentioned it in a previous debate.
  Mr. Cameron:What has that got to do with it?
  Geraint Davies:The hon. Gentleman asks, "What has that got to do with economic growth?" It is obvious to someone who knows anything about economics. The oil price, which is a major stimulant of world growth, has moved from about $40 a barrel down to $20 a barrel in the last month or so, as more and more oil has been put into the marketplace because of the fear of the Iraq war, which has thankfully come to an early end. As confidence returns to world markets, and as input prices are lower, we are now seeing an opportunity to get back to buoyant growth.
  Mr. Flight rose—
  Geraint Davies:I see that the hon. Gentleman is twitching.
  Mr. Flight:I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he have any concerns about the fall in the savings ratio and the fact that the economy is being supported largely by personal consumption—by large amounts of housing equity mortgage release? Some £52 billion of it last year accounted for virtually all the growth in consumption. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is a sound base from which the economy may move forward?
  Geraint Davies:I am pleased that I have been asked that helpful question because the reality is that, first, savings ratios are historically low at times of public confidence in the economy. When people think that there is a sustainable growth path without massive redundancies, repossessions and a Conservative Government down the road, their conventional savings are less. Secondly, people save in a different portfolio of ways these days—not simply in pensions, although they are important. People's major form of saving is in house equity, and in many instances it is rational to put money into housing instead of pensions.
  Thirdly, people are increasingly investing in human capital—their propensity to generate wealth in the future. If one is a young person, it is by no means obvious that one should simply start an individual savings account. Young people might be better off putting the money into human capital development, perhaps by entering the housing market. We need to take a more sophisticated look at a lifetime model of savings. Frankly, having a facile and out-of-date look at savings ratios—an indicator of average savings—is naive in a stable economy. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that helpful question.
  I am a great supporter of the Chancellor's ambitions for full employment regionally. That is a very difficult issue because prices and costs in the south-east and London are obviously much higher. Some eminent academics—Professors Oswold of Warwick university and, of course, Elliot of Aberdeen university—have looked at the private sector mark-up to attract labour for a standardised job in London, which I briefly

  587
  mentioned in an intervention, and it is 25 per cent. in outer London and nearly 50 per cent. in inner London. They have also considered whether there is any replication in public services and, if so, how we manage it to avoid public sector workers migrating from London—we do not have enough proper public services in London—or pricing out some of the Labour market for the private sector outside London.
  Norman Lamb:Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the recent evidence from Incomes Data Services that suggests that most national private companies use national pay scales and do not vary their wage rate much between regions?
  Geraint Davies: It is certainly not the case that most companies—or even a small minority of companies—do not provide a London weighting. That suggestion is completely false, and the statistics that I have already quoted apply: the mark-up for London is about 40 per cent. That is necessarily so because housing and transport costs are significantly higher and there are other built-in quality-of-life costs. Other things being equal, people would prefer to live in a less congested, less busy environment.
  Mr. Michael WeirDoes the hon. Gentleman not accept that the payment of public service workers is a problem not only in the south-east, but in all areas of the United Kingdom? There is a specific problem with recruitment in Scotland, where many public sector workers consider themselves to be underpaid. How will that be solved by the Government's proposal, in effect, to increase wages by regional indices in the south-east, but not in other parts of the UK? Will that not exacerbate the problem in some of the poorer areas of the UK?
  Geraint Davies:Not at all. That is not an accurate representation of the Government's position, which, as I understand it, is that flexibility should be considered where shortages occur. Clearly, that is an issue in the areas with shortages. Perhaps people are desperate to be nurses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and they are not being paid enough and are being priced out by other competitive jobs. However, I suggest that that is not the case at all. One has to take seriously the outputs of the market. Some of those market outputs occur for other reasons, such as not enough affordable housing. We need to address those issues as well, or instead: we cannot simply pretend that they are not there.
  The firefighters' ambition is to have a 40 per cent, increase. The reality is that in parts of London there might be limited justification for that increase, if we are to get enough people to do the job, but there is no justification for a 40 per cent. increase in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I shall move on before I provoke too much anger about that.
  In relation to the distributional impact, I want to mention take-up of the working tax credit. The Opposition have criticised the take-up rate, but I understand that it is about 92 per cent. already and families with incomes up to £58,000 are eligible, so only about 8 per cent. of the people who are eligible for some level of benefit are not taking it up. Of course, they are clustered at the top end of that income scale—the
  588
  £58,000 end—where there is less benefit to be got. That can be compared to the normal take-up of means-tested benefits, as opposed to payroll-delivered tax credits. The Chancellor has made a strategic change over the years in moving from means-rested, "You can have it if you want it", stigmatised benefits, which generated take-up rates of only 50 per cent., to saying, "Yes, this is your right. We are encouraging you to work through the payroll"—with 92 per cent. take-up rates. In fact, that is in a sense a way to subsidise business wages to enable families to participate in the labour market. That is a tremendous achievement and a success.
  I wish to refer briefly to delivery in other areas. Prisons were mentioned by the Chancellor, who said that the Reading example was delivering and that about 80 per cent. of inmates were going into work on leaving prison. I have a particular interest in trying to increase the effectiveness of our prison system so that it delivers taxpayers instead of long-term liabilities. The reality is that we spend £34,000 a year on each person in prison and there are 73,000 people in prison, two thirds of whom reoffend when they leave it. Many prisoners are not educated to any extent, and 70 per cent. have been excluded from school and, before we invested in pupil referral units, they were wandering around stealing mobile phones and the like. Some 10 per cent. of the overall numeracy and literacy target relates to people in prison.
  As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am horrified to know that only £700 of the £34,000 that we invest in those people is spent on education, compared with £3,500 spent on each pupil in the average state school or £15,000 in a public school. If more of the £34,000 were spent on providing the best, intensive education, more of those people would be turned into taxpayers, and we need to consider creative ways of doing that. The amount spent on health for each inmate is less than for the average person in Britain, although mental health problems are endemic in prison.
  I shall say why I mention those things. It is obviously important to generate the global wealth and economic stability and to get right the distributional basis, the regional basis and the take-up basis. We have done that, but it is also important to consider efficient delivery mechanisms, and there is clearly a lot to do in the Prison Service to generate taxpayers out of people who have previously been criminals.
  Finally, I wish to refer to hospitals. Obviously, the major debate tomorrow will be about the delivery of hospitals and whether foundation hospitals can represent a major key to progress in having not only minimum performance standards that increase over time but an environment where innovation can be pushed forward. As all hon. Members know, there are a number of issues. I do not see the issue as being the delivery of a consumer and patient-driven, post-Fordian system that is characterised by innovation and rising standards, which are then dissipated throughout the system. That is fine, but my specific questions about foundation hospitals relate to consumer accountability.
  Will we still have patient forums, which were the successors to community health councils? There is a question mark over that. Those are questions for the debate tomorrow, but I just mention them in passing, as they have a bearing on the Finance Bill. I shall listen to that debate, as I have an open mind on the issue. If the

  589
  Treasury is delivering the money and there are, as in the past, performance targets, will that mechanism help to deliver the services that we all want to see?
  There are issues about audit. Obviously, the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission go in and take to pieces the health service and produce recommendations for increased performance. If foundation hospitals appoint their own private sector accountants, there will be issues about the power of accounting and the relationship between the national auditors, the regulators and the hospitals, and I shall be interested to listen to those discussions. Clearly, there will be more freedom, and we want as much, if not more, accountability to Parliament. There are issues about public sector asset management in relation to the use of land assets around London and so on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Michael Lord):Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. but he really ought not to debate today the issues that we will debate tomorrow.
  Geraint Davies:I appreciate that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Put simply, this Budget is first about providing an economic framework that will deliver the quantum of resources and stable framework needed for public services. Secondly, it is about providing a distributional system that is fair and equitable Thirdly, it is about providing new and innovative modernised delivery systems, which ensure rising standards on a continuing basis, in a fair and equitable way. We have the means of delivering more and increasing success in Britain today. Some underlying and legitimate questions need to be asked in a debate that will take place tomorrow, not today, but I very much welcome the Budget.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack:I begin by reminding the House of my business interests, which have been declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
  When I listened to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), I thought that I was in a parallel universe. I suddenly slipped forward to tomorrow—to a debate that has yet to occur—and although you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, provided no conclusions or projections about what will happen tomorrow, I knew I had been there.
  When I listened to other Labour Members' contributions, I thought I was in the same parallel universe, in which everything in the economy was rosy and wonderful—investment was pouring in, services were being provided and so on. Yet when I returned to the other universe of the Conservative Benches and I recalled what people had told me on the doorstep during the election campaign about the real economy—the problems faced by north-west manufacturing industry, the increase in council tax of three or four times above the level of inflation, and schools struggling to find enough money—I began to think that I was in a slightly different world. Conservative Members are in the real world, and Labour Members are in an unreal world. I reflected on the fact that perhaps some Labour
  590
  Members had not tuned in to or had direct experience of business; otherwise, we would not have heard some of the speeches that we have so far heard on this Finance Bill.
  I cannot claim to share the Paymaster General's record of attendance on Finance Bills, but I follow her closely for the number in which I have been involved as an Opposition Member and as a Minister. If I had to rate the vintage of the Bill on a scale of nought to 10, I would give it about five. It does not contain any seriously interesting blockbuster measures, but it has many clauses—214—43 schedules and 447 pages, largely taken up by the introduction of the new stamp duty measures and land tax. That section of the Bill has a wraparound labelled, "Anti-avoidance". When we look at other sections of the Finance Bill, we find that anti-avoidance is a theme that weaves its way through many of the clauses.
  That leads me to my first point—the quality of drafting of tax legislation. It is probably right that the Government should reform a tax that is some 200 years old—in this case, stamp duty—but questions have already been asked about how the new arrangements will work and the degree of consultation that has taken place. Given that during the Budget announcement the Government made great play of an additional £66 million to tackle tax avoidance and fraud, which they claimed would bring back into tax some £1.6 billion—some of the measures to achieve that are mentioned in the Bill—I wondered, if I may tell a little story against the Government of which I was a member, how they would achieve such a remarkable rate of return. The same people who are now Treasury Ministers attacked in opposition a measure that we proposed in the 1996 Budget to spend £187 million on corporate technical review and avoidance, income tax compliance and action on the shadow economy to yield £1.9 billion. I would therefore be grateful if, at some stage, Ministers would enlighten us with more detail on how that remarkable rate of return—£1.6 billion from £66 billion—is to be achieved.
  That gives rise to two questions. First, have all the loopholes been closed? The answer is no. If a yield of £1.6 billion is achieved as a result of spending £66 million, perhaps a little more expenditure could have yielded an even greater return, thereby removing the need for some of the other obvious and stealth taxes in this and previous Budgets. Equally, it leads to the question of whether the resources of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise are sufficient to enable them to cope with the complexity with which the Revenue must now deal, especially the additional work on tax credits. In addition, we have known for some considerable time, as the Public Accounts Committee has told us, about the failure of Customs and Excise fully to gather in all the revenue for which it is responsible.
  When I considered the overall economic challenges that I had hoped the Finance Bill might address, I asked myself whether it would do anything about the adult savings gap. The answer was no. Would it do anything to address the question of the pensions crisis, which other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned? The answer was no. When the Government advocated the ending of the payable tax credit, one of their justifications for it was that it would increase private investment because pressure would not exist to

  591
  distribute said moneys in the form of dividends. According to the Government's data, however, two things have happened: first, private investment has fallen; and, secondly, productivity in the economy has also fallen. Both those arguments knock out one of the key justifications for the tax hit on the pensions industry. For those who have life assurance and endowment products, was there anything in the Budget to deal with that? The answer was no; there is nothing in the Finance Bill either.
  I am therefore disappointed that even on this occasion the Government have sought not to adjust, as I understand it, the internal tax rates in life assurance and other similar products to visit on the holders of those collective investment vehicles the same beneficial changes that have occurred in capital gains tax for those who hold assets outside investment vehicles. When I last asked for the cost of that work, I was told that it was about £35 million to £37 million. It is always dangerous for a Conservative Member to ask for any money to be spent, but given the losses that have occurred to the value of those long-term savings vehicles, the Government are guilty of a dereliction of duty by ignoring that area.
  I mentioned productivity. The Chancellor's previous Budgets have been laced with a rich cocktail of micro-managing different parts of the economy. It is interesting that we hear little about whether those measures have delivered in economic terms. On the sum total in terms of productivity, my eye was drawn to an interesting commentary in the Financial Times,in an article by Chris Giles, on what the Chancellor said in the Budget, which is reflected in the Finance Bill, about productivity:

  "He could have added that the productivity gap between the UK and the US has fallen by 7 percentage points since November."

  He continued that the Chancellor's boast,

  "was a classic in its selective use of statistics, its use of inconsistent time periods, and its exploitation of irrelevant data revisions."

  From a seasoned observer of Britain's productivity position, that is a damning critique: it is a critique of the overall use by the Chancellor, in many cases, of the numbers in the Budget, which, again, are reflected in this Finance Bill. It raises some severe doubts about many of the Budget's statistical projections, to which the Bill refers, as other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned.
  The principal aspect of the Bill is the reform of stamp duty. It raises the interesting question of how much work has been done to ensure that there will not be further innovative thinking on redeploying the use of leases, notwithstanding the question of the measure's practicality and how the complexities of the formula to calculate net present value will operate. The measure is designed to prevent the avoidance of stamp duty by ruling out the practice of creating a company and buying a share in it. Given the pressures on the Revenue, I suspect that an industry will start that will design leases to find ways around the measure. Although we know that the stamp duty land tax is a tax on an interest in land, one cannot say, practically or philosophically, that a lease is an interest in land. A lease is a way to access premises, for example, but it does not confer ownership of the land on which such premises stand. There is a
  592
  further inconsistency: if we are to tax such specific leases, why have other leases not been similarly addressed? It would be useful to hear a more philosophical and practical explanation of why the Government have chosen to reform such taxation—many people would be interested to hear it.
  There is also a question about inheritance tax. It is interesting that stamp duty and inheritance tax reflect an era in which there was not the same range of taxes under the labels of indirect taxes and taxes on income. The Treasury could get hold of such money at that time only when a capital transaction occurred. The principal asset of the majority of people in the United Kingdom is their home, but because ho use prices have risen, especially in the south and south-east, the £255,000 limit on exemption from inheritance tax is very low.
  The Chancellor told us that 95 per cent. of estates escape paying inheritance tax but, given that the Treasury has been examining stamp duty, the Bill should, in the interests of reform, have identified a better way of dealing with individuals' inheritance tax. People use labyrinthine and complex measures to avoid paying inheritance tax, which is why 95 per cent. of estates escape paying it. However, is it right that people should have to go to such expense and use such complex methods in this day and age? Many of the system's complexities would disappear if inheritance tax provisions contained a more realistic and proper assessment of the principal private asset—the domestic residence. People would then not worry about trying to find ways to pass on to their heirs at least some of the fruits of their labours that had been accumulated by hard work and already subjected to taxation both when income was generated and through indirect taxation. There is a great need for change.
  I mentioned the justification of several of the Chancellor's micro-measures, and I shall comment on value added tax. I was roundly attacked by Treasury Ministers last year for having the temerity to question whether it was right to reduce the rate of value added tax on children's car seats, which was proposed as a great measure to reduce road deaths among children. I would sign up to measures that would have a significant impact on reducing road deaths among children, but will the Paymaster General put my inquisitiveness to rest by telling me—if not today, perhaps she could write to me—how many deaths have been avoided according to the analysis that she has no doubt conducted on the measure? The micro-measure is a classic example of something that, I suspect, has had a marginal effect, if any. It is typical of the measures that have littered this and previous Finance Bills.
  There are more serious matters relating to VAT. The Bill contains provisions on users of mobile phones and certain other electronic goods who are involved in a contractual arrangement in which one party does not pay VAT. It is absolutely right to clobber people if they knowingly avoid paying their dues. However, there will be innocent parties in such situations. For example, unsophisticated small firms without the benefit of complex legal advice on contracts may be caught up innocently by the arrangement. What level of proof will Customs and Excise use to determine whether there is joint and several liability? Will the Paymaster General tell us how the measure will work practically, because that would help everyone and give those who operate in an uncertain world a clearer and better idea about it?

  593
  Clause 165 contains a worthwhile measure to tighten provisions on information technology and capital allowances. However, although that measure and the proposed change to the tonnage tax are small aspects of the Bill, they give us an interesting illustration of the quality of drafting. We are tightening measures introduced last year, although I was told that there was exhaustive consultation with the shipping industry on the tonnage tax. The existing measure is already taking on water and must be blocked up by a new provision in the Bill. I know how hard people in the Inland Revenue and parliamentary counsel work because I have worked with them, but given the amount of tax law—and tax law rewriting—with which they must deal, questions are being raised about the resources that they receive and the quality of the work that may be done.
  I want to raise an intriguing aspect of the Bill: the allowance that will be given for expenses incurred if somebody is a home worker. If, for example, an extra bit of cleaning is required in the office, the Revenue calculates that £104 extra per person employed may be claimed without the need for paperwork. How was it decided that £2 a week was the right amount for the concession? It seems to have been plucked out of thin air. If we are genuinely interested in encouraging home working, such a nit-picking measure is not the best way to achieve it.
  I turn to green measures because the Bill includes a measure to increase the landfill tax. The Paymaster General might find it odd to hear me say that the increase suggested in the Bill will have zero effect on reducing the amount of waste generated. That is clear from evidence from the inquiry that has been conducted by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member. The Government must make faster progress. I am disappointed that the Bill will not change the climate change levy, because that affects the extent to which combined heat and power is encouraged.
  The Government have cottoned on to the idea that a 20p per litre derogation for biodiesel is sufficient, but I hope that they will reconsider that. The Financial Secretary wrote a letter to me that said that because a plant was being set up in Motherwell that would increase biodiesel production, the 20p reduction in duty would be sufficient. In fact, it is clear from EU guidelines that this country will need far more than the 4.5 million litres of additional biodiesel a month that the Motherwell plant can generate from waste materials. There will be a 27 million litre gap if we are to meet the EU guideline targets of 2 per cent. biodiesel by 2005 and we will need a derogation of 30p a litre if agriculturally derived biodiesel is to be the order of the day. In all earnestness, I ask the Government to reconsider that.
  I end with three quick points. I hope that the Government will not ignore the fact that the competitive advantage that our corporation tax regime currently enjoys is being eroded. I am disappointed that there is nothing in the Bill on that.
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo):The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point on the
  594
  competitiveness of the corporation tax regime—not just its rate, but its structure. Consultation has taken place and he will have heard the Chancellor announce that another publication will be produced in the summer, followed by more consultation with business to do precisely what he says—to maintain that competitive advantage across the board.
  Mr. Jack:I am grateful for that clarification. The Paymaster General makes an important statement on the positioning of the second round of consultation on corporation tax reform. I was aware of the arrangements and am glad that I raised the problem, especially if we manage to sustain the competitive advantage.
  I should have liked the Bill to create a special credit to encourage UK companies that want to invest in the most difficult parts of the world, such as Iraq and the poorest 50 nations. We have a tax credit for research and development because we want to encourage that. Can we not consider the same mechanism to encourage British overseas investment in difficult parts of the world?
  Finally, I refer to a theme that I have mentioned a number of times in the context of the Finance Bill: the need to commit ourselves to go beyond the tax law rewrite exercise and to look comprehensively at the way in which our tax system operates. A draft new clause was sent to me on behalf of practitioners in the tax industry. The first part of it reads:

  "The Inland Revenue and Customs & Excise shall jointly prepare a report to be submitted to Parliament on the need for a Tax Law Commission, to act in parallel to and to complement the work of the Law Commission."

  That is one possible mechanism by which Government, industry, tax practitioners and Parliament might be enjoined in an exercise to consider carefully the complexity of the way in which our tax system works by building on the tax law rewrite exercise to produce a better tax system for the United Kingdom.
  7.43 pm
  Roger Casale:I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record something about which the Conservative party has said little this evening: the innovative child trust fund, which I support, and the £350 million that the Finance Bill makes available to invest in that. I also support the extra money for pensioners and many of the measures that are aimed at boosting competitiveness and productivity, which enable us to continue our work on the micro-economy. In particular, I welcome the incentives that the Bill and the Budget put in place to help improve skills, to reward investment in new technology and to promote innovation at a regional level. I have in mind the extension of the employer training pilots through the learning and skills councils—another important innovation by the Government—the extension of the research and development tax credits and measures to promote innovation throughout the supply chain, not least by working more closely at a regional level to build up regional networks by working with local industry, local government and local businesses. That will create the pool of skills and economic opportunity that is needed to encourage the innovation that will spread the strong economic growth experienced in some areas throughout the country.

  595
  The measures that are aimed at boosting productivity and competitiveness are important. Having put in place a highly successful and robust framework for macroeconomic stability, the biggest long-term economic challenges that face the country are micro-economic and involve how we can improve British competitiveness and productivity. The Budget measures implemented by the Bill reflect our commitment to economic stability and to enterprise and innovation. Those are coupled with measures to advance social justice, which has become the trademark of the Government whose work the Chancellor and his Front-Bench team carry out well. There is nothing different in that sense between this Finance Bill and others. I was pleased to see that we have more of the same so that we can build on the solid foundations for the future.
  It is surprising that we have not heard more from the Conservatives about those micro-economic challenges. which involve the need to improve investment and innovation to boost competitiveness and productivity. Instead, we heard a long list of things that they do not like about the Budget, such as investment in public services. We want to raise revenue for those public services, but they wish to cut that investment, and in the parts of the debate that I heard, they focused on such fiscal measures and the macro-economic framework.
  I first came to this place a few years ago, in 1997. Wimbledon was a Conservative seat for a long time and I was full of ideas, hopes and aspirations about what we could change. Many of my constituents accepted that I wanted to invest in public services—in hospitals and schools—but the first question they asked was, "Where is the money going to come from?" It is clear from the Bill where the money will come from because it sets out all the measures that are being developed by the Government to raise the resources that we need to meet our commitments to invest in public services.
  It is all very well for Conservative Members to say, "No, no. It's not 20 per cent. cuts that we want." The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said that we were wrong to think that and that it was not kind of us to suggest that they want to cut public expenditure by 20 per cent. In fact, from what he said, it seems that they really want to cut public expenditure by 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. We could have long and interesting discussions about that, but they would be academic because there is not much prospect of the Conservatives returning to office at the moment. We can, however, imagine what would happen if they formed a Government.
  We can debate the level of cuts. but what we should really talk about is where the money will come from to pay for services. It is not possible for the Conservatives to say that they do not want to cut public expenditure and then to oppose a list of measures that are directed at raising revenue to pay for public services. Every year we have a Budget and a Finance Bill to implement its measures. Every year there is an opportunity, as there is this evening, to remind my constituents why they voted Labour for the first time in 1997 and then did so again in 2001. They will continue to vote for us because we can answer their question: "Where will the money come from?" It is because families, individuals and, in larger and larger numbers, small and medium-sized businesses do not trust the Conservatives with their economic security and future prosperity that they keep coming
  596
  back to us. I am confident that at the next election many people will have further reason to avoid putting their trust in the Opposition, because it will be clear to them, as it is clear to me now, that not only can the Opposition not be trusted with their economic security and future prosperity but, in addition, they cannot be trusted with the public finances that the Government's able stewardship of the economy and the hard work of millions of taxpayers, both individuals and businesses, have helped to create.
  It is an historical fact that the last Tory Government spent recklessly. They spent not only on the failure of their fiscal policies, as rising unemployment resulted in soaring social services budgets, up from £50 million in 1992 to £90 billion in 1997, but on the failure of their monetary policies—15 per cent. interest rates meant that the homeowner faced the threat and, in many cases, the reality of eviction, and the taxpayer was meeting the burden of the rising cost of Government debt. The Tories spent on consultancies. We have heard attacks on public servants and administrators in the health service and other areas of the public sector tonight, but what about all those private service consultants who received all that public money raised by previous Finance Bills to dismantle the public services, sell them off quickly and, in many cases, cheaply to plug the vast, gaping hole in public finances that they had created?
  Mr. George Osborne rose—
  Roger Casale:I am keen to make progress, so I shall not give way at this stage. However, I shall see how I get on and if I have a bit of time later I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]I am tempted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will know from my efforts in the House that I am usually generous in doing so, but I am anxious that Government Members should have the opportunity to speak. I am keen, as I am sure Members on both sides of the House are, that I should get to the end of my speech.
  Let us see how the Tory party has got on in opposition. Having spent recklessly when in government, it has now pledged to cut public finances if it ever returns to office. The Opposition have a bit of an image problem that they need to straighten out, but it will not be cured by a skin-deep makeover. I notice that they have now become very attentive.
  Mr. Jack:On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the interests of understanding the hon. Gentleman's remarks, would you be so kind as to direct me to the part of the Bill that deals with Conservative policy?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker:I think that the right hon. Gentleman can safely leave these matters to the Chair.
  Roger Casale:Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding us that this is a debate. It is much better to meet criticism in debate than to try to raise points of order.
  The public have not got the wrong idea about the Opposition—the problem for the Tories is that they take a long time to forget. The Tories spent money recklessly when in office but that does not give them the right to challenge our decisions in government to invest public

  597
  finances wisely to rebuild schools and build new hospitals after decades of neglect and under-investment. Many big, long-term challenges a re micro-economic in nature and are addressed by the Bill, but we must not forget that the point of a Finance Bill is to allow the Government to raise taxes. We need to raise those revenues to meet our commitment to invest in public services.
  Let us also not lose sight of the substantial advances that have been made since we broke the boom-and-bust cycle of the past and put the economy on a stable, long-term footing, without which we would not have the confidence to take the measures that we are taking in the Budget and the Finance Bill. Without that confidence and stability we would not have a robust answer to the question asked by my constituents—"Where is the money that you want to spend going to come from?" The Opposition may wish to divert attention from the fact that we have a better record on economic management than they do by criticising us for not being perfect. We have heard some Panglossian speeches this evening as well as important and substantial technical points about the Budget, especially from the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), which we can consider when the Bill goes into Committee. We should remember—my constituents certainly do—that what is important is the fact that we can be trusted with running the economy, but the Opposition cannot.
  The Government are performing well not only against previous Governments but according to any international comparison. My experience of talking to my constituents is that they understand that message very well. They want to be better off in future, not worse off; they want an economy that will offer greater opportunity to their children than was available to them; they want to be able to plan for the future and save for their retirement. Perhaps one of the greatest virtues of the Bill is, one might say, the fact that it is a little more boring than previous Finance Bills. There is nothing that may be described as overly radical, but it builds on the foundation of earlier years. It gives us more of the same, giving my constituents the feeling that life is a little more predictable than it was under the Tories, when one could lose one's job and prospects overnight and one's mortgage payments could treble or quadruple in a matter of weeks.
  The remarkable thing about the Opposition is that, rather than learning the lessons of past mismanagement, they continue to oppose precisely those measures that we have taken to stabilise the British economy and keep it on a sustainable long-term trajectory. Indeed, they are doing so again tonight by attacking the Bill's provisions. They opposed the measures that we have put in place to make work pay and get people back to work. They opposed the measures that we put in place to tackle poverty, much of it the result of their economic mismanagement. Now, as we invest the dividend of sound economic management in our public services, they oppose the measures needed to raise the extra resources going in. They may say that they do not, but they do. They do not have an answer—the Bill is such an answer—to the question of where the money is coming from to make that investment. Their prescription is that of a party that failed in the past and is made to a
  598
  Government who are succeeding. Accepting that prescription would have the consequence of undermining people's prospects and quality of life in future. I said earlier in an intervention that the Opposition's prescription is misguided and misplaced, and we should reject it. Let us not forget that our prescription for the NHS is 80,000 new nurses and 25,000 more doctors. It all has to be paid for, which is why the Bill before us tonight is important.
  We know very well that the Opposition want to make at least 20 per cent. cuts to public services, and the great advantage of a debate such as this one is that we can keep a tally of where those cuts will be made. We have heard from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that he opposes some of the changes to stamp duty that are contained in the Bill. He himself gave a figure of £8 billion that would be lost to the Treasury if our changes to stamp duty did not go ahead. We have also heard that he will oppose the changes that we are making to national insurance. That would cost t he Exchequer £10.2 billion. Finally, we have heard that he opposes the changes that we are making to VAT collection that will yield an extra £3 billion to the Exchequer. While he was speaking, I began to tot up the cost of the measures that he said his party would oppose. If reached the sum of £23.2 billion, and that was before taking into account the threat made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs to raise the ceiling on personal allowances, which would yield further billions of pounds in revenue cuts. He gave an indication of how much would be involved in total when he referred to a sum of about 8 per cent. of the overall tax take.
  The hon. Gentleman then challenged the Chief Secretary to say what the economic effect of his speech would be. One effect of implementing the revenue cuts on the scale that the hon. Gentleman set out—he says that, in principle, he does not want to cut public expenditure, but showed us tonight how in practice public expenditure would have to be cut—would be that we would lose hospitals and schools, and investment in extra police officers and transport links throughout the country, in my constituency, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in those of other hon. Members throughout the House.
  I have listened to the debate, but the Conservative party does not have a prescription for reforming public services. It cannot have such a prescription because, on the basis of tonight's debate, it will not have the money to invest in public services. Without backing up reforms with money, there is no prospect of them working and being sustainable in the longer term.
  I welcome the Finance Bill. Its measures are needed to raise the money that we are committed to raising to invest in our public services, and we have seen tonight how that money would be taken away from our schools and hospitals and the fight against crime and from investment in our transport infrastructure if the Conservatives, with such a miserable record of economic management, were ever to be returned to office again.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Mark Simmonds:I am interested to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) who made what can at best politely be

  599
  called an intriguing contribution to the debate, the relevance of which to the Finance Bill I cannot quite fathom. I declare my interests as detailed in the Register of Members' Interests.
  The presentation by the Chief Secretary of the Finance Bill this afternoon was duplicitous on an industrial scale. There was no mention of the 60 tax rises that we have seen since 1997, despite promises to the contrary before the 1997 election. There was no mention of the fact that tax revenues have increased by 50 per cent. since 1997—£5,500 in extra tax taken per household per year.
  It is claimed that the Finance Bill is deregulatory, and that one of the main tenets of the preceding Budget was to build a more enterprising economy. I wondered whether we were hearing one of the Chancellor's rare moments of humour. The Government have piled red tape and bureaucracy on large and small business alike to the tune of between £;15 billion and £20 billion per annum since 1997. In addition, in the first five years of the Government, we have seen 19,322 new regulations, which some say is exactly the same as under the previous Conservatives Government, but not at all, it is a 53 per cent. increase in regulations.
  Like several hon. Members in today's debate, I wish to make a few remarks regarding the Chancellor's borrowing predictions underpinning the Finance Bill. He has had to reassess his growth forecasts twice in four months. His growth forecast this year is at least 1 per cent. out, and the borrowing forecast is a dramatic £27 billion this year alone—a sum totalling £110 billion over the next five years. That is on the basis of what most independent commentators, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Bank of England, believe are over-optimistic growth forecasts.
  The Chancellor has calculated his sums perversely and incorrectly. He should first assess the economic growth and then calculate the size of the tax revenue stream and therefore how much we can afford to spend as a country, not, as he has done, decide the spending levels and then assess his economic growth predictions to fit. Fiscal sustainability is a prerequisite for macroeconomic stability.
  It is no coincidence that while the Chancellor was relatively prudent and controlled public expenditure, the economic tanker, fully fuelled and steaming full ahead in May 1997, continued approximately on the same course. It began to unravel when he removed the tight control of public expenditure. In the context of a weak European economy, that was not a sensible thing to do. Indeed, his achievement of ensuring that the deterioration in Britain's public finance is worse than that in most of the rest of the European Union is a spectacular failure, particularly considering the overweening and inflexible labour markets that exist on mainland Europe.
  When public expenditure is growing at 8 per cent. and the economy at only somewhere between 2 per cent. and 2.5 per cent., something has to give. That was predicated in the Budget on strong growth in tax revenues. This year's tax revenue growth prediction is 7.8 per cent.; next year's 7.4 per cent.; and in 2005–06, 7.2 per cent. Last year the rise was only 1.8 per cent. That disparity appears enormous. Only time will tell, but the Chancellor's predictions on which the Finance Bill is
  600
  based look wholly and utterly irresponsible. It does not take a genius to conclude that there is an enormous fiscal hole, despite an additional £27 billion in taxation revenue this year. Most independent commentators believe that further taxes will have to be introduced to pay for that mismanagement and over-optimistic gamble.
  The Budget and Finance Bill debates would be of much greater complexity if the additional expenditure was contributing to or driving improvements in public services, but there is no such improvement. Public transport is worse, secondary education has deteriorated, with some notable exceptions, and the starkest statistic of all, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) referred, is that despite a 22 per cent. increase in health expenditure, there has been only a 1.5 per cent. increase in the number of patients receiving hospital treatment, and that is despite the hard work and tenacity of those who work in the health service.
  That is not just my view. It was confirmed by the politically independent chairman of the British Medical Association. Surely the Government must see that there needs to be an alternative solution to improving public services other than just throwing extra money at services. We need significant and real reform, which in my view will never happen under this Government because of the vested interests within the Labour movement. A centralised, monopolistic, uniform provision of service based on queueing and rationing will never succeed.
  The surest way to stimulate economic growth and entrepreneurial skill and to sustain job creation is to control public expenditure and reduce taxation, thereby increasing the Exchequer's take. There is no doubt that an expansionary and inflationary public sector limits private sector investment and growth. The inverse is also true. Restraining public expenditure necessitates and encourages private investment and job creation. I suspect that the main driving force behind the employment figures is not the sustainable expansion of the private sector, but rather a massive growth in the public sector. In short the Government are buying jobs with taxpayers' money. That is evidenced by the NHS having more managers than beds.
  I welcome parts of the Finance Bill, including the simplification of VAT, improving access to growth capital for small businesses, the cut in bioethanol duty, the abolition of bingo tax—although we shall need to look at the detail—pensioners receiving longer pension entitlement during hospital stays, and the principle of helping our poorest and most vulnerable pensioners.
  However, an additional £100 for those over 80—less than £2 a week—is nowhere near enough to compensate pensioners in my primarily rural constituency and many others throughout the country who have had to suffer council tax increases over and above the rate of inflation, primarily because the Government are deliberately transferring resources away from rural areas into their own urban heartlands.
  Not only has Boston borough council lost £500,000 this year in grant income, causing enormous consternation and concern in a low wage area, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has changed the

  601
  funding and removed the local authority social housing grant. The House will be delighted to know that I will not explain that very complex matter in great detail.
  Mr. George Osborne:Go on.
  Mr. Simmonds:I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend. Suffice it to say that the removal of the local authority's ability to recycle the social housing grant via the Housing Corporation is contradictory and bizarre, considering the importance attached to housing in the Budget and the view that supply needs to be increased. The policy could put construction on hold permanently. In the Boston borough council area alone, it could put on hold 52 new units of affordable housing, 28 of which were intended for people with learning disabilities or enduring mental health problems. That is totally unacceptable.
  The review of housing supply set out in the Budget could start by thoroughly deconstructing the Government's housing policies. Furthermore, I hope that the Minister for Housing and Planning will propose an amendment to the Finance Bill to resile from the policy on with-debt authorities.
  Mr. Love:On housing policy and the local authority housing grant, will not the Government continue the grant for existing schemes so that they can be completed? Has there not been a significant increase in the support given to the Housing Corporation that dwarfs and swallows any reduction in the local authority housing grant?
  Mr. Simmonds:That is simply not true. As to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government are providing funding for schemes that have already started, that is simply not the case either. That is happening where construction has commenced, but not where land has been purchased and building has not started. There are schemes in which the money has gone out, but the funding is not available for constructing the properties that are required to support the vulnerable people who deserve social housing.
  I want to refer specifically to the proposals on stamp duty. There seems to be some confusion among Ministers about exactly what the Government are proposing to do. Stamp duty impacts not only on residential transactions but on commercial property, which has become a significant investment sector, especially as the stock market has collapsed. Both individuals and pension funds have used commercial property as an investment vehicle and there is a strong argument that it should be decoupled from the residential market and have the same stamp duty rate as other investment sectors such as stocks and shares. The fact that it does not have the same rate is purely a revenue-raising exercise that is carried out irrespective of its negative impact on the economy. Indeed, some cynics would say that the continued extraction of tax from commercial property businesses, irrespective of the consequences, is intended merely to limit the perceived increases in personal taxation.
  The current structure of the commercial property market in respect of special purpose vehicles will be closed, as I understand it, further eroding the value of
  602
  pension funds by £200 million. Is this an appropriate time to drive another stake through the heart of pension funds?
  In addition, the Bill proposes stamp duty on leases with a net asset value of £ 150,000. That approximates to a rent of between £10,000 and £15,000, which catches most retail properties, except those in tertiary parades. One of the defences that the Government have made of the proposal is that it is supposed to exclude small businesses. However, according to the British Property Federation, no business in London is likely to be exempt, and small business will not be immune. The policy will add £130 million per annum in costs to store opening programmes. Dixons will have a £2 million additional tax bill; B&Q £5 million; and Borders £1 million.
  The proposal will represent an increase in stamp duty of between 4 and 8 per cent., and that assumes that it will apply to 10-year leases. In reality, the figures will be far higher. The prime retail tenants do not take 10-year leases, but leases lasting a minimum of 15 years. Indeed, the licensed sector, including pubs, and the out-of-town retail warehouse sector usually take leases of between 20 and 35 years.
  Mr. Cameron:My hon. Friend is making a very persuasive point about the dangers of the leasing changes that the Government are introducing. Does he agree that the changes are especially dangerous because the economy in London and the south-east is currently fragile and retailers are reporting relatively poor figures? Will not the impact be especially bad for those retailers?
  Mr. Simmonds:My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is not only the tenancy retail market that is problematic in the south-east: the office market has almost completely collapsed in the west end and the City of London, and that will be exacerbated when the proposals are introduced.
  It has been calculated that an incoming tenant with a 20-year lease would pay the equivalent of 14 per cent. of the first year's rent, instead of the current payment of 2 per cent. That will lead to the cancellation of new store proposals, reduce job creation and create uncertainty in relation to lease renewals in marginal sites. The taxation of leases is not about closing tax loopholes; it is a revenue-generating tax that will have a significant impact on the retail sector, which is a major force for blue-collar job creation in the United Kingdom. Indeed, in my constituency alone, 5,000 people or 15 per cent. of the work force are employed in the retail sector.
  In addition, such taxation will have a detrimental effect on pension funds' performance, as tenants will use the tax to negotiate lower rents and significantly shorter leases. That will have a negative impact on property values, and hence pension fund performance. That will directly and negatively affect every person in the United Kingdom who has a pension. A substantial tax on leases could lead to unoccupied buildings, depress the value of land, increase building obsolescence and reduce investment by tenants. It could also make it much more difficult to refurbish buildings. It will smother and reduce tenant movement in the property market, and it will not stimulate flexibility as companies grow, but put a stop to companies moving to larger premises.

  603
  I can find no mention in the Bill of what will happen when companies enter into sale and leasebacks. Will there be a double hit on stamp duty as companies sell the freehold and take a lease back on the same building? In addition, there is the inevitable side effect of reduction in lease lengths and in the certainty of income, as the Government are potentially removing from the marketplace the individual saver and investor, so it will be left purely to the professionals who are prepared for and understand the high-risk nature of commercial property investment. To my mind, that is a perverse way of encouraging saving and investment.
  Part of the justification for stamp duty increases in the past few years has been the exclusion of deprived areas. Oddly, that is based purely on the wealth of residents, rather than the level of business activities. The lack of any decoupling of commercial and residential property has led to some very strange anomalies. The abolition of stamp duty in deprived areas has added £50 million to the value of the Meadowhall shopping centre outside Sheffield—a 1 per cent. or 10p increase on the net asset value per share of the owner, British Land. Others affected in a similar way include the Merryhill shopping centre in Dudley, outside Wolverhampton, Canary Wharf and almost all the retail centres of Birmingham and Manchester. Surely, that cannot have been the Government's intention, and I am intrigued to discover what further consultations there will be, what they will consist of and what structures the Government will put in place to negate this paradox.
  In conclusion, this is an imprudent, defective and high-risk Bill that is based on the foundation of imaginative and irresponsible future growth figures that seek to hide inevitable future increases in borrowing and taxation. This is not a good Finance Bill for business, individual taxpayers, pensioners and public services. Sadly, I suspect that far worse is yet to come.
  8.18 pm
  Ms Meg Munn:In particular, I should like to address issues affecting small businesses, which I want to set in the context of regional development proposals and issues affecting regions—issues that have been mentioned by other Labour Members, as we are beginning to see the Government develop a strong regional agenda.
  Historically, there have been significant differences between the regions of Britain for many years. Some 20 years ago, I found myself working in the south-east. Indeed, I worked in Wokingham, although I see that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is not in his place. It was an interesting experience. I ended up working in Wokingham not out of choice—although I should say to the good people of Wokingham that I did not regret my period there—but because it was a time, under another Government, when the country was experiencing high unemployment. A certain gentleman who is now in another place exhorted those of us who were without work to get on our bikes to look for it, and that is indeed what I did. When I applied for the job I did not even know where Wokingham was, so I had to ask for directions to the interview. A huge contrast was evident between the situation of people living in that part of the south-east and that of those living in my home town of Sheffield. When I went back at weekends or for holidays, I saw that contrast very clearly in the
  604
  real deprivation that people suffered. The biggest indicator was that a pub in the south-east would have people in it during the week, which would not be the case in the north.
  We still have regional disparities, but I am pleased to say that deprivation in my part of the world is nowhere near as bad. People have benefited greatly from the stability of the economy and the measures implemented by this Government. Since I was elected nearly two years ago, I have seen a real improvement in the local economy, especially in terms of small businesses starting up. Parades of shops with significant numbers of empty properties are now occupied, because people are confident about starting up a business and operating effectively in the economy. However, earlier on under the Labour Government some parts of the economy did better than my part of the world. We must address that disparity between the regions. I therefore welcome the establishment of the regional development agencies. I particularly welcome the fact that when they were consulted on many of the issues that were dealt with in the Budget, they focused their input on enterprise, innovation, skills and regulatory reform—four aspects that all hon. Members would agree are important to the development of the economy, especially the small business sector.
  It is crucial for 1 he Government to encourage enterprise, not just take a laissez-faire approach that lets the market do what it will. In February, I was pleased to note that a survey by Global Entrepreneurship Monitor showed that of women in all the regions, those in Yorkshire are the most entrepreneurial. When I made that point previously in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who is not here, remarked that the technical term was "lasses", so I should perhaps say that Yorkshire lasses are the most entrepreneurial of all women in the UK. However, that masks the fact that women generally are not as entrepreneurial as men: only half as many women as men see themselves as likely to go into business. Moreover, the highest level of entrepreneurial activity by men, which is in the east of England, is more than twice that of entrepreneurial Yorkshire lasses. It is enormously important that the Government do what they can to support small business creation. The same survey showed that job creation by small businesses is strong. It is estimated that 55 per cent. of start-up businesses each create up to 11 jobs. Many more people now believe that they have entrepreneurial skills; 43 per cent. think that they have the appropriate skills to start a business, compared with 40 per cent. in the previous year. In place of the rather bleak picture that was painted by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), we can see a much faster-developing and encouraging picture.
  Representing a Yorkshire constituency, in Sheffield, I particularly welcome the focus of resources on deprived areas, where traditionally people have not been so entrepreneurial, have not looked to develop their own businesses and, indeed, have not had the resources behind them in order to do so. As well as containing measures that will benefit all start-up businesses, the Finance Bill specifically identifies ways in which businesses in deprived areas can be supported. The

  605
  extension of the Phoenix fund is intended to promote enterprise for disadvantaged groups and areas. That is supplemented by the development of enterprise areas, some of which are in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary explained how measures such as relief on corporation tax and first-year allowances will help start-up businesses.
  Once established, small businesses need to develop. I therefore welcome the Government's focus on innovation and their support for research and development. There are many ways in which businesses need to develop, and having met many representatives of small businesses in and around my constituency, I know that they are seeking that help and support, but sometimes feel that it is not so well advanced in our region for businesses of their nature. For example, people from Diva, a public relations company, told me that it was more difficult for them to develop the links and networks that they could build up if they were based in the south-east. That needs to be addressed further, not only through supportive mechanisms such as the business links programme, but through new mechanisms. In south Yorkshire, we have the benefit of objective 1 European funding, and strong developments are taking place as a result. Strong links between the regional development agency, business links and objective 1 are beginning to deliver many more benefits to small businesses.
  Also in south Yorkshire, in Doncaster, we have a company called Beta Technology Ltd., which is involved in helping businesses across Britain with technological solutions. Earlier in the debate, we discussed the importance of new technology and of developing, through research and development, different ways of delivering business solutions. When I recently went to visit the company, one of the interesting developments that I heard about was the way in which military technology can be applied in businesses to enable them to develop further. The company is channelling money from the European Union through to many businesses, making them stronger and more competitive and placing them at the cutting edge of the technology in their area of work, helping them to grow and ensuring that more people are employed. It is no surprise that the Budget was welcomed by the regional development agencies, whose involvement in the Budget processes was a new step. The process of dialogue with those agencies, which should be at the heart of the regions, is moving us forward.
  Of course, no discussion of small business would be complete without mentioning regulations—I am surprised that no hon. Member has done so. Small businesses in my communities are no different from those elsewhere. If one asked them, "Would you like more red tape or less red tape?", they would say, "Can we have a bit less red tape, please?", because nobody likes having lots of bureaucracy and regulations. We must recognise, however, that it is a matter of balance.
  The Government look to simplify company law whenever possible, especially for small businesses. They are making accounting procedures less onerous, but they are also ensuring that regulations that benefit overall business growth continue.
  606
  Many regulations exist to make employment better and deal with social issues about which Labour Members care greatly, including the minimum wage, paternity and maternity leave and health and safety. They ensure that the work force is valued and that the people who come to work in a company are fit, healthy and able to have a proper work-life balance.
  Mr. Simmonds: Does the hon. Lady accept that many regulations deter employers from taking on more employees?
  Ms Munn: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman cited many regulations that Conservative Members especially like to cite. However, many are traffic regulations or affect matters that do not impinge on businesses.
  When I visit small businesses in particular, they tell me that they come across specific problems, but because they have fewer than 25 employees, they do not encounter them often, hence they do not know where to go for advice. Big companies or local authorities have personnel departments and probably specialists who know what to do. Exactly the same problems affect employees in small businesses, but the support is not always available for them.
  Mr. Love: My hon. Friend was far too kind in not reminding Conservative Members that the former right hon. Member for Henley, who claimed morning, noon and night that he would get rid of regulation, was responsible for the greatest increase in it.
  More than abolishing regulation, more than having access to finance and other support, small businesses want a good, stable economy, which the Government are providing.
  Ms Munn: I agree. Small businesses value the low interest rates and knowing that they can continue to operate in a stable environment.
  Much advice exists, and making it available to small businesses is important. I therefore especially applaud the work of the Yorkshire and Humberside chamber of commerce, which is working with partners such as the regional development agencies, local authorities, local business partnerships and the Yorkshire Post. It has established a red tape-busting roadshow, which is making its way around the county, advising on a range of issues such as employment legislation, the minimum wage, paternity leave, stakeholder pensions, health and safety, business taxation and environment taxation to ensure that people who run small businesses know where to go to get the advice to help them understand what they need to do. Business people are no different from the rest of us. Things often sound worse than they are and knowing that clear advice is available and where to obtain it is important.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: In my hon. Friend's constituency, like mine, the entrepreneurial small business soon learns the access routes to information and grants. When there is money at the end of the rainbow, small businesses learn fast how to deal with what they would normally call red tape.
  Ms Munn: My hon. Friend makes a pointed comment, with which I agree. Small businesses learn

  607
  what they need to do but that does not mean that it is not a good idea to ensure that people know about their responsibilities, which enable them to have a good, trained, healthy and happy work force. In the long run, that will increase their business profitability.
  Britain is moving in the right direction. The Budget, the Finance Bill and the measures that the Government have introduced not only this year but in previous years have made Britain a good place in which to start and run a business. As I made my way down to Westminster yesterday evening, I listened to a programme on Radio 4 on which a range of French people were interviewed. They were clear that Britain was a much better place in which to start a business and that the regulations were much simpler and more straightforward than on the continent.
  Small businesses have grown in my constituency. The Government support the growth and development of business and I welcome their acknowledgement that development is different in different regions. The regions must be given a key role in driving the agenda.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Michael Weir: The Chief Secretary opened the debate by describing the measure as a Bill for enterprise and fairness. I can only assume that he is reading a different copy of the Bill from mine. The fact. that there is nothing in the measure to help Scotland's economy may explain the complete absence of Scottish Labour Members from this debate.
  The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), which has not been selected, sets out our view of this dog's breakfast of a Budget. It states:

  "It contains no proposals for amending the fiscal regime that will address its adverse effects on the Scottish economy, particularly as regards support for indigenous industries, and the widening disparity between the level of economic growth in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole."

  Although we have discussed the United Kingdom economy, we must bear in mind that the Scottish economy reacts differently in many ways.
  In his Budget statement, the Chancellor again cut his growth projections, increased his borrowing projections and ignored the needs of Scotland. Getting his sums wrong is nothing new. Between last year's Budget and this year's, he underestimated the UK's five-year deficit by an astonishing £48 billion. Two weeks ago, the National Audit Office pointed out that he had even got last year's deficit wrong by an additional £1 billion.
  The Bill does nothing to help Scotland. Under the Government's tenure, Scottish growth has been half that of the rest of the UK. Scotland needs genuine powers to enable us to tackle the fundamental problems of the Scottish economy. That is all the more reason for giving the Scottish Parliament full financial independence—something at which the Bill does not even hint. That is not only the view of the Scottish National party. Nobel prize winning economist Robert Mundell has backed Scottish independence. He said:

  "It could create the conditions that encourage educated labour supply, high quality education and necessary public works"

  as well as encouraging "direct foreign investment". That is not currently happening in Scotland.
  608
  In his introductory remarks, the Chief Secretary also said that the economy had experienced 43 quarters of growth. That is not true in Scotland. At the tail end of 2001, the Scottish economy went into recession. However, in the Budget, the Chancellor considered only UK growth forecasts., which he dropped to 2 per cent. Given that Scottish growth has been running at approximately half the rate of UK growth as a whole, that means that Scottish growth is likely to be around 1 per cent. at best.
  In an earlier intervention, a Labour Member talked about the recession in certain manufacturing industries and about the old industries, I think in Yorkshire and Humberside. In Scotland, however, we have seen the disturbing phenomenon of the new industries—the so-called sunrise industries—also going into recession, with the closures at Motorola and Compaq, and in various other areas. These policies have affected the old industries in Scotland under both Labour and Tory Administrations, and we are now seeing the same thing happening in the sunrise industries.
  How can we trust the growth figures quoted by the Chancellor and his continued optimistic growth forecasts for 2004–05, when we cannot even be sure about his predictions from last November?
  Ann McKechin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Weir: I will certainly give way, as someone from Scotland has deigned to turn up.
  Ann McKechin: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the fact that, in Glasgow, part of which I have the privilege to represent, the growth rate in jobs last year was the largest in any city in the United Kingdom? Jobs are flooding into the city and into the whole of Scotland, where the unemployment rate has consistently been going downwards. Is not the key to the issue the fact that full employment for Scotland has been achieved by a Labour Government? Is that not why the hon. Gentleman's party was so remarkably unsuccessful last week?
  Mr. Weir: That is a bit much, considering that the hon. Lady's own party had the wonderful distinction of losing six seats in the Scottish Parliament—three of them to us—and losing its enterprise Minister. That does not suggest that the Scottish people had a fantastic view of the Scottish economy under Labour. What she is saying is simply not the case. She says that there is full employment in Scotland, yet Scottish unemployment is the highest of all the countries in the UK, with 24,000 jobs having been lost in the past year, and 100,000 people in part-time or temporary work unable to find a full-time job. It is simply not true to say that there is full employment.
  The Scottish economy has been underperforming, with low long-term growth, and the Bill does absolutely nothing to address that. If Scotland had matched the growth of the UK since 1975, Scots would be £2,000 richer per person, and if we had matched the growth of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Scots would be £4,600 per person richer. But if we had managed to match the growth of other normal, small independent countries, we would be more than £5,000 per person richer.

  609
  Rather than improving, the situation is getting worse. Scotland has grown at half the UK rate since Labour came to power in 1997, and at one third of that rate since the Labour-Liberal Executive came to power in 1999. In fact, since Labour took office, Scottish growth has been the lowest in the European Union: 16th out of 16. Scotland can do a lot better than that, but this Government have made no positive impact on the lamentable record of the last six years. This Chancellor's record on improving Scotland's growth rate is one of abject failure.
  Addressing the appalling rate of growth in Scotland is not a matter of abstract macro-economics. Having and maintaining a high level of growth is fundamental to making our country the best that it can be for all those who live there. With strong economic growth, we can generate the additional resources needed to maintain and improve our public services, and afford additional police officers to patrol our streets, making Scotland a safer place to live. With strong economic growth, our businesses flourish, employing additional people and paying them more.
  Mr. Tyrie: Many might argue that the Scots are already getting more than their fair share of the slug from the Treasury, in order to fund those public services. Does the hon. Gentleman think that further increases in those resources for public services, or cuts back to the per capita level that we see in England, would be more likely to stimulate the growth that he wants to see in Scotland?
  Mr. Weir: More investment would stimulate that growth, but the hon. Gentleman is not correct to say that Scotland is receiving more. If he studies the Barnett formula—the Barnett squeeze—he will see that there is a fast-eroding differential between Scotland and England. That is one of the reasons why the Scottish Parliament needs full fiscal independence. If the hon. Gentleman adheres to the theory that he has just put forward, I should have thought that he would support full fiscal independence for the Scottish Parliament, to allow Scotland to raise its own taxes and decide its own spending levels without having access to the Barnett formula.
  The Finance Bill contains no measures to allow Scotland to reach its potential for economic growth, and that is why the Scottish National party cannot support it today. But, as I said, Scotland could do better if released from the constraints of measures such as this Bill. Even within the European Union, small nations have outperformed large nations. The small nations' average is five times the growth of the Scottish economy. The Bill does nothing to help the Scottish economy become more competitive. Labour in Scotland has presided over a business rates regime that is higher than in the rest of the UK, and Labour in London insists that corporation tax should be the same in Scotland as in the rest of the UK despite compelling reasons for cutting it in areas where that would be a spur to the economy. Those are but two examples of Scotland being less competitive than it should be.
  Even within the current British Union, there is no reason for such centralised fiscal powers. Polls show that 70 per cent. of Scots want financial independence, and
  610
  there is increasing support for that across the political spectrum. The Principals of St Andrews, Abertay and Glasgow Caledonian universities, and the historian Tom Devine, have all spoken in favour of independence, as has the Nobel prize-winning economist Robert Mundell.
  When we look at the detail of the Bill, we must ask what has been done for industries that are important to Scotland. We have heard that the Chancellor did indeed freeze whisky duty, but whisky is still subject to disproportionately high taxation. I think it was the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) who mentioned the difficulties caused by treatment of stock for corporation tax purposes in the Scotch whisky industry, which will more than wipe out any benefit from the frozen duty.
  Having shocked the oil industry with last year's 10 per cent. tax increase, this year the Chancellor finally did one of the two things for which the SNP called last year, ending the differential taxation on pipeline infrastructure. Old pipelines such as those at St Fergus incur company tax at 70 per cent., while new ones like those at Bacton are taxed at 40 per cent. and the interconnector is taxed at 30 per cent.
  Full use of the infrastructure is in the interests of Scotland, which has many pipelines with capacity, and of the Treasury, which otherwise loses revenue on what companies will declare as construction costs. The SNP has campaigned for the tax change, which will come into effect next year and will be backdated to 1 January 2004. This is a victory for the party, and I congratulate the Chancellor on finally seeing sense.
  Unfortunately, however, the Chancellor's flash of sense did not extend to considering changes for the purposes of exploration and appraisal. Such changes are very necessary, as exploration and appraisal numbers have plummeted over the last five years. Last year's sudden changes have not helped, as the SNP predicted at the time. If we are to support an industry that is essential to north-east Scotland, including my constituency, we must bear that in mind. In a press statement the Chancellor said he would consider the point, but nothing has been done. Given that only 16 exploration wells were drilled last year, we need urgent action. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies noted,

  "government policy in this area still seems to be driven too much by short term revenue needs or changes in the oil price".

  Nothing in the Bill will help Scotland's rural economy. I asked the Chief Secretary earlier about the Impact on small businesses. He spoke at length about corporation tax and how it would help small companies, but in my part of Scotland—indeed, in Scotland as a whole—the vast majority of small businesses consist of self-employed people or partnerships. They pay not corporation tax but income tax. The Government seem to be aiming their help for small businesses at those that are incorporated, while doing little or nothing for those that are not.
  The Chief Secretary cited various minor tinkerings that might help unincorporated businesses, but many such businesses complain to me that they feel pressurised to go for incorporation in order to reduce their tax bills. It would be a great pity if they did so,

  611
  because in many areas self-employed small business men and partnerships constitute the driving force of the local economy. Incorporation would cause them numerous difficulties along with the possible advantages. Accountants are telling such clients, however, that they must consider incorporation. Given that they pay income tax, I realise that it can be difficult to differentiate, but I think the Government should consider the matter.
  The Bill imposes an annual uprating of fuel duty, but defers it until October. As the Chief Secretary will know, that is a huge issue in rural Scotland: the increase will hit both businesses and individuals there very hard. Purely using price mechanisms to cut demand, whether for green reasons or otherwise, will surely hit hardest those least able to afford the increase; yet nothing is done in this Bill to soften the blow to rural Scotland.
  In his Budget speech on 9 April, the Chancellor said:

  "Owing to the recent high and volatile level of oil prices as a result of military conflict in Iraq, I have decided to defer the 1.28p a litre annual revalorisation of fuel duties until six months from now—1 October—and I will legislate to this effect. And if the current international uncertainties and volatility remain, I will not proceed with the change at all."—[Official Report, 9 April 2003; Vol. 403, c. 278.]

  Yet clause 4 merely states that the provision will come into effect on 1 October; there is no indication as to how the Chancellor will decide whether to impose that rise. I ask the Chief Secretary—or whoever else winds up for the Government—to tell us at what level of oil price or fuel price the Chancellor would consider the increase should not be imposed? Or is it the case that this is just window dressing, and that the increase will be imposed come what may? Does the wording of the Bill indicate that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the "uncertainties" have already gone away'?
  We heard earlier in the debate about the working families tax credit and the benefits that it brings to many people. I do not know what other Members are experiencing in their constituencies, but in mine, although the WFTC might indeed be of benefit, unfortunately there is great difficulty in actually getting it, because of the chaos in the system. This issue has been raised on numerous occasions; indeed, in last Monday's statement it was pointed out that a special hotline would be created for MPs. In fact, I received a letter this morning, giving me that hotline number. So my office telephoned the hotline about the many complaints that we have received. To be fair, we finally got through after several attempts, and we managed to get the necessary information and sort out a couple of the problems.
  However, we were then told that it would probably be a couple of weeks before the money came through, despite the fact that some of my constituents were getting increasingly desperate and had had no money for four weeks. Then—lo and behold—the system crashed yet again. So even on the MPs' hotline, the system is prone to crashing. Although that issue is perhaps not covered by this Bill, it relates to the income tax and finances of ordinary people in this country and in many areas of Scotland. It must be dealt with as a matter of urgency, because it has dragged on for almost six weeks, which is totally unacceptable.
  612
  As I said at the outset, this year's Budget and the Bill before us offer nothing for Scotland and totally fail to address the real problems of the Scottish economy. We will not support the Bill this evening.
  8.52 pm
  Kali Mountford: Before getting to the main subject of my remarks—my constituency and the economic development of west Yorkshire and Yorkshire as a whole—I want to begin by returning to certain issues that have already been debated.
  Opposition Members seemed to suffer the amnesia that they usually suffer in debates such as this, and I want to put the record right regarding some of the remarks that were made, especially those on administrative waste. It is still not clear to me whether the Conservatives would cut a fifth of waste, a fifth of public services or a fifth of administrators.
  Mr. George Osborne: The answer is a fifth of waste.
  Kali Mountford: If that is what they are planning to do, that is a great achievement, is it not?
  Let us look at what the Conservatives did in office—they cannot shy away from that period—to deal with administrative waste. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) spoke about the collapse of an IT system; sadly, in government such things are not new. The investments made in IT by the Home Office and the former Department of Social Security were disasters, and both occurred under the Conservatives. What did the Conservatives do about public expenditure year on year? This Government have moved to three-year—in some cases, five-year—rolling programmes, thereby enabling us to know what will be invested in each Government Department. That saves money, because investment in Government Departments is planned for the long term. There is none of the rash spending at the end of the year, whereby representatives of each Department went to the Government and said, "All the money has been spent, and obviously it has been spent wisely, because it has all gone." The idea was that, with a little luck, they could spend enough to go slightly over, and put in a bid for a bit more for next year. If that is wise spending, it is not what a typical housewife or ordinary family would advise doing with a budget. Implementing a three-year rolling programme is a wise way of getting rid of waste.
  On the subject of waste and sound investment, we should consider some of the reforms that Conservative Members overlooked. They made great play of health policy this evening, but primary care trusts have made great savings in my constituency—on drugs budgets, all aspects of screening and the administration of health. The savings have been ploughed back into patient care, which has experienced record investment. It is not investment in nothing; I can say precisely where it went.
  Some of the capital expenditure invested in my constituency was an absolute necessity. Equipment in some hospitals was at the point of collapse. A couple of days after the new Labour Government took office in 1997, we would have been lucky if operations could have been undertaken without a sticking plaster over the dilapidated equipment. My constituency has, however, now had a new hospital, new screening equipment, and

  613
  record numbers of nurses and new consultants. There is now such competition in the health sector that it is sometimes difficult to train people in time to take up the new jobs that have been created. That is not spending for spending's sake, but spending in order to improve health.
  Neonatal intensive care is another important issue in my constituency. If we want to assess whether a community is prospering, figures on mortality are highly significant, and neonatal mortality is perhaps most important to families. Great improvements have been built on investment in new technologies and new treatments that did not exist or were not used before 1997. Such advances in medical and health care are important. People are being treated in a way that was not possible before, because neither the equipment nor the specialist nursing staff existed. That is the sort of investment that we want, and I can see it happening in my constituency.
  No two places in the country are alike. In fact, no two wards in my constituency are alike, so it is not surprising that economic development has to be considered on a local and regional basis; talk of a north-south divide is long past its sell-by date. Holme Valley South in my constituency is rated 6,299 out of 8,414 wards, whereas Crosland Moor rates only 861st. The two wards are a microcosm of the overall picture. The well-off people in Holme Valley South earn, on average, £28,000 a year, whereas the average national income per family is £23,000 a year and the average for Kirklees, where my constituency is based, is £21,000 a year. That provides an index of relative prosperity. In Crosland Moor, however, average earnings are about £19,500.
  In what sort of jobs and industry are people engaged in those two areas? In Crosland Moor, far too many people—7.5 per cent.—are not engaged in any industry at all because they are not in work. In the rest of my constituency, only about 2.3 per cent. of the work force are unemployed. We have clear divides not just between north and south, or between Yorkshire, Scotland and elsewhere, but within constituencies. There are huge divides between what people earn and how well off they are.
  In looking at public investment, we should look at Crosland Moor, the poorest ward in my constituency and one of the poorest in the country. Investment there has been made in the public sector and, specifically and most effectively, in schools. In 1997, the exam results in schools in Crosland Moor showed that only 28 per cent. of pupils were attaining five GCSEs at A to C. Now, 58 per cent. of pupils are achieving those essential GCSEs to help them develop their careers. That increase is mirrored exactly by the amount of investment made in the area.
  We should make no apologies for the fact that there has been greater investment in Moor End high school, which is now a technical college and has achieved specialist status, than in Holme Valley South school. The reason is clear. Some 68 per cent. of pupils in that school attain the levels of achievement I mentioned, and it is wise and sensible not to leave some people behind in our economy. Why should pupils in Moor End high
  614
  school be left with no support? That investment is vital to give people the chance that they deserve so that they can break the cycle of unemployment.
  The vast majority of people in my area work in manufacturing and, overall, they earn less than those working in the service sector. In Holme Valley South, the richest of my wards, almost everybody—apart from 6 per cent.—works in services. That tells us something about how people earn, and we can then look at how they spend their money.
  My constituency has a close relationship with the textiles industry. Recently, we had one steel business, but, sadly, Bekaerts, the Dutch company concerned, decided that the underwiring for ladies' undergarments did not need to be made in Britain. I am afraid that ladies will no longer be able to buy British underwired bras.[Interruption.] I do not know whether I like to be upheld by the British or not, but we will see what the quality of the new underwired bras of the future will be. The company took the business not to China or elsewhere in Asia, but to Europe; indeed, the company produces most of its wiring in Holland and Germany. It did not do so because there is less red tape there; indeed, we could argue that there is more.
  We must look deeply at different industries and sectors. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) needs to do the same when he looks at some of the new businesses that he said had fled our shores. Some of the companies in the "micro-bubble" may have overextended and over-anticipated sales. There is now a different scenario for the mobile phone industry, for example, and for others that are easy to move around the world. The textiles industry is not portable; it uses cumbersome machinery that cannot be picked up.
  I would argue that, in most of the wards that depend heavily on textiles, every single person has found new employment when a factory closure has been announced. We could argue that it does not matter as long as people are in high-quality and well-paid jobs. We might argue that we should not be bothered whether we have a textiles industry at all. However, I think that we should be bothered. We need a diverse economy. That is why we need a Yorkshire plan.
  Last Friday, I spoke at a conference held by the Transport and General Workers Union and the textile employers confederation. The other speaker was the chief economic adviser to the Treasury, so I was in good company. The conference underlined what I think the Budget should be about—a regional response to economic growth.
  We need a plan for Yorkshire. The regional development agencies made a start. I was heavily critical of Yorkshire Forward in its early years. I did not feel that it took textiles seriously. Its attitude was familiar: as long as there is some sort of job, why should people be bothered? Conversely, the impression was given that that was not an issue for people who were not in objective 1 or 2 areas.
  I think that we should be concerned about all areas. Britain should not be a country of several speeds. We should look at investing in all areas, so that people in my constituency run at one speed—the fastest and best speed, so that that they can be part of everything.

  615
  For me, that means that it is not good enough for industry to say that corporation tax cuts do not affect people, and that the grant systems are too complicated to make applications worthwhile. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), my next-door neighbour, said that new businesses apply very quickly for grants. However, textile firms are in a very old trade, and they do not want to apply for grants at all, mainly because they feel that they do not want to give up control of their businesses.
  The European country with the best growth in textiles is Italy. The Italian product is no better than the British product, but its image is different. The Italian way of business is more collaborative, and British business cannot afford to stay as it has always been, producing the same old cloth with no regard to what customers want. Some Ministers have fallen foul of the usual question—do people wear British clothing?—but manufacturers must not blame customers for not wanting British products. They must look at what they should be producing.
  There are good examples in Europe. It is not true that the Italians can produce something better than we can. or that they somehow bend and break all the state aid rules. Using collaborative methods, it is perfectly possible to invest in industries throughout the supply chain. Producers clustering together can have a real impact on the economy, enabling textiles to be part of Britain's future prosperity.
  By using that approach to release some of the energies in the RDAs and allow them to do more of what they have been doing, I believe that a real turnaround could be achieved. In my area, the RDA has invested £963,000 in the Huddersfield textile centre of excellence. It has also invested a further £500.000 in a new building for the centre. That money is being spent on new units, and on securing more collaboration between universities and businesses, to ensure that the designers of the future stay in the north and do not automatically go to Milan, London or New York.
  We need people with the necessary skills to stay at home, and to feel that they have a future. Grants have been made available for new start-up businesses, so that they can put their energies into traditional factories run by traditional owners. The newcomers will be able to set out the new way forward for textiles. Although the traditional woollen cloth was very good and of high quality, we need to provide some of the things that people want to buy.
  In addition, there are new textiles that can be used in the infrastructure of machinery. Reference is often made to the textiles used in the computer industry, but they can be used even in the car industry. I do not only mean as part of the upholstery, either, as a car chassis can be made from fibre. We have an opportunity to take what is old, invest in it and turn it into something new. If we allow the RDA to develop, invest in it and use it in a way that suits Yorkshire and lets Yorkshire people decide for themselves what is best for their economy, every part of Colne Valley can start to move at one speed. It will not be the Crosland Moor, going down hill speed, but will grow faster and faster so that there are Holme Valley Souths all over Yorkshire.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I draw the House's attention to the interests that I have registered. With a father who sells wallpaper and a mother who runs a food shop, I am living testimony to the fact that we are a nation of shopkeepers, although anyone who reads the "Society" section of The Guardian might think we are becoming a nation of public sector administrators.
  I have listened with interest to the debate. This is the first Finance Bill in which I shall be involved, and the Standing Committee will be the first Finance Bill Committee on which I will sit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I thought, did a brilliant job of demolishing parts of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say in Committee. I was not so impressed with the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) who gave us a bit of a Whip's attack-the-Tories handout. I am not sure whether he is on the Committee, but I hope that he is not so that I do not have to listen to that sort of rubbish for four weeks.
  In preparing for the Committee, I went on Friday to see some small businesses in my constituency. In the village of Over Peover, a gentleman named Reg Lawrence took me on a tour, as he has done, he says, for every Member for the area, notorious and less so, since the 1960s. He introduced me to small businesses that are struggling to make a living. Small business people there would have listened with incredulity to what the Chief Secretary said about what the Government have done to make life easier for them. To a person, they told me that they are struggling under a mound of red tape, extra regulations and taxation. They simply would not accept the rosy picture that the Chief Secretary sought to paint in his lengthy speech.
  For example, I talked to Frank Rudd, a tomato grower in Over Peover, who has several acres under greenhouses. Anyone who wants to grow tomatoes commercially has to heat the greenhouses. As a result, Mr. Rudd has been stung by the climate change levy, which has cost him hundreds of pounds. When the rebate ends, his bill will go up further. That levy does nothing to protect the environment or reduce his heating bill. All it means is that supermarkets in Britain are more likely to buy tomatoes from countries that do not have a climate change levy. It undermines Mr. Rudd's ability to employ people in my constituency, and it has done nothing for its stated purpose.
  Incidentally, my constituency also contains Britain's largest consultancy on nuclear power stations, which employs 1,000 people and has built every nuclear power station in the country. It regularly points out to me that if the levy really were a climate change levy, it would not be applied to the nuclear power industry. Whether one likes or hates that industry, one has to agree that it does not produce the greenhouse gases that the levy is supposed to tackle.
  Reg Lawrence took me to his flower-growing business. He produces 5 million chrysanthemums a year, and Members may have given some of his flowers to their loved ones. It is an impressive business, but he is being hit by extra taxation, new environmental regulations on the use of compost and other such things. Now, regulations and taxes may, in themselves, be good things. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), who is no longer in her place, said as much in her

  617
  speech. The regulations that we impose on business may, individually, deliver socially desirable things, and the hon. Lady talked about paternity and maternity leave and so on, which we all think are good things. I am about to be a father myself and am looking forward to the paternity leave that the Whips will doubtless give me when the time comes.
  We must accept, however, that those things come at a cost to business. Like many Members of Parliament, I sent a survey before the Budget to all the businesses in my constituency, large and small. I asked them what they felt about what was going to be in the Budget, what they wanted in the Budget, and what they felt about what the Government had done. The results were startling. Of the hundreds of businesses that responded, 88 per cent. say that they now spend more time dealing with Government regulation than they did five years ago. Not a single business said that it spent less time dealing with regulation now than it did five years ago.
  I noticed that, in the Budget, the Chancellor announced yet another, in effect, deregulation taskforce. He said that he was going to get outside experts to look at regulation and that he was going to hold Government Departments to account for their regulation. However, I think that we need to judge this Chancellor by his record. In the last full year, 2002, the Government introduced 3,839 new regulations.
  Mr. Boateng indicated dissent.
  Mr. Osborne: The Chief Secretary shakes his head. Those figures were provided by the Library.
  Mr. Laws: I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been keeping in close contact with his local businesses. What are the three main regulations that he would like the Government to abolish?
  Mr. Osborne: This parliamentary business is not time limited, so here we go. This is a classic example. I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and a permanent secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry appeared before us the other day. He told us about something called the warm fuel regulation.
  There are a lot of independent petrol retailers in the country. In the old days, a few years ago, the tanker would turn up and the independent petrol retailer would undo the top and put in the dip-stick to see how much petrol he had been given from the refinery, and that is how much he would pay for. Now, under new regulations, it has been decided that lifting the top off the petrol tank releases gas fumes into the environment and causes environmental damage—nothing like any motorway service station on a busy day, nothing like the hundreds of thousands of cars that fill up every day, but it has been decided that independent petrol retailers cannot open the top of their petrol tank and they cannot put the dip-stick in. That means that because petrol shrinks as it cools down on the journey from the refinery, they pay over the odds because they are charged for the amount that leaves the refinery rather than the amount that reaches them, and believe it or not,
  618
  according to the DTI, the cost of that to the independent petrol retailing industry is £90 million, which is putting a huge number of independent petrol retailers out of business.
  When the permanent secretary was before the Public Accounts Committee, I asked to see the documents that were produced when this environmental regulation was proposed and I asked for documents showing whether any assessment was made of its impact on the independent petrol retailing industry. Those documents were eventually produced. Of course those involved did riot have a clue that the regulations would cost the industry £90 million, and they have no plans to get rid of them.
  That is an example of one regulation off the top of my head. Would the hon. Gentleman like two more?
  Mr. Laws: Yes.
  Mr. Osborne: As Ministers say, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with two other examples. However, I am glad that I have got off my chest the warm petrol regulations, which are typical of the kind of thing that the Government do, and I do not mean that in a partisan sense. Regulations come out of the bowels of Government Departments and people have no idea in Whitehall of the impact that they will have.
  The Government have regulated an enormous amount and I have detailed how business people in my constituency feel about that. Of course, the Government have also increased taxation by a huge amount. Again this Finance Bill will introduce more taxation. It is not a blockbusting, tax-increasing Finance Bill of the kind that we have seen before from this Government, but the stealth taxes are there if one looks carefully enough.
  Clause 130 freezes personal allowances for income tax for people under 65. It is a classic stealth tax trick and of course will increase the tax burden for families. Clause 14 contains an above-inflation increase in vehicle excise duty. The duty on red diesel, which of course will hit the agricultural sector—one of the worst affected sectors of the economy in the past few years—is increasing by 38 per cent.
  I was particularly interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) was telling me about the reforms to stamp duty on leases, because if he is right, there will be a huge tax increase on many businesses: high street retailers such as Dixons—
  Mr. Simmonds: And B & Q.
  Mr. Osborne: And B & Q, and Borders. I understand that the Treasury says that that is tax neutral, yet the industry says that the cost will be £450 million, so someone is right and someone is wrong, and, no doubt, we will find out.
  Of course, the Finance Bill comes at a time when we are also being hit by the national insurance increase. Again, in my survey of businesses, I found that 15 per cent. of businesses in my constituency said that the national insurance increase would lead to redundancies in their businesses and 47 per cent. said that it would

  619
  lead to a slow-down in their recruitment. People should be aware that such taxes have a direct impact on employment in our constituencies.
  I note in passing that the CBI issued a warning today that, if current trends continue, up to 86,000 jobs will be lost in manufacturing industry in the first half of this year alone. That is particularly worrying for my constituents, as the CBI says that many of the jobs will be lost in the north-west.
  It strikes me that, in the 1980s, the Labour party did not really understand macro-economics. Indeed, I listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard), and, as far as I can work out, he still blames the gnomes of Zurich for the problems that the Wilson and Callaghan Governments ran into. He has not learned the proper lessons of macro-economics.
  The single greatest achievement of this Labour Government was to put the levers of macro-economic power out of their reach by giving the Bank of England independence, and it was a jolly good thing that they did. The problem now, however, is that the Labour party does not understand micro-economics. Labour Members do not understand what it takes to run a successful business. They do not understand that regulation and taxation undermine the ability of companies to compete.
  The Chancellor lamented in his Budget the fact that Britain and Europe still had a productivity gap of 20 to 30 per cent. with the US economy. He said that we need to learn from America about innovation, competition and enterprise. I very much agree with him, but, frankly, with billions of pounds in extra taxes, thousands of extra regulations and a Budget that makes it more and more difficult for British businesses to compete, the Chancellor does not seem to want to learn the lesson.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. David Osborne.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: That mistake is frequently made, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Indeed, taxation has thrown my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and me together because we both live in the same part of west London during the week and, to avoid paying two congestion charges, we travel to work together, saving on pollution.
  Ms Munn: Get on your bikes.
  Mr. Cameron: We will obviously get on our bikes when the summer is here in full.
  It is a delight to follow my hon. Friend in the debate, and I very much agree with what he had to say.
  I should draw the House's attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a consultant to Carlton television—the media company where I worked for seven years before being elected to the House—and I am a non-executive director of a company called Urbium, which owns bars and restaurants. I say that without any sense of shame.
  All of us who sit on the Back Benches spend a lot of time in our constituencies, seeing where the money that the economy generates is spent. We go to hospitals,
  620
  schools and police stations—all incredibly useful experiences. We also visit a lot of businesses, but I find that there is nothing quite like spending a few hours every now and again in a business, looking at its problems and the costs that it faces, trying to understand more about the market that it is in and what is happening to that vital thing in the economy—sentiment.
  I do not say that the Government have got it all wrong on the economy. Giving independence to the Bank of England was the right step, and it has had a positive effect. I repeat what I said in an intervention, I think, on the speech made by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale). Our economy has been growing for almost 10 years, and credit for that should go to the last Government and the current Government.
  I do not say that everything in the Budget is wrong. The abolition of bingo taxation and the pension changes while people stay in hospital are hugely positive, and I support them, but, overall, this is the wrong Finance Bill for this time. The real test for a Chancellor of the Exchequer is not to make popular decisions when things are going well, but to make the right decisions when things start to go badly. The great tragedy is that prudence has gone out the window, perhaps just when it will be needed most. For the first few years, the present incumbent was prudent and careful; now he seems to be taking great risks.
  I shall explain why I believe that this is the wrong Finance Bill by answering four questions. First, why are taxes going up when the economy is in a fragile state? There is no doubt that taxes are going up—one has only to read to page 257 of the Red Book, but when one gets there, one finds that taxes are going up by more than £30 billion in the current year. Predominantly, those increases are in national insurance and income tax, so consumers are being hit hard in the pocket at a time when the economy is fragile. There can be no doubt that the economy is fragile. As has been pointed out, the current savings ratio is very low, and the economy has been propped up by consumers borrowing a great deal of money and spending in the high street. We have a many-speed economy manufacturing has been in recession for many quarters, the property market is much more fragile than it has been, and one has only to listen to Government forecasts for economic growth to understand the extent of that fragility, because those forecasts keep being downgraded, particularly for the current year. The Government are therefore putting up taxes at a time when the economy is fragile.
  Secondly, why are taxes going up when public service reform has not been implemented? I remember the Chancellor writing that great article in The Sun in which he said that there would be not another penny for the national health service until it had been reformed. Today, however, an extra £200 million has been spent—and much more besides—without there being a statement in the House, in a deal to try to get support for the Government's Bill tomorrow. I do not say that the extra money invested in public services has not led to any improvements. It has led to improvements: one cannot physically spend that much money without some improvements. In my constituency in Oxfordshire, however, the police service in the Thames Valley has not a single extra policeman compared with 1997, because it cannot retain them.

  621
  On the national health service, the last time I looked, my local trust had a shortage of more than 400 nurses. As for education, I have been inundated with letters from primary and secondary school teachers talking about having to deficit-budget this year, having to cut back and having to reduce the number of classes and increase class sizes. I therefore cannot see the level of improvements about which Labour Members have spoken. We are therefore putting up taxes at a time when the Government have given no proof that that money is being spent properly.
  Thirdly, why are taxes being put up nationally when taxes are going up so sharply locally? All Members, I am sure, have spent time during the last month canvassing for the local elections. On virtually every doorstep in west Oxfordshire, the council tax and the 17 per cent. increase that people were having to pay, was raised. When people look in their pay packets this month, however, they will see a substantial increase in national insurance contributions and one of the most regressive taxes, which hits the low-paid significantly—the restriction of allowances. Taxes are therefore being put up nationally and locally at the same time.
  Fourthly, if taxes are going up locally and nationally, why is debt going up so rapidly in this country? We are now at the end of a 10-year cycle of economic growth, yet this year—one would have thought that, at the end of a period of growth, one would be paying back debt—the Chancellor is to borrow £24 billion. If we add up the planned public sector borrowing requirement over the next four years, he will borrow £81 billion. That is a huge amount of debt to amass when one is predicting, as he is, economic growth of 3 per cent. next year and 3 per cent. the year after. When growth is on that scale, one should not borrow at that level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said clearly, the Government completely misunderstand the role of macro-economic and micro-economic policy.
  Lord Lawson, in what I think was the most important economic speech in the past 20 years, said that the role of macro-economic policy should not be, as it was in the 1960s and 1970s, to try to demand-manage the level of unemployment: it should be about controlling inflation and giving stability. He said that micro-economic policy, which in the 1960s and 1970s was all about controlling inflation using such things as price controls, income policies and wages boards—thank God that they have gone—should promote high levels of employment and growth and improve the supply side.
  The Government are getting both policies wrong. Their macro-economic policy will not provide the stability that we need because we are borrowing and taxing to a great extent while the economy is fragile. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton about their micro-economic policy and, like him, I have conducted a survey. Every business one speaks to says that there are huge quantities of red tape and many new taxes and costs. They are not all the Treasury's fault—I give Ministers that—because one of the biggest complaints is about the increases in employers' liability insurance and professional indemnity insurance, much of which is due to no win, no fee litigation. However, the Treasury has done nothing to address those problems.
  622
  My survey showed that 85 per cent. of businesses were spending more time on regulation than they did in 1997; almost half spent five or more hours a week. When the Government think about their Budget and how they raise taxes, they must consider whether they are making it easier for businesses to grow and employ people. We will have a sustainable high level of employment if we make it easier for one person to employ another. Representatives of small businesses, especially very small businesses, who visit my surgery tell me that they have no ambition to grow any more because the Government treat them like benefit offices, because the pay-as-you-earn regime is so complicated, because of the gold plating of European Union directives and because of all the extra costs and requirements that are piled on them. The Government should concentrate on those issues but they have instead produced an incredibly long and complex Finance Bill with 447 pages, 214 clauses and 43 schedules, despite the fact that most people agreed that the Budget was fairly dull.
  The one message that should be taken from the debate is that it is wrong to raise taxes on the scale that the Government propose at a time when the economy is fragile. The Chancellor's reputation is well past its peak. If his forecasts prove to be wrong once again, businesses in our constituencies will pay dearly for his mistakes.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests.
  We have had an illuminating debate in which well-informed and thoughtful contributions from right hon. and hon. Members have thrown light on the dark recesses of the Finance Bill and the Chancellor's Budget. Far from being a Budget of enterprise and fairness, as the Chief Secretary claimed, it and the Bill will be deeply damaging to enterprise and business and unfair to the people in this country who are least able to bear the Chancellor's tax hikes.
  Fascinatingly, the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) told us about support for small businesses in their regions, and I salute them for raising that point. They suggested that the 447 pages of the complex Bill would diminish regulation and help such businesses. However, they managed to make their speeches without referring to the Chancellor's proposals for regional pay bargaining, although that is hardly a surprise.
  We shall not forget the intervention made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) during the speech made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who spoke for the Scottish National party. Amazingly, and perhaps to the surprise of her constituents, she suggested that Glasgow is outside the United Kingdom. We had not realised that she supported the agenda of the hon. Member for Angus.
  By contrast, all who were in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) made his speech would have been struck by his clear and incisive critique of the Bill. We must hope that his experience and wisdom will, for once, make the Government listen. Assuming that the Bill receives its Second Reading, we hope that they will amend it in Committee so that it reflects and benefits from his outstanding contribution. We hope that they will join his parallel universe rather than carrying on in theirs.

  623
  Yet again, the Government have produced a Finance Bill that provides the detail that the Chancellor was reluctant to mention in his Budget speech when he had to admit to the House that he had got all his figures wrong. At the end of November he was forced to admit that his forecasts on growth were wrong. his forecasts on revenue were wrong, his forecasts on borrowing were wrong and his forecasts on his deficit were wrong. On Budget day he was back at the Dispatch Box to admit yet again that his forecasts on growth, delivered barely four months ago, were wrong; that his forecasts on revenue yet again were wrong; that his forecasts on borrowing yet again were wrong; and that his forecasts on his deficit yet again were wrong. But it did not stop there.
  Just a fortnight after the Budget we saw further failures in the Chancellor's supposed powers of forecasting. Official statistics showed that public sector net borrowing in the year to the end of March surged to £25.2 billion compared with the £24 billion figure that the Chancellor forecast in his Budget speech—more than £1 billion out in the space of just two weeks. It is hardly surprising that official and highly respected independent bodies are queuing up to contradict the Budget's central arithmetic. The Office for National Statistics has contradicted the Chancellor's borrowing figures and released lower than expected growth figures. The OECD has questioned the Chancellor's future growth predictions. The ITEM Club has warned that the Chancellor's numbers are "wildly optimistic". Indeed, its analysis suggests that the Treasury will need to raise £10 billion in additional tax revenues to cover the shortfall—a shocking £170 per head of UK. population. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has predicted that public sector net borrowing will approach £40 billion in 2005–06 compared with the Government forecast of £23 billion.
  If that is right, the Chancellor will be forced to explain yet again to the House how he got it so wrong and put up taxes again. As a result of the failures of this increasingly discredited Chancellor, there will already be more pain tomorrow unless we take action during the Bill's passage to end Labour's agenda of tax and spend and fail, as devastatingly demonstrated in the typically broad and deep speech of convincing cogency delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
  There have been five Budgets and 53 tax rises under Labour. This Finance Bill adds even more to that list, the damaging effects of which were brought to light so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in a well-targeted speech. They include a 35 per cent. rise in red diesel duty for farmers, an extension of the IR35 stealth tax and above inflation increases in car tax. We have had six Budgets and 60 tax rises under Labour.
  Let us consider the Bill's specific provisions, which the Chief Secretary certainly did not. He was long on words, giving wave after wave of assertions, but there was a complete absence of detail even when pressed. In his attempt to support his own Finance Bill, he was an evidence-free zone. Last year the Government encouraged sole traders to incorporate by introducing lower corporation tax rates for small companies. The Government were fully aware during last year's debate on the Finance Bill that the interaction of lower
  624
  corporation tax rates and dividend planning would provide tax advantages for incorporated businesses. None the less, they introduced the legislation without amendment. That legislation was relied on and subsequently acted on by a number of individuals who incorporated. Now, only a year later, on the grounds of tax avoidance, this Finance Bill is proposing legislation that will tax some of those individuals as if they had not incorporated at all. Those measures are not targeted at wealthy tax planners; they affect domestic workers, such as gardeners—they could even hit butlers, which I am sure will give the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) cause for worry.
  Normal taxpayers who relied on the Government's legislation in good faith will be affected. Not only is the Treasury treating them like tax avoiders, but it is trying to introduce the anti-avoidance legislation in such a way that the individuals concerned will have to submit two self-assessment returns for this tax year properly to reflect their tax affairs. So those individuals who were encouraged by the Government to incorporate will be left with the increased burden of corporate regulation, no tax incentives and considerable complexity in self-assessing their tax affairs.
  Do the Chief Secretary and the Paymaster General recall the Red Book strapline just a month ago? Is this the way in which to build economic strength and social justice? Hidden away in the Budget press releases is the first admission by the Government that our national tax system is heading for major conflict with the European Court. However, this Finance Bill seems to be taking an interesting route. Certain clauses seek to limit the application of European law. The Government's lack of clear direction in the application of European law and the protection of the UK tax system is becoming increasingly worrying. What is clear beyond doubt is that the apparent conflict between UK and European law is creating significant uncertainty for British business.
  The Bill includes 83 clauses and 17 schedules that attempt to modernise stamp duty, a modernisation that leaves us with the worst of all options. Stamp duty is retained to be applied to securities transactions and certain partnership transactions; stamp duty reserve tax is to be applied to securities transactions, and a new tax—stamp duty land tax—is to be applied to land transactions. We now have three taxes with different rules, all of which are complex and have to be mastered by taxpayers. The Government have also missed the opportunity to reform stamp duty for home owners and remove the iniquities of the market. Following the abandoned consultation exercise, the Government have included in a raft of legislation clauses that will dramatically change the stamp duty treatment of leases on the assumption that businesses ignore commercial factors and lease property instead of buying it to avoid tax. According to Inland Revenue figures, that would increase the stamp duty burden fourfold for leases over 10 years and eightfold for leases over 25 years. It is not just big businesses that will be adversely affected. A large number of small and medium-sized businesses will experience a significant impact, which was so ably highlighted and dissected by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) in an authoritative and compelling speech.

  625
  The Government of course argue that they have introduced the threshold of £150,000, which will insulate small and medium-sized businesses from the increased tax burden. However, that threshold will not exempt a 25-year lease with an annual rent of £10,000, nor will it exempt a 10-year lease with an annual rent of £20,000. Such leases are certainly not uncommon for smaller businesses—pubs, for instance—that have made the commercial decision to seek longer-term leases to allow greater security and longer-term business planning. That trend will be eroded by the tax increase, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), who spoke for his constituents and, as a Member representing a neighbouring constituency, mine as well.
  Mr. Jack: Did my hon. Friend note that when this matter was first floated in the 2002 Red Book the figure for 2004–05 for the full-year effect of the changes in stamp duty was an increase of £450 million?
  Mr. O'Brien: That was noted. Indeed, my right hon. Friend's powerful point is another reason why, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, that part of it will receive intense scrutiny. As is clear both from remarks made during our debate and what I have just been saying, stamp duty proposals are an additional friction for businesses, affecting their competitiveness.
  The proposed changes to stamp duty will also dramatically affect sale and leaseback transactions. Such transactions provide a significant source of financing for business where an uncertain trading environment and depressed share prices, as we have seen recently, severely constrain companies' ability to fund growth. The proposed changes will reduce the attractiveness of sale and leaseback financing transactions and will be a further constraint on business. The Chief Secretary forlornly prayed in aid the fact that the British Retail Consortium, often representing the larger retail chains, said that stamp duty land tax was good for business. However, representing the smaller businesses in the sector, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers states that the tax

  "would result in major market distortions, drastically increasing the entry hurdles for small businesses."

  It continues:

  "Measures … designed to help support business start ups … will be undermined by the imposition of a tax on business start ups in the form of stamp duty on leases. There is a clear lack of joined up thinking in the tax regime for small businesses."

  One of the striking and depressing features of the Chief Secretary's opening speech was his claim that there was no room for complacency on regulation. He was of course right to say so, but his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde that he was not complacent and that the Government were doing everything right for small businesses was the ultimate oxymoronic phrase, even for this Government. Stamp duty land tax is the wrong way to tackle tax avoidance. What is needed is genuine reform and a collaborative approach with business.
  The Bill includes several anti-avoidance measures, the motivation for which is understood and justified. However, in many cases the legislation is overbearing
  626
  and overreaching. That will be particularly onerous for businesses that are not avoiding tax but on whom the legislation will none the less impact, either through additional taxation or through an increased reporting and regulatory burden.
  Not only business is affected. Individuals not seeking to avoid tax are also caught up in the burden of the anti-avoidance legislation, particularly through increasingly complex self-assessment calculations. For example, on employee securities and options, there are 73 pages of detailed anti-avoidance clauses. In the world of self-assessment, that places a significant burden on individuals. First, they have to understand the legislation and its impact, then they have properly to self-assess their tax position in their tax return. In many cases, detailed advice will be required.
  The legislation is academically driven, and it contains a number of subjective elements. The cost of getting the judgment wrong is stark. If the share option is taxed as income rather than capital, the effective rate of tax can rise from 10 per cent. to 53 per cent. The business granting the option will be liable if it gets the judgment wrong. That means that a well-meaning company and an employee will both need extensive advice to ensure that they do not fall foul of the legislation. In some cases, the cost of getting it wrong could be so penal that the company will not be able to take the risk of running certain share option schemes.
  The Bill increases the burden of excise duties. Hard-pressed farmers in my constituency and throughout the country will see the duty on red diesel increase by some 35 per cent. We will want detailed explanations from the Government as to why this year's tobacco duty increases will not simply compound the problems of smuggling and the legitimate cross-border market, thereby not tackling the key issue of reducing consumption—a point raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. We are glad to have his and, I hope, the rest of his party's support, and we look forward to their promised amendment to introduce a local income tax via the Bill, on which, in the run up to the local government elections, they said that they did not wish to be drawn—no wonder, as it would hit worst and nastily on those who can least afford such a misguided tax.
  The bingo industry has been moved to the gross profit tax system, but unlike the rest of the gaming industry it will still suffer VAT. The Chancellor has failed to meet the promises that he made for a level playing field and has introduced discrimination within the gaming industry, disadvantaging bingo despite the Chancellor's attempt at his only and extraordinarily weak joke in his Budget speech.
  The Government will be taking £405 billion in tax this year. That is a 50 per cent. leap up on 1997 and the equivalent of £44 a week more in tax for every man, woman and child in the country. The Red Book shows taxes rising as a share of national income until almost the end of the decade. No longer is there any pretence of jam tomorrow. We are now on the road to higher taxes for the duration of this Government, however long or short a period that may be. By 2007–08, the Chancellor intends that 38.2 per cent. of national income will be taken in tax, compared with 34.9 per cent. in 1996–97. He plans to raise an extra £251 billion in taxes in

  627
  2007–08 compared with 1996–97. That is an extra £4,272 a year for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom.
  The Government claim to have placed reform of the welfare state at the heart of their strategy for promoting social inclusion. It is claimed that the new tax and benefit system will provide help for those who need it most, when they need it most. Why then has the Paymaster General, within weeks of the Budget, been forced to stand before the House apologising for the Chancellor's tax credit confusion and chaos, which has meant that some 300,000 applicants have not received the payments to which they are entitled? The Government's tax credit system is a shambles, resulting in distress and dismay.
  The Government claim to be committed to strengthening the savings habit of future generations. However, the Red Book reveals that the savings ratio has fallen by more than half since 1997. After two years, three separate consultations and numerous re-announcements, the Red Book provides some details about the proposed introduction of the child trust fund. But despite the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) hoping to explore that in detail, the Finance Bill makes no mention of it. The Red Book states that ISAs are the Government's primary vehicle for tax advantaged saving outside pensions, but the Finance Bill contains no provisions to prevent the removal of the 10 per cent. tax credit for ISA and PEP dividends from April 2004. As we well know, the removal of the dividend tax credit for pensions, a £5 billion a year tax, has resulted in a typical personal pension saver now retiring on half of what he or she would have received just five years ago.
  This Government have brought us more spending, borrowing, promises, failure and excuses, and through this Bill, they have brought us more taxes, but still no results. How does this discredited Chancellor expect people ever to trust him on tax again? He decided to call his Red Book "Building a Britain of economic strength and social justice". Has a Red Book title ever been so inappropriate? Independent commentators have been queueing up to say that he has got his economic figures wrong yet again. So much for economic strength. Will not the families caught up in the tax credit shambles view his promises on social justice as another sick joke?
  I urge hon. Members to vote for the amendment, reject the Bill and register their disgust about the fact that the Chancellor and his colleagues wish to impose a programme with a 12 June end date, allow only seven sitting days to scrutinise a Bill that adversely affects the lives of people and businesses throughout the country and stifle debate on a mean-spirited and unfair Finance Bill.
  9.50 pm
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I welcome the opportunity to bring to a close this Second Reading of the Finance Bill in the sure knowledge that, along with all hon. Members of the House, I look forward to debates about the detail of the Bill both in Committee of the whole House and in the Standing Committee. Many hon. Members have contributed to this debate and I should like now to deal with the points that they made.
  This year's Budget and this Finance Bill will help to position the UK economy and UK businesses to take advantage of emerging prospects for renewed growth in
  628
  the global economy. We are committed to a macroeconomic framework that has successfully delivered stability and growth and proved flexible and responsive in the face of global weakness and uncertainty, which is more than the Conservatives ever managed to do when they were in power. We are committed to maintaining an environment that is positive for business and for entrepreneurs, and we are succeeding. The CBI recently recognised that

  "we are the most successful economy in Europe"

  and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development rates the UK as having the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any major economy.
  However, we recognise that more can always be done. In previous Finance Bills, we have shown in the measures that we have introduced the importance that we attach to dealing with market failures that prevent small and medium-sized businesses from achieving their full potential or hold back their growth. In order to maximise the benefit that those measures provide, we have announced that we will introduce new definitions of small and medium-sized enterprises that will raise the size limits to the maximum allowed under European legislation. That will enable many more businesses to benefit from the measures introduced by this Government and in this Bill, such as the 40 per cent. plant and machinery allowances, the 100 per cent. allowance for information and communications technology and less onerous reporting and accounting regulations. From this April, 650,000 small businesses will be able to opt for the VAT flat-rate scheme, cutting out the paperwork associated with accounting for VAT on every transaction.
  We have long recognised the cost to our economy of the productivity gap between the performance of the UK and that of our major competitors—especially the United States of America. We have already introduced key reforms to improve our productivity, including full independence for competition authorities and more capacity to tackle anti-competitive practices. We have reduced the corporation tax starting rate from 10 per cent to zero so that 150,000 small businesses pay no corporation tax on their profits. That is more than the previous Government ever did, but Opposition Members now have the cheek to complain about small businesses, despite all the opportunities that the Government have provided.
  Although we have begun to make progress towards closing the gap, we still need to do more. The Bill is another important step in the productivity agenda for the private and public sectors. Clause 164 extends to March 2004 the 100 per cent. first-year allowance available to small businesses for spending on information and communications technology. Following feedback from business, the changes introduced in the Bill will improve the working of the research and development tax credit, allowing more businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and more types of expenditure, to qualify. This Government, not the previous Government, introduced research and development tax credits. This Government provided the means for companies to tackle the improvement of their productivity. These measures will help the UK to close the gap between American spending on research and development to around 2.8 per cent. of gross domestic product. We will

  629
  continue to consult business on improving the definition of research and development to ensure that it keeps up with technological changes and continues to contribute effectively to our productivity objectives. As hon. Friends have said, we must ensure that the definition stays effective and at the very forefront of developments.
  To ensure that growing businesses get the access to finance that they need, we are consulting on enhancing the enterprise incentive scheme, venture capital trusts and the small firms loans scheme. We have published a consultation document examining whether the adoption of a model similar to the United States small business investment companies could boost the supply of early-stage growth capital to enterprises in the UK. It is this Government who have taken that enterprise agenda forward, not the previous Government when they had the opportunity to do so.
  We have set out our commitment to supporting business and to introducing more effective measures to deal with market failure, but we must also maintain a fair tax system. Taxpayers who contribute their fair share have a right to expect that others will do so, and the Government will take action against those who abuse the system, ensuring that we provide for a level playing field. Loopholes giving scope for unfairness and economic distortion will be closed. Clauses 17 and 18 provide for a package of measures to tackle VAT fraud, especially missing trader fraud, which has become a serious problem across Europe.
  The Bill also includes specific measures to close down several avoidance schemes that certain businesses or individuals were using to avoid paying their fair share of tax. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) touched on that. With regard to clause 18, the anti-fraud measure is targeted at serial abusers of the tax system, imposing a joint and several liability for payment of unpaid VAT on specific commodities on anyone in the same supply chain. The in-built safeguards will ensure that innocent businesses are not unwittingly caught in the measure, which will be applied only to those businesses that Customs and Excise can demonstrate knew, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that the VAT in their supply chain was at risk of not being paid. The right hon. Member for Fylde asked how that will be decided. I can tell him that businesses that exercise care in their business activities and make reasonable checks on those with whom they deal will not be caught; and that we will consult people on what those reasonable checks should be to ensure that they reflect normal commercial practice.
  The Bill introduces measures to counter the avoidance of corporation tax, national insurance contributions and tax on employment income.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde also asked about tax planning. He made it sound as if once we had closed a tax planning opportunity, it would never reopen. He knows that the worlds of tax and commerce are far more complex than that and that it is a constant game of chess to maintain the balance between fairness and pressure on individuals and the Government's right, on taxpayers' behalf, to ensure that the correct amount of tax is raised.
  630
  In the Budget, the Chancellor allocated £66 million to the Inland Revenue to support the implementation of the new compliance and enforcement package for direct tax and national insurance. It is expected to produce at least £1.6 billion over the next three years. The National Audit Office audited those assumptions.
  In the Bill, the Chancellor confirms his commitment to a comprehensive modernisation of stamp duty. The Bill introduces a modernised tax on the modern business environment, with enforcement and compliance powers commensurate with other Inland Revenue taxes. It is a robust response to widespread tax planning and avoidance, which has distorted business decision making and given rise to complex and artificial vehicles to transfer property tax.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), like several other contributors, referred specifically to the stamp duty changes. The measures are designed to be as simple as possible while protecting revenue. Introducing blocks of new legislation rather than a host of detailed amendments is a much preferred approach. In the stamp duty reforms and the share scheme measures that other hon. Members mentioned, the approach adopted is the tax law rewrite and the Government need to move forward on that basis.
  Matters that affect stamp duty are twofold. The first set covers avoidance on commercial property transactions. Half all large commercial transactions are worth more than £10 million and pay 4 per cent. on property purchases, whereas the other half pay nothing by using a variety of complex avoidance techniques. That is clearly unfair and I cannot understand why hon. Members believe that the position should be allowed to persist. We are modernising the tax, making it e-compatible and introducing modern enforcement mechanisms to close the loopholes.
  The second set of issues involves stamp duty on new leasehold transactions. The current tax is based on upfront payments for a lease, paid at 4 per cent. and a payment based on an average annual rent. It is highly distorting and there are large cliff edges. It does not work properly and there is no level playing field. The proposals in the measure tackle all those matters and provide for further consultation about dealing with the avoidance mechanism.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) asked several questions about stamp duty. If he reads the Red Book, he will realise that it acknowledges that future Governments will consider the rates of stamp duty on residential and commercial property in relation to the conditions in each market. We make no apology for tackling the use of corporate wrappers to avoid the charge. Almost £500 million of tax a year is avoided. That cannot be fair to taxpayers who pay their taxes.
  The lease duty reform tackles the differential in tax charge between freehold and leasehold, which has an unsustainable driver of tax-distorting business. The proposals in the Bill make it clear that, on consultation, if a better way of dealing with the distortions is produced, the Government will consider it. We will not leave the distortions in place. The Finance Bill implements that intention.
  While raising a fairer share of tax from large commercial deals, the Government have sought to protect small businesses in a variety of ways through

  631
  thresholds, which the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness will have ample time to discuss. I should be happy to give him the detail.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) asked specific questions about tackling regional, economic and social inequality. Stamp duty on non-residential property transactions will be removed altogether in 2,000 enterprise areas to reduce the cost to business of locating and investing in disadvantaged areas and to support the regeneration of brownfield sites. That measure, in clause 57, is part of a wider package of measures to encourage business investment in our most deprived and disadvantaged communities. Without fail, Members speaking today have welcomed those measures and the way in which they can take forward the important steps of generating economic development in our disadvantaged areas. The Bill introduces changes that represent a major reform of a badly outdated component of the tax system. There has been consultation with business on the main provisions, and consultation will continue in other areas, particularly in regard to the lease duty, giving business further chances to feed back on our proposals.
  We have shown that we are determined to build a tax system that supports families, particularly those on medium and low incomes, through the working tax credit and the child tax credit, making work pay and giving those seeking work the support that they need. Hon. Members' assertion that that is not an efficient system is simply not true. That money is being paid to millions of families in this country. There are 3.35 million in payment or ready to be paid, and 1.3 million who are on income support and jobseeker's allowance are receiving that money now. The Opposition parties would deny that money to families in the first place.
  Alongside those reforms, clause 136 provides support for those who regularly work at home and have flexible working arrangements. Employers will be able to meet some or all of the incidental costs incurred by employees who work at home, without giving rise to a tax charge. The right hon. Member for Fylde—if I dare compliment him, he seems to be the only Opposition Member actually to have read the Bill, and therefore made his comments with regard to its content—made the point that £2 was not enough. I have to tell him that £2 a week is not the upper limit; employers can meet the full amount of additional household expenses incurred by their employees. We settled on the amount of £104 a year—£2 a week—because employers who are already supporting their employees recommended to us that that should be the starting rate. We consulted, we listened, and we acted on it. Those are precisely the mechanisms that the Conservative Government never applied. This Government consult on more of their tax legislation more frequently and more openly—and listen to what has been said—than the Conservatives ever did when they were in government.
  Many Members raised the issue of consultation on corporation tax reform, and the prospect of replacing capital allowances with depreciation. It was suggested that that would harm investment. The objective of the corporation tax reform is to remove tax distortions to
  632
  business decisions, simplifying and modernising the tax system precisely to ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to do business and maintains the competitive advantage that has been so well established by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor through his cuts in corporation tax and his introduction of many reliefs that ensure that companies large and small can benefit.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) raised many of those points. He also raised the issue of the tax treatment of depreciation of stocks, and of how that might harm the whisky industry—the Scottish whisky industry in particular. I would say to him, and to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), who also raised this issue, that I am aware of the concerns of the Scotch Whisky Association about the changes in corporation tax treatment of depreciation of stocks following recent tax cases, and we are discussing the issues with its representatives. The measure was not designed to achieve such outcomes, and we recognise that the spirits industry makes an important contribution to the UK economy.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the deduction for pensioners in hospital. Pensioners currently enjoy full benefits for their first 13 weeks in hospital. Changes to be introduced during May will mean that all pensioners who entered hospital from Budget day onwards will receive the full pension, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said.
  The hon. Member for Angus said that there was never anything for Scotland. I cannot believe he has not noticed the low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment in Scotland. I cannot believe he has not noticed that employment in Scotland has risen by 146,000 since 1997. I cannot believe he has not noticed that by 2005–06 spending in Scotland will be £4.1 billion higher than in 2002–03, enabling the Scottish Executive to deliver their priorities. I cannot believe he has not noticed that Scotland will benefit from 135 enterprise areas, which will help the most deprived parts of the country.
  The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong to suggest that economic stability and the Government's priorities in terms of tax reform, growth, interest rates and inflation—creating an environment that is good for the economies of all the British communities—are somehow passing Scotland by. He is wrong, he is wrong, and he is wrong.
  Our policy objectives, reflected in this Finance Bill, will help to build a more flexible and dynamic economy. They will provide greater fairness through job creation, more investment in skills and greater regional flexibility, and will distribute growth more evenly throughout the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. This Finance Bill underscores our commitment to investment in public services, to maintaining our hard-won economic stability, to encouraging enterprise, to achieving full employment and to tackling child and pensioner poverty, to build a Britain with economic strength and social justice—something that the Conservative party never did when it was in power. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 379.

  Division No. 175]

  [10:12 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

  Heald, Oliver

  Amess, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Hermon, Lady

  Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

  Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

  Bacon, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Jack, rh Michael

  Barker, Gregory

  Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

  Baron, John(Billericay)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

  Johnson, Boris(Henley)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bercow, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lansley, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Leigh, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

  Brazier, Julian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lidington, David

  Burns, Simon

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Burnside, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Burt, Alistair

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Butterfill, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cameron, David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Campbell, Gregory(E Lond'y)

  Maclean, rh David

  Cash, William

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maude, rh Francis

  Chope, Christopher

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Clappison, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

  Conway, Derek

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, rh David

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

  Norman, Archie

  O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

  Osborne, George(Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Page, Richard

  Dodds, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Evans, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Redwood, rh John

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

  Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Flight, Howard

  Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

  Flook, Adrian

  Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Francois, Mark

  Selous, Andrew

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Garnier, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

  Goodman, Paul

  Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Grayling, Chris

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spring, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Hague, rh William

  Steen, Anthony

  Hammond, Philip

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

  634

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Wilshire, David

  Trimble, rh David

  Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

  Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

  Viggers, Peter

  Young, rh Sir George

  Walter, Robert

  Watkinson, Angela

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. Robert Syms and

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mr. Mark Hoban

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, rh Menzies(NE Fife)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Alexander, Douglas

  Casale, Roger

  Allan, Richard

  Caton, Martin

  Allen, Graham

  Challen, Colin

  Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

  Chapman, Ben(WirralS)

  Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

  Chaytor, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Austin, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

  Baird, Vera

  Clarke, rh Charles(Norwich S)

  Baker, Norman

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Banks, Tony

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

  Barrett, John

  Clelland, David

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

  Battle, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Cohen, Harry

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coleman, Iain

  Berth, rh A. J.

  Connarty, Michael

  Bell, Stuart

  Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

  Benn, Hilary

  Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Corston, Jean

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Cotter, Brian

  Berry, Roger

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cranston, Ross

  Blackman, Liz

  Crausby, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cruddas, Jon

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cummings, John

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Breed, Colin

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

  Brown, rh Gordon(Dunfermline E)

  Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

  Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

  Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Denham, rh John

  Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Browne, Desmond

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bryant, Chris

  Doran, Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Doughty, Sue

  Burden, Richard

  Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

  Burgon, Colin

  Drew, David(Stroud)

  Burnett, John

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burnham, Andy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burstow, Paul

  Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Eagle, Maria(L'poolGarston)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Edwards, Huw

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Cairns, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

  Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  635

  Farrelly, Paul

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Keen, Alan(Feltham)

  Flint, Caroline

  Keen, Ann(Brentford)

  Follett, Barbara

  Keetch, Paul

  Foster, rh Derek

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  Kidney, David

  Foster, Michael(Worcester)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

  Foulkes, rh George

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

  Lamb, Norman

  Gardiner, Barry

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  George, Andrew(St. Ives)

  Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

  George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

  Lepper, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gidley, Sandra

  Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

  Goggins, Paul

  Linton, Martin

  Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  Luke, lain(Dundee E)

  Grogan, John

  Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

  Hain, rh Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hanson, David

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  MacDougall, John

  Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

  McFall, John

  McGrady, Eddie

  Harvey, Nick

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  McIsaac, Shona

  McKechin, Ann

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hendrick, Mark

  McNulty, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  MacShane, Denis

  Heppell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Heyes, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

  Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

  Holmes, Paul

  Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

  Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Hope, Phil(Corby)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

  Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hutton, rh John

  Miliband, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Miller, Andrew

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

  Mole, Chris

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Moore, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Morgan, Julie

  Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Martyn(ClwydS)

  Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

  636

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Smith, Sir Robert(WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Soley, Clive

  O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

  Southworth, Helen

  O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

  Spellar, rh John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Squire, Rachel

  Olner, Bill

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Organ, Diana

  Stevenson, George

  Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

  Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Picking, Anne

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pickthall, Colin

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Plaskitt, James

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pollard, Kerry

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

  Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

  Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

  Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

  Prescott, rh John

  Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Thurso, John Timms, Stephen

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tipping, Paddy

  Purchase, Ken

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  Purnell, James

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Trickett, Jon

  Rammell, Bill

  Truswell, Paul

  Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

  Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

  Twigg, Derek(Halton)

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

  Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Rendel, David

  Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

  Robertson, Angus(Moray)

  Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

  Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

  Ward, Claire

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

  Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  Weir, Michael

  Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

  White, Brian

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

  Russell, Bob(Colchester)

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

  Willis, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

  Salter, Martin

  Sanders, Adrian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wishart, Pete

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wood, Mike(Batley)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wright, David(Telford)

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  Wright, Tony(Cannock)

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, John(Glamorgan)

  Dan Norris and

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Jim Fitzpatrick

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

  FINANCE BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Finance Bill:

  FINANCE BILL (PROGRAMME)

    Committal
    1.—(1) Clauses 1, 4, 5, 9, 14, 22, 42, 56, 57, 124, 130 to 135, 138, 139, 148 and 184 and Schedules 5, 6, 19, 21, 22 and 25, and any new Clauses and Schedules tabled by Friday 9th May 2003 relating to excise duty on spirits or R&D tax credits for oil exploration, shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
    (2) The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.
    3.—(1) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 12th June 2003.
    (2) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
    4. When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.

    Other proceedings
    5. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed—[Mr. Hepple.]
    The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 198.

    Division No. 176]

    [10:27 pm]

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

    Ainger, Nick

    Browne, Desmond

    Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

    Bryant, Chris

    Alexander, Douglas

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Allen, Graham

    Burden, Richard

    Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

    Burgon, Colin

    Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

    Burnham, Andy

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cairns, David

    Austin, John

    Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

    Baird, Vera

    Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

    Banks, Tony

    Casale, Roger

    Barnes, Harry

    Caton, Martin

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Challen, Colin

    Battle, John

    Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chaytor, David

    Beard, Nigel

    Clapham, Michael

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

    Bell, Stuart

    Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Benn, Hilary

    Bennett, Andrew

    Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

    Benton, Joe(Bootle)

    Clarke, rh Charles(Norwich S)

    Berry, Roger

    Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Betts, Clive

    Blackman, Liz

    Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clelland, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Coaker, Vernon

    Borrow, David

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

    Cohen, Harry

    Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

    Coleman, Iain

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Connarty, Michael

    Brennan, Kevin

    Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

    Brown, rh Gordon(Dunfermline E)

    Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

    Corston, Jean

    Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Cousins, Jim

    Cransion, Ross

    638

    Crausby, David

    Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

    Cummings, John

    Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

    Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

    Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

    Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Hutton, rh John

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Illsley, Eric

    Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Davidson, Ian

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

    Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

    Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

    Davis, rh Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

    Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

    Denham, rh John

    Jamieson, David

    Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

    Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

    Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

    Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

    Drew, David(Stroud)

    Jones, Martyn(ClwydS)

    Crown, Ms Julia

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Eagle, Maria(L'poolGarston)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Edwards, Huw

    Keen, Alan(Feltham)

    Efford, Clive

    Keen, Ann(Brentford)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

    Kidney, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

    King, Andy(Rugby)

    Fisher, Mark

    Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Flint, Caroline

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Follett, Barbara

    Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

    Lepper, David

    Foster, rh Derek

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Michael(Worcester)

    Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

    Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

    Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

    Linton, Martin

    Foulkes, rh George

    Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Love, Andrew

    Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

    Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Luke, lain(Dundee E)

    Cieorge, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

    Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

    Gerrard, Neil

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gilroy, Linda

    McCabe, Stephen

    Goggins, Paul

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

    MacDougall, John

    Grogan, John

    McFall, John

    Hain, rh Peter

    McGrady, Eddie

    Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

    McKechin, Ann

    Hanson, David

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    McNamara, Kevin

    McNulty, Tony

    Healey, John

    MacShane, Denis

    Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

    McWilliam, John

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mallaber, Judy

    Heppell, John

    Mallon, Seamus

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

    Heyes, David

    Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

    Hill, Keith(Streatham)

    Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

    Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

    Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Martlew, Eric

    Hope, Phil(Corby)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

    Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

    Merron, Gillian

    639

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Miliband, David

    Sheridan, Jim

    Miller, Andrew

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

    Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

    Mole, Chris

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

    Morgan, Julie

    Smith, John(Glamorgan)

    Morley, Elliot

    Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Soley, Clive

    Mountford, Kali

    Southworth, Helen

    Mullin, Chris

    Spellar, rh John

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Squire, Rachel

    Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, rh Paul(Torfaen)

    Stevenson, George

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

    O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

    O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    O'Hara, Edward

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Olner, Bill

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stringer, Graham

    Organ, Diana

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

    Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

    Pearson, Ian

    Taylor, David(NW Leics)

    Picking, Anne

    Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

    Pike, Peter(Burnley)

    Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

    Plaskitt, James

    Timms, Stephen

    Pollard, Kerry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

    Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

    Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

    Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

    Trickett, Jon

    Truswell, Paul

    Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

    Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

    Prescott, rh John

    Turner, Neil(Wigan)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Twigg, Derek(Halton)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

    Purchase, Ken

    Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

    Purnell, James

    Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Ward, Claire

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Rammell, Bill

    Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

    Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

    Watts, David

    Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

    White, Brian

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

    Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

    Winnick, David

    Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

    Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

    Wood, Mike(Batley)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Rooney, Terry

    Woolas, Phil

    Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

    Worthington, Tony

    Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

    Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

    Ruane, Chris

    Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

    Wright, David(Telford)

    Wright, Tony(Cannock)

    Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Salter, Martin

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Jim Fitzpatrick and

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Dan Norris

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

    Baron, John(Billericay)

    Allan, Richard

    Barrett, John

    Amess, David

    Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

    Bercow, John

    Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Bacon, Richard

    Blunt, Crispin

    Baker, Norman

    Boswell, Tim

    Baldry, Tony

    Brady, Graham

    Barker, Gregory

    Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

    640

    Brazier, Julian

    Hunter, Andrew

    Breed, Colin

    Jack, rh Michael

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Burnett, John

    Johnson, Boris(Henley)

    Burns, Simon

    Keetch, Paul

    Burnside, David

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Burstow, Paul

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Burt, Alistair

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Butterfill, John

    Lamb, Norman

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Lansley, Andrew

    Cameron, David

    Laws, David(Yeovil)

    Campbell, Gregory(E Lond'y)

    Leigh, Edward

    Campbell, rh Menzies(NE Fife)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Cash, William

    Lidington, David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Chope, Christopher

    Loughton, Tim

    Clappison, James

    Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

    Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushdiffe)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Collins, Tim

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Conway, Derek

    Maclean, rh David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cotter, Brian

    Malins, Humfrey

    Curry, rh David

    Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Davey, Edward(Kingston)

    Davies, Quentin(Grantharn & Stamford)

    Maude, rh Francis

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Davis, rh David(Haltempnce & Howden)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Mercer, Patrick

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

    Dodds, Nigel

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Moore, Michael

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Moss, Malcolm

    Doughty, Sue

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

    Norman, Archie

    Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

    O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

    Evans, Nigel

    Osborne, George(Tatton)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Page, Richard

    Fallon, Michael

    Paice, James

    Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Paterson, Owen

    Flight, Howard

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Flook, Adrian

    Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Forth, rh Eric

    Foster, Don(Bath)

    Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Francois, Mark

    Randall, John

    Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

    Redwood, rh John

    Garnier, Edward

    Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

    George, Andrew(St. Ives)

    Rendel, David

    Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

    Robertson, Angus(Moray)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Goodman, Paul

    Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

    Gray, James(N Wilts)

    Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

    Grayling, Chris

    Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

    Green, Damian(Ashford)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

    Russell, Bob(Colchester)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gummer, rh John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hague, rh William

    Selous, Andrew

    Hammond, Philip

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Simmonds, Mark

    Harvey, Nick

    Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Smith, Sir Robert(WAb'd'ns & Kincardine)

    Hayes, John(S Holland)

    Heald, Oliver

    Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

    Hendry, Charles

    Soames, Nicholas

    Hermon, Lady

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Holmes, Paul

    Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

    Horam, John(Orpington)

    Spring, Richard

    Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    641

    Steen, Anthony

    Webb, Steve(Northavon)

    Streeter, Gary

    Weir, Michael

    Stunell, Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Wiggin, Bill

    Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

    Wilkinson, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Willetts, David

    Taylor, Ian(Esher)

    Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

    Taylor, John(Solihull)

    Williams, Roger(Brecon)

    Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

    Willis, Phi

    Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

    Wilshire, David

    Thurso, John

    Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

    Trimble, rh David

    Wishart, Pete

    Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

    Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

    Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

    Young, rh Sir George

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Viggers, Peter

    Tellers fur the Noes:

    Walter, Robert

    Mr. Mark Hoban and

    Watkinson, Angela

    Mr. Robert Syms

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    WORK AND PENSIONS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Andrew Mitchell be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Mr. Nigel Waterson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on heholf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Northern Ireland
    10.45 pm
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy): With permission, Mr. Speaker—
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise to the Secretary of State; I promised the Rev. Ian Paisley that he could raise a point of order.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: You will remember, Sir, that at business questions last week the hon. Member for Belfast. South (Rev. Martin Smyth) raised the matter of how the official in government in Dublin told about the elections being off and other matters. At the end of those business questions, there was an exchange between the hon. Gentleman, me and those on the Front Bench. The Leader of the House made it clear that he knew nothing about any statement being made, which we accept, but during those discussions there was quite a gathering around your Chair, Sir, and suddenly you stood up and said that we would have a statement. However, when we were told that we would have a statement, we were told that we would have more time to discuss it. I wonder how, at this late hour, Members from Northern Ireland will have that time, and can you tell us how much time we will have?
    Mr. Speaker: I clearly recall that I said that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would come back today and make a fuller statement. The right hon. Gentleman is a man of his word. He promised me that he would come back, and he is here this evening. I am here and the hon. Gentleman is here, so what more do we want?
    Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about political developments in Northern Ireland.
    I reported to the House last Thursday on our assessment of the state of political dialogue in Northern Ireland, and our regretful conclusion that the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, due on 29 May, must once again he postponed. We thought it right to announce that decision to the House as soon as possible, given that the election campaign was beginning, but the result was that many right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland and, indeed, those interested in its affairs were unable to be present.
    I said that I would therefore return this week to say something more, giving those Members who wished to participate in discussion a chance to come here and do so. I am now also able to report on the discussions in Dublin today between the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and colleagues, including me.
    In my earlier statement, I recalled that, since the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland on 15 October last year, we had made a great deal of headway in discussions between the two Governments and the parties in Northern Ireland, aimed at

    643
    completing the implementation of the Belfast agreement, including the full restoration of the institutions. The Governments had drawn up a comprehensive and detailed set of proposals, capable, we believe, of achieving broad support among the parties.
    We published those proposals last Thursday. They consisted of a joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments, setting out a vision of the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, with detailed annexes on security normalisation, the devolution of policing and justice and human rights, equality and identity. There was also an agreement between the two Governments on how to monitor the parties' and the Governments' honouring of commitments set out in the agreement and joint declaration, along with arrangements for remedying breaches of those commitments. Finally, we set out a scheme for the handling of the cases of those on the run for terrorist offences.
    From the start, however, both Governments made it clear that, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach put it on 14 October,

    "it must be clear that the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which has been ongoing since the Agreement, and indeed before, is being brought to an unambiguous and definitive conclusion".

    Unfortunately, a draft statement by the IRA and subsequent comments by Gerry Adams, President of Sinn Fein, were neither clear nor unambiguous. Without clarity, there could be no trust between parties and therefore no early return for devolved government in Northern Ireland.
    The question that the Prime Minister and the people of Northern Ireland wanted the IRA to answer was a simple one: will the IRA call a halt to all of the activities listed in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration? Will it stop the so-called punishment beatings? Will it stop the targeting and the procurement of weapons? Will it stop inciting people to riot on the streets of Northern Ireland? Those are simple questions, to which there should be a simple answer—yes or no.
    The IRA has tonight published its statement. As the two Governments acknowledged at the time, it represented some progress. Members of the House and the people of Northern Ireland can now read it and judge for themselves whether it answers the fundamental questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Does it mean the definitive end to all the paramilitary activity to which the joint declaration refers? The view of both Governments is that it does not. It is not a clear and unambiguous statement. Without that clarity, there can be no trust, and therefore with great regret we concluded that elections should be further postponed. We shall introduce later this week, and propose to debate next week, a Bill to authorise this postponement. We hope that the election will be held in the autumn.
    I know the concern felt by many at this further delay, and at the late stage at which it was announced. There is also frustration among many members of the political parties who had geared themselves up for a mighty effort, which is now abruptly halted. I well understand those feelings. This was, for the Government, a very difficult decision. In the special circumstances of
    644
    Northern Ireland and the unique form of government established by the agreement, we believed that it was the only course to take. It is clear that, as the political dialogue stands at present, there would not have been the willingness to participate that is necessary to partnership government under the agreement. We therefore plan to introduce a Bill that will allow us to hold an election as soon as it is clear that the necessary trust between the parties has been re-established. We hope that that can be done in the autumn.
    The Government's course for the future is clear. We will go on seeking to build trust between the communities and hence the foundations for political advance. We have had a great deal of success so far: what we are now experiencing, I believe, need be no more than a temporary setback. We are indeed in a position of great strength. Most of those foundations are already there: we have the agreement, and that must be the bedrock of any future progress. It is not something that is open to renegotiation. Indeed, a vast amount of progress has already been made in implementing that agreement, especially in the vital areas of policing and criminal justice.
    It is a further strength, however, that the joint declaration published last week represents a shared understanding between the two Governments and the pro-agreement parties of how we can proceed to the full and final implementation of the Belfast agreement. That, too, has been the subject of discussion with all the pro-agreement parties and agreed by the Governments, and that, also, is not open for renegotiation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated this evening in Dublin, we shall proceed to implement many elements of the joint declaration that are not conditional on action by others: for example, in the areas of policing, criminal justice, equality, human rights and some aspects of normalisation. We will also introduce the legislation necessary to set up the independent monitoring body, which will, among other things, report on paramilitary activity. The joint declaration package also contains a number of measures that can be implemented only if there are acts of completion by the IRA.
    I believe that it is a strength of the present position that there is such a widespread recognition of the benefits that devolution brought to Northern Ireland and a wish on all sides to return to a local Administration. In the coming weeks, the Government will consult all parties, whatever their position on the agreement, about the best way of bringing devolution back to Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
    Finally, I should remind the House that a key element in the progress that has been made is the close partnership between the Irish Government and ourselves. Without that relationship and the unstinting support of successive American Administrations, the transformation that has already occurred in Northern Ireland would not have been possible.
    In fact, the reason for the late hour of this statement is that I wanted to report to the House the results of this afternoon's meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach in Dublin. That was an important opportunity for the Governments to reaffirm the centrality of their partnership to continuing political progress in Northern Ireland. There was agreement

    645
    about the implementation of aspects of the joint declaration to which I have already referred, and I shall continue to work closely with the Irish Foreign Minister, Brian Cowen, to ensure, that the political parties in Northern Ireland are encouraged to engage with each other to resolve current difficulties and to re-establish trust.
    We have faced many challenges and setbacks in the five years since the agreement was reached and I will not pretend to the House that the current impasse is not serious. However, we are determined that that obstacle will be overcome, as others have teen in the past. The critical issues of trust—over commitment to exclusively peaceful means and about the stability of the institutions—can be addressed with clear statements of intent from all parties.
    Events in the past few weeks have been deeply disappointing for everyone concerned, but they should not obscure the great progress that has been made. The publication of the joint declaration represents a major step towards the complete implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We believe that that agreement remains the only sustainable basis for a fair and honourable accommodation between nationalists and Unionists in Northern Ireland. It remains the only possible basis for peace. In the coming weeks and months we will work openly and transparently to fulfil further our side of the bargain struck on Good Friday in 1998 and we call on the IRA to find the clarity, in both words and deeds, to convince the people of Northern Ireland that they are ready to fulfil theirs.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me an advance copy of his statement.
    I must begin by taking up with the Secretary of State a grave matter, on which I hope he can immediately set our anxieties to rest. A report is circulating this evening that the Government propose, irrespective of progress in the peace process, decommissioning or cessation of paramilitary activities by the IRA, to dismantle two observation towers in south Armagh. If that report is correct, the Government have retreated from their newfound robustness and the comprehensive approach of the peace process that we have urged on them for some time, and have reverted to their previous pattern of making unilateral concessions. That is disastrous, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well.
    That pattern started when the Government released all prisoners without obtaining any decommissioning in return. I really thought that, after all this time, even they would have learned some essential lessons from that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us a definitive and clear reassurance on that report. If the concession was made today merely to appease the Irish Government after this Government's decision to postpone the elections in Northern Ireland, a double error has been perpetrated.
    What other aspects of normalisation do the Government intend to proceed with unconditionally and regardless—that is to say, unlinked with progress by paramilitaries or former paramilitaries to observe their obligations under the Belfast agreement? Why do the
    646
    provisions in the joint declaration on on-the-run terrorists not provide for a court appearance by the ex-terrorist? Surely a court procedure with no power to imprison and no power even to compel attendance is a mockery.
    On the postponement of the elections, is it not the case that a considerable shambles has now been created? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that over the past few weeks thousands of people in Northern Ireland have been spending their time and money in good faith preparing for these elections, selecting candidates, issuing manifestos and launching campaigns? Some candidates will have given up jobs or forgone other job opportunities, but now, after nominations are in and canvassing is in full swing, the Government want retrospectively to call the whole thing off.
    As we are on the subject of candidates, what is the position of Members of the last Assembly, dissolved last week, who have been paid at a reduced rate since the suspension last October? Do the Government propose that they should be paid anything now? What about officials and staff at Stormont? Those practical matters are important for a lot of people, and the Government owe the House an explanation.
    More important still, what kind of democratic enthusiasm will people in Northern Ireland display next time if they have been made such a fool of on this occasion, when in good faith they began to prepare for elections? Do the Government accept that if they succeed in their aim of cancelling or postponing the elections they will owe full financial compensation, although I wince to think that the poor taxpayer will have to pay for the Government's mess? On Thursday, the right hon. Gentleman undertook to consider the matter of compensation, but he did not mention it in his statement, so will he tell us what he has now decided? In any event, does he not think that a fulsome apology is owed to all concerned?
    If, as has been widely suggested in Northern Ireland, I am afraid, the reason for seeking to postpone the elections was that the Government did not like what they thought would be the result, irrespective of the political morality of that decision, what makes the Government think that the result will be any different in a few months' time? The decision makes no more practical sense that it has moral justification unless they can answer that question. If, on the other hand, the real reason, not the excuse, was to punish Sinn Fein for not completing the clarification of the three points—we also condemn it for that—was that not a perverse response? Why punish everyone because of the failings of one party? Is not the right way to punish Sinn Fein for non-compliance, as I have said over and over again—for example, at the time of Stormontgate—and to exclude it from the Executive and from taking part in any future Executive if it does not comply?
    Why, if the real reason for the cancellation is Sinn Fein's non-compliance, were the Government apparently happy in February, up until Hillsborough, to hold elections on 1 May, at a time when Gerry Adams had not made any of the clarifications that he has now made, including the two that the Government have accepted? Is it not bizarre to say that elections can go ahead if Sinn Fein-IRA make no clarification at all, but that they have to be cancelled if they make two

    647
    clarifications out of three? Do the Government expect to be taken seriously when they give that as an explanation for their decision?
    Let me now turn to the consequences of the decision for the peace process. Do the Government not appreciate that an impending election can itself be a major inhibiting factor, deterring the parties in a process of this kind from reaching closure? It is difficult for anyone to make final concessions or, indeed, accept publicly and formally that the other side has made adequate concessions, even if it has done so, if one is battling with internal opponents or rivals who may accuse one of going soft. That inhibition would, of course, be removed once an election was over, but if the Government get their way those electoral pressures and the attendant difficulties and the uncertainty that follow will simply be pushed forward for as long as elections are postponed. Was there not a combination of circumstances that might have induced a settlement next month, in June? Elections and the associated electoral inhibitions would have been over, but nevertheless there would be a deadline ahead to concentrate minds in the form of a six-week deadline for agreeing an Executive once an Assembly was summoned. Has that opportunity not been thrown away rather carelessly in a decision clearly made in panic with little forethought and less consultation in the course of Thursday morning? Does that not all amount to a rather bad day's work indeed, both for the peace process and for democracy in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: With regard to the towers—the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is right that there are two in south Armagh—the current assessment of the security services in Northern Ireland is that we can dismantle them in any event.
    I mentioned in the statement that it is one thing to deal with what normal normalisation, as it were, is all about, which was agreed in the Belfast agreement, and which is subject to the level of threat—because it is subject to the level of threat—and another to deal with the normalisation details in the joint declaration, which were linked to an act of completion on the part of the IRA. For example, there was a time scale in the joint declaration of some two years, and there were other details there too. But the hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that normalisation was coming to a halt, and that these things would not happen. He should realise that the normalisation, as it is outlined in the joint declaration, is precisely that which, as I say, is linked to the question of the acts of completion by the IRA.
    Let me tell the hon. Gentleman, too, that of course prisoners were released as part of the Good Friday agreement, but that was as a direct result of the people of Northern Ireland agreeing, and the people of the island of Ireland agreeing, by way of a referendum—
    Mr. Davies: Not the OTRs.
    Mr. Murphy: I am referring at the moment to the release of prisoners. The Government did not suddenly decide one Wednesday morning to release all the prisoners in Northern Ireland. Those prisoners were released directly as a result of the Good Friday
    648
    agreement. The hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members will understand that there were months and months of negotiations at Castle Buildings in Belfast, which eventually led to the decision that that is what would happen in the agreement.
    With regard to appeasing the Irish Government, those, if I may say so. are entirely the wrong words to use about a Government who are in partnership with this Government to try o bring about peace and political stability in Northern Ireland.
    The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity, as indeed will the House, to discuss OTRs, particularly with regard to any judicial process that is referred to in the joint declaration.
    The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments came about the postponement—not the cancellation, but the postponement—of the elections. It is not true to say that the decision t o postpone the elections was taken in panic. Obviously, it was a difficult decision to take. It was not easy; of course it was not.
    As I said to the hon. Gentleman last week, I believe that he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the settlement in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement did not set up an Assembly such as the one that I have in my own country of Wales. It is not the same as the Parliament in Scotland. The Assembly in Northern Ireland is a body specifically designed to bring about political stability and peace in a country that was divided for 30 or 40 years. The only way in which that can happen is if there is trust and confidence between the Unionist and the nationalist communities in Northern Ireland as expressed through their political parties.
    What sense would it have made to proceed if, at the beginning of the election campaign, as it was, we knew precisely that it would have been impossible to have set up an Assembly that could have produced an Executive? What would have been the point of that? In exactly the same way, what would be the point of returning Members to this House of Commons when we knew that could never produce a Government? That is the issue. But a Government—[Interruption.]Let me qualify what I have said to Opposition Members. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the Assembly in Northern Ireland is the same as an Assembly in any other part of Europe? Of course it is not.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman put questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Opposition must have the courtesy to allow the Secretary of State to reply in his own way.
    Mr. Murphy: I labour under the misapprehension that members of the Conservative party agree with the Good Friday agreement. If they did so, they would understand it, but clearly they do not. The agreement sets up an Assembly that is specially designed in order to accommodate trust and confidence among the communities. That is impossible in the present circumstances. Why is it impossible? We could not get the agreement that was required to restore the institutions. We could not get an answer from the IRA that was clear or unambiguous enough to establish trust and confidence between the parties, so it is a pointless exercise to try to establish that institution until we have

    649
    tried again. We are saying not that we are cancelling those elections, but that we are deferring them until the autumn so that we can get trust arid confidence among the parties in order to ensure that we can restore the institutions of the Executive so that they can have local Ministers and so that Northern Ireland will no longer have direct rule. At the end of the day, this is about the trust and confidence that are necessary, and we have to build them.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for allowing me advance sight of the statement. The Liberal Democrats share his disappointment that the IRA, when called upon to make a clear and unambiguous statement renouncing violence, does not seem to have been able to do so.
    Since the Good Friday agreement, we have sought to approach Northern Ireland matters on a non-partisan basis and to support the Government where possible. It is therefore with particular regret that we are unable to support this further postponement of the elections. We cannot preach democracy to the paramilitaries while in practice we deny it to the people.
    Will the Secretary of State please clarify whether the open and transparent process about which he spoke means that there will be a departure from his practice of conducting talks as a series of bilaterals instead of having round-table talks involving all parties? Might that be done as part of the paragraph 8 review of the agreement? Will the postponement last until a fixed date and not for an indefinite period? We shall judge the Government's Bill when we see it, but I give notice to him that, if it does not include such a date, we will take steps either here or in the other place to ensure that it does so.
    Finally, will the Secretary of State tell the House exactly what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the political parties that have been left out of pocket as a result of his decision will be compensated? He must be aware that the most effective way of squeezing smaller and more moderate parties out of the political process in Northern Ireland is to allow them to stand the losses resulting from the Government's stop-go approach to the elections.
    Mr. Murphy: It is not a question of the Government stopping and going, but of the process stopping and going. That above all else is what matters.[Interruption.]I do not know why Opposition Members scoff at the idea of the process, because it is the process that is most important; it is not the fact that elections are deferred by a few months that is important, but getting lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Do they think for one second that we would have got the peace that we have had? We have had peace since the Good Friday agreement was reached. Of course we have had peace. Fewer people died as a result of terrorist activities this year than in any other year. At the height of the conflict in Northern Ireland, more than 400 people perished in one year. Of course progress has been made in Northern Ireland in five years and it is entirely wrong to suggest otherwise.
    650
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the denial of democracy. What is happening is not a denial of democracy, because it is the postponement of elections until the autumn. That must be taken into account with regard to the fundamental nature of the agreement that set up this particular type of Assembly. I repeat that it is not like assemblies elsewhere. The rules and regulations of the Northern Ireland Assembly are based on ensuring that both communities can live in this particular context.
    On the talks themselves, we will have to see in the next few weeks what the parties want. Clearly, that has always been a combination of bilaterals and round-table talks. Frankly, the most successful approach is to ensure that we get the trust and confidence and re-establish agreement on moving into the restored institutions.
    On compensation, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have today written to all parties in Northern Ireland indicating that the Government will compensate parties for any losses made within the terms of the Representation of the People Acts. That is important.
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State will be aware that there is some concern and doubt about the reasons for the postponement of the election, centring on the notion that there is, or was, a semantic debate over "will" or "should". I happen to believe that there was not such a debate, but the Secretary of State can clarify the matter by stating explicitly that the two Governments made it clear to Sinn Fein from the very beginning of the negotiations, and at every stage throughout them, that the issues dealt with in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration would have to be delivered as an act of completion. If the Secretary of State makes that unequivocal statement on behalf of the two Governments, it can dispel the fear, concern and apprehension that this was a matter of semantics.
    I should like the Secretary of State to give an opinion on a hypothetical situation. Had the IRA given a commitment to end the activities specified in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, does he believe that an election would have been able to proceed as of now?
    My third question is this: after at least two suspensions and two postponements of legally called elections, is the Secretary of State convinced that all the blame lies on one side?
    Mr. Murphy: I suppose that the blame lies on us all for not producing what should have occurred in the past few months. Having spent seven months trying to establish an agreement to move to a restored institution in Northern Ireland, I am the first to regret, and, indeed, to apologise to the parties in Northern Ireland for the fact that we did not achieve what we wanted to achieve.
    My hon. Friend rightly mentions paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, which refers to

    "an immediate, full and permanent cessation of all paramilitary activity".

    It identifies those and spells them out, referring to targeting, surveillance, procurement of weapons, rioting and so-called punishment beatings. All those issues are important to anyone who lives in Northern Ireland because they represent continued activity on the part of paramilitary organisations. My hon. Friend is also right

    651
    that if the IRA had said, "Yes, we will put an end to all those particular activities", I am sure that that would have produced sufficient trust among parties in Northern Ireland to go into an election campaign and enable them to say, "Yes, we will restore the institutions when this election is held and move forward in the peace process."
    Mr. David Trimble: The Government have clearly brought themselves into a situation in which they are open to criticism for their decision, which was made at the last minute and in a rather incoherent way. If they had been thinking more carefully and more clearly about the situation, things would have been better. I have to say also that the Secretary of State has added somewhat to the confusion with some of his comments this evening. Is it not the case that the key issue revolves around suspension; that without genuine acts of completion from the republican movement suspension could not be lifted and the institutions could not resume; and that consequently, without those genuine acts of completion, there was in reality no Assembly and no body that could even meet? It is not a question of whether an Executive could form. As things stood, and as they stand today, is it not the case that the Assembly cannot meet, cannot function and, to all intents and purposes, legally is not there?
    The key question is whether there are genuine acts of completion, as defined. Is not it therefore paradoxically good that we can all read the IRA statement and see that it contains no suggestion of an end of paramilitary activity? It does not contain any clear indication of when we will get an equivalent statement to the war being over so that people know that there is a commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The IRA has clearly failed to respond in the way in which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that it was told time and again in recent months that it would have to respond.
    The Secretary of State reminded us that the key elements of the joint declaration were conditional on acts of completion. However, he introduced a distinction between matters that were to be conditional, such as further normalisation. I associate myself with the comments of the Opposition spokesman on any proposal to dismantle security installations before genuine acts of completion. That was never discussed or agreed by any party. The Secretary of State will confirm that he has introduced a new distinction between normal and abnormal acts of normalisation. We are left wondering into which category dismantling security installations falls.
    The joint declaration contains other matters that are not conditional. It would help the public if the Secretary of State clearly stated the precise matters with which the Government will proceed. The comments in the statement are general and will therefore spread some confusion and perhaps alarm. Precision is necessary.
    I welcome the Secretary of State's reference to introducing legislation to establish the independent monitoring body. However, will he make it clear that it will contain the new power for Her Majesty's Government to exclude parties from the Northern Ireland Executive? Will the legislation be on the statute book before any resumption of the Assembly so that the
    652
    means are available to deal with any continuing paramilitary activity or a party's failure to commit to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods?
    The Secretary of State claims that the declaration is no longer negotiable. Does that apply to all aspects and details? I am thinking of the considerable detail on Army deployment in the event of normality. The Secretary of State knows that there is anxiety about the locations of particular bases. There will be considerable disappointment if, even in the event of normality, full peace and a return to the pre-1969 position, there are no soldiers in County Armagh.
    Mr. Murphy: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman found some of my comments confusing. It may be due to the lateness of the hour.
    On suspension, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that one could not restore the Assembly without restoring the Executive. As soon as the Assembly is restored, the mechanisms that the agreement created mean that the Assembly would immediately have to select a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and other Ministers. Consequently, if the Assembly is unsuspended, forming a Government is automatic.
    I agree that the IRA's statement did not present a clear and unambiguous picture of the end of paramilitary activity. That is why we are in the current position. The IRA has not expressed with sufficient clarity its intentions on continued paramilitary activity.
    I shall discuss the continued implementation of the agreement with the right hon. Gentleman and other parties in the weeks ahead. However, the Government will appoint an independent oversight commissioner to provide independent scrutiny of the implementation of their decisions on the criminal justice review. By the end of 2003, we will publish statements of ethics for all criminal justice agencies that do not currently have them. We will look for further co-operation on criminal justice matters between the two jurisdictions when dealing with crime that is occurring right across the island. We will work with the parties' victims and survivors to seek to establish what further help we can give to them.
    We will also look at broadcasting to see whether we could have a fund to give financial support for the Irish language, and take steps to encourage support to be made available for an Ulster Scots academy. We will look at the human rights situation in Northern Ireland and at the work of the Human Rights Commission, and at other matters, too. I will not burden the House with further details, but we will be discussing all these matters with the parties in Northern Ireland in the weeks ahead. On future legislation, take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that he and I, and others, will have discussions about the nature of that legislation as we move forward.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I wrote to the Prime Minister before this announcement was made, expressing my concern that the elections might be postponed because I thought that that would undermine the democratic nature of the Good Friday agreement, and because I believe that it will leave a dangerous vacuum during the

    653
    summer that people of ill will might seek to fill. Does my right hon. Friend not see that, while one accepts his argument that an Administration must follow from elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, he seems to be deciding what the results of the elections are going to be? That sets a very bad precedent. What will happen in the autumn if we are unable to gel agreement between the parties? Will the elections again be postponed because we do not like the prospect of a particular result? My right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have set themselves on a difficult, dangerous and embarrassing course.
    There were some crumbs of comfort in the Secretary of State's statement, however. It is good to know that the two Governments are continuing their close cooperation, and we would like to know what steps they are going to take to try to prevent that vacuum from occurring in the summer. Will my right hon. Friend also tell us what will happen to the review of reserved and excepted matters? Does he agree that one of the problems of the IRA's not giving the specific and direct reply that was properly asked of it is that it let some parties off the hook, as they have yet to say unreservedly and completely that they would accept service in a joint Administration?
    Mr. Murphy: I do not think that this is a question of the result of the elections. Whenever those elections are held, who knows what will happen? Obviously, people will vote in the way that they will vote in Northern Ireland, and that will be the democratic test. I have been trying to explain to the House for the last half hour or so, however, that this was not simply a test of the democratic process. It was also a test of the agreement itself. In my view, the agreement and the process would have been put in considerable jeopardy if the elections had gone ahead and we could not have seen the restoration of the institutions and had remained with a suspended Assembly. I saw no point in that.
    Mr. McNamara: What happens in the autumn?
    Mr. Murphy: I sincerely hope that there will come a time in the autumn when we will be able to resolve the difficulties that we currently face. If we cannot, we will have to see what happens then, but we must try again to ensure that we can get agreement and clarity from the IRA. As the agreement now stands, Sinn Fein, with the number of Members that it possesses in the Assembly, is able to form part of the Government and the Administration. Clearly, if there is an unwillingness on the part of certain parties to share government with a party that has not made its position clear on paramilitary activity, we will get nowhere as a consequence. The first thing we must try to ensure is that we obtain clarity about these issues from the IRA.
    There are those who regard the agreement and the process as flawed. They are entitled to that view, but I do not share it. The Government do rot believe that there is an alternative to the Good Friday agreement. We
    654
    consequently believe that we should do our best to sustain it and protect it, and to protect the process. We think that this was the best way of doing that.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State will recall that on 27 November I asked the Prime Minister what completion meant. I asked whether it meant a statement. The Prime Minister replied

    "It is not merely a statement, a declaration or words. It means giving up violence completely in a way that satisfies everyone and gives them confidence that the IRA has ceased its campaign, and enables us to move the democratic process forward, with every party that wants to be in government abiding by the same democratic rules."—[Official Report, 27 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 309.]

    It could not have been more crystal clear.
    Why have the Government changed? Why have they said in tonight's statement that the critical issues of trust, over commitment to exclusively peaceful means and the stability of the institutions, can be addressed with a clear statement of intent? It was not a clear statement of intent that the Prime Minister issued to me in November; he said that that commitment had to be seen, and that there must be action. It is action that the people of Northern Ireland want to see. Why the sudden change? I think that the Secretary of State has changed because of the pressures placed on him, and I think that he and the Prime Minister should stand up to these people and say "We want a change".
    I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and he does not often agree with me. He said tonight that the next election might not take place in the autumn. What will decide the date? Will it be arranged as soon as it is clear that the necessary trust between the parties has been re-established? I never had any trust in the IRA, so it cannot be re-established. The vast majority of Unionists have no trust in the IRA. For the Secretary of State to tell us that he will look for a day when the sun will shine and the IRA will come out and say something, and everyone will be satisfied, is a recipe for more disaster, not for bringing peace to a troubled country.
    The Secretary of State cannot get away with what he said about the towers. He cannot get away with dismantling the only security that hundreds of Protestants have in those peripheral areas. I have been there, as a public representative and as MEP for the area. I have been at the towers, and I have been with the police. The police inform me that if the military are pulled out, they will be sitting on a little island, and will not be able to move out of their police stations. They need the military to help them to police the area.
    A calendar has been set out. What is this calendar? It is a calendar that hangs, draws and quarters Northern Ireland. We need to recognise the seriousness of the situation. No one will be deceived in Northern Ireland. The Government and their spokesmen talk to people. We hear of Northern Ireland's bravery—of a parochial little place. I know what my next-door neighbour is thinking about me, and he knows what I am thinking about him. But why are the Government so keen on investigations, with bodies finding out how the people are likely to vote? According to the last report they received, there would be too many—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some leeway. Perhaps the Secretary of State can reply.
    Mr. Murphy: As I said in my earlier answer, people will vote as they vote, and what will happen will happen, but let me deal with the first point that the hon. Gentleman made in referring to what the Prime Minister said in November. It is very rare that I quote myself in the House of Commons, and even rarer that I quote something that I said an hour ago or less; nevertheless, I will. I finished my statement by saying: "We call on the IRA to find the clarity, in both words and deeds, to convince the people of Northern Ireland that they are ready to fulfil theirs." The reason we are debating this statement and these matters in the House this evening is precisely because we did not get sufficient clarity and unambiguity from the IRA about its intentions so far as continued paramilitary activity is concerned. That is central to re-establishing that trust and to ensuring that the process moves forward.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call any other hon. Members, I should say that I have called all Front-Bench spokesmen for every party represented here. I therefore expect only one question from each Back Bencher who is called. I call Eddie McGrady.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has laboured long and hard at this particular coalface, and we must put on the record the enormous transformation of Northern Ireland, in terms of political development and peace, that has taken place in the past five years. But I must part company with him on the Government's decision to postpone elections, because not a single party in Northern Ireland, of whatever perspective or tradition, said that it wanted postponement; all were prepared and geared to go. That is unless, of course, he can tell the House that private requests were made to the Government by certain parties that there be a postponement; but according to the public record, that has not happened. How does the Secretary of State envisage, therefore, in the current circumstance of a huge democratic and representative deficit, that it will be possible to pressurise the parties to any greater extent than in a post-election period? Given my concern about his statement and answers to subsequent questions, will he reaffirm that the Good Friday agreement and the joint declaration of the Governments are not negotiable, and will not be frustrated by IRA paramilitarism or Ulster Unionist party intransigence? It was nothing else but the withdrawal of the UUP from the Government that caused the suspension.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Murphy: It is back to the issue again: if we do not get sufficient trust within the Assembly, we will of course find that there is a collapse of the Executive. No one can force political parties or their leaders or elected representatives to go into government with anybody else; at the end of the day, that is the important issue. Ultimately, only if there is agreement about that can we move forward with the process. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of these issues, because he and I spent year in, year out before 1998 trying to establish the process that we are currently in. He also knows that the particular nature of the Assembly, the way it operates and the rules and regulations that govern it are based
    656
    entirely upon the trust between parties that is, at the end of the day, voluntary. We cannot force anybody to do anything, but what we can do is to provide an environment in which people can get back together. That environment can happen only if the IRA clarifies the position with regard to paramilitary activity, and I repeat that that is why I share my hon. Friend's disappointment. The last thing that I wanted was a deferment of the elections in Northern Ireland, but the first thing that I wait is to ensure the success of the process.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Last week the Secretary of State told the House, that a substantial set of proposals had been discussed by the two Governments with the political parties and broadly accepted by them, including a joint declaration. Tonight, the Secretary of State tells us that it is a further strength that the joint declaration published last week represents a shared understanding between the Governments and the pro-agreement parties of how we can proceed to the full and final implementation of the Good Friday agreement and, further, that that joint declaration is not open to renegotiation. On what basis does the Secretary of State presume on the support of the Ulster Unionist party for that joint declaration?
    Mr. Murphy: It was pretty clear during the seven months of negotiation that the leadership and negotiating teams of all the parties were based in Hillsborough and elsewhere to discuss the issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is not for me to comment on the internal mechanisms of individual political parties in Northern Ireland—that is their business. When we discussed the matters, the issues were agreed as an understanding. Some were not. For example, the issue of OTRs was separately identified outside the joint declaration, because the Ulster Unionist representatives in the negotiations did not agree with the nature of OTRs, in the same way—I hasten to add—that Sinn Fein did not agree with the paper about sanctions, of which the hon. Gentleman is aware. There were disagreements, but there were other issues to do with the implementation of the agreement on which there was a huge shared understanding, such as issues of equality or those contained in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration, which defined precisely what paramilitary activity was and is.
    Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State has said that he wants openness and transparency. Does he agree that the treatment of the journalist from The Sunday Times, who made sonic things transparent, has been appalling? In the Secretary of State's view, were the conversations true and, if so, what will he do to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland may believe that their elected representatives are not being called such names?
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on issues that are clearly matters of national security—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they are not."] Of course they are matters of national security.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Absolute nonsense.
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend could use more tempered language. We can disagree on the issues, but it

    657
    is not gibberish to suggest that matters of national security are ones on which Ministers cannot comment. Similarly, it is not right for me to comment on an investigation that the police have already started with regard to the individual mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
    Mr. Hugo Swire: What we have heard this evening, from an uneasy Secretary of State, is the triumph of hope over experience. Why does he believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will comply with the demands for completion by the autumn when they have failed to do so by the timetable that has been outlined for months? In the spirit of openness and transparency, does he agree that some credibility might be restored to the entire process if the arms that Sinn Fein-IRA still hold were surrendered in a verifiable and transparent way, not in some behind the scenes deal that we have to take in good faith?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman's last point is valid. People in Northern Ireland, from whichever party or community they come, have to have sufficient confidence that acts of decommissioning are genuine and verifiable. I am uneasy, I suppose, because I did not for one second want the elections to be postponed. However, I am at ease with myself with regard to the importance of the process. Many of us have been involved in the process for a long time, and some have been involved for much longer than I have. I know that they want the peace process in Northern Ireland to succeed. I accept that not all the parties concerned agree with our view, which is the sensible position that the best way to ensure that the process developed was to do what we did. I repeat that it is a postponement, not a cancellation.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Tonight may be the last time this week, but I support the Government. There is no democratic vacuum in Northern Ireland because of this decision. We have 11 Members opposite from Northern Ireland and another two next to me. Is not the key matter the peace process itself? Is it not essential either that the Provisional IRA gives up all activities in which it has been involved, or that Sinn Fein detaches itself clearly from the Provisional IRA? There is a precedent, in that, in the end, the democratic left detached itself from the Official IRA and entered fully and properly into democratic politics.
    Mr. Murphy: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The essence of the Good Friday agreement was that politics in Northern Ireland should be exclusively democratic and non-violent, and that the way forward for any political party—be it republican or any other—is to move down that road and not down the road of violence. That is why the two Governments have expressed with great robustness over the last couple of weeks the importance of ensuring that we have a clear answer from the IRA to the questions that we posed. We will continue to do that.
    Mr. Nigel Dodds: Will the Secretary of State not admit openly tonight his shame and
    658
    embarrassment at the fact that he has to come here to explain why democracy was denied to the people of Northern Ireland on the very day that voters in Scotland and Wales were casting their votes? Does he accept that the root of the problem is that while a clear and overwhelming majority of nationalists and republicans in Northern Ireland support the Belfast agreement—why would they not, as it delivers a nationalist and republican agenda?—the vast majority of Unionists in Northern Ireland do not support it? By running away from the election, the Secretary of State is simply putting off the day on which that fact will have to be faced up to and he will have to enter negotiations with those who truly represent the Unionist people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Murphy: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman; nor do I admit to being ashamed or embarrassed about what we had to do. Whether we disagree about the Good Friday agreement and the institutions and systems that it set up, the hon. Gentleman and I would nevertheless agree that devolution for Northern Ireland worked well. He was a Minister in the devolved Administration. I am sure that he would agree also that an Assembly that could not produce an Executive and remain suspended was of no use to anybody.
    David Winnick: Should the republican leadership bother to read some of the exchanges that have taken place tonight, would it not come to the conclusion that by refusing to give the answers that are necessary to both sovereign Governments, the IRA is in effect playing right into the hands of the very people who are dedicated to destroying the Good Friday agreement? Perhaps it would be useful if the IRA and its political allies realised that fact.
    Mr. Murphy: I agree. I am not sure whether IRA members are watching the statement on the parliamentary channel this evening, but if they are, I repeat the message that I gave to the House an hour ago: we must have a clear and unambiguous statement with regard to the ending of all paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland. Only then can we proceed successfully with the peace process.
    Mrs. Iris Robinson: Does the Secretary of State accept that the electoral mandate given to Assembly Members in 1998 has now expired and that parties therefore no longer have the democratic authority to negotiate? Would not it have been better for democracy for the elections to go ahead and to allow new mandates to be given to the parties?
    Mr. Murphy: I do not agree that the mandates for negotiation are worthless—far from it. The purpose of negotiations in Northern Ireland is to ensure that all parties, if they so wish, can take part in negotiations and discussions. The hon. Lady knows that my door is always open to members of all parties in Northern Ireland to discuss these issues. In the weeks ahead, I will ensure that all parties in Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to make their points known.
    Mr. Frank Field: Those of my constituents who listened to the Secretary of State's

    659
    statement tonight will have heard him say that elections have been postponed in Northern Ireland because the IRA has failed to surrender its weapons. They may well ask me whether the simpler and fairer way forward would have been to exclude IRA-Sinn Fein from the electoral process. How would my right hon. Friend help me answer my constituents' question?
    Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend's constituents' questions would be answered by referring to the agreement made in 1998, which provided for exclusion from the Assembly, by the Assembly itself. That did not happen, but the agreement also said that politics in Northern Ireland should be exclusively peaceful. Exclusively peaceful politics can be achieved only if there is a commitment on the part of parties that are linked to the IRA, within the republican movement, to secure an end to paramilitary activity. That in turn led to the destruction of trust and confidence between the parties in Northern Ireland, and to the suspension of the Assembly. When we have restored trust, we can restore the institutions, and hold our elections.
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: Further to that question, does the Secretary of State not see that there is something fundamentally and morally wrong in a political arrangement that suspends the workings of democratic, devolved government because a terrorist organisation refuses to give up violence? Should there not be an arrangement whereby nationalist and Unionist parties exclusively committed to democracy can resume restored devolved government?
    Mr. Murphy: That has to be based, of course, on there being willingness and agreement across the political board that that should occur. I think that, in many ways, there is something particularly immoral about 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland. Whatever the deficiencies of the Good Friday agreement since it was signed in 1998 and brought into effect, I believe that the world has changed for the better in Northern Ireland. It is much better than in the 30 years that preceded the agreement. I therefore believe that, although all of us deeply regret that we have had to postpone the elections, it would have been much worse to see the process fail.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State has said several times that the agreement cannot be changed. Will he accept that the agreement has been changed, in so far as the An Taoiseach is having a direct role in Northern Ireland's internal affairs, which is contrary to strand 1? Will he also accept that some people were conned into voting for the agreement by promises from the Prime Minister that have not been fulfilled? The Secretary of State will be aware that a famous Ulster actor is starring at the moment in a television series called "Murphy's Law". We in Ireland are never too happy about Murphy's law.
    Mr. Murphy: Well, there is no answer to that really, is there? The law that has to reign supreme in Northern Ireland is the one that allows us to have a peaceful Northern Ireland, with stable political institutions. In 1998, people believed that the agreement provided that. No one thought for one second that we would have
    660
    complete peace and harmony after 1998—far from it; everybody knew that there was going to be a very bumpy road ahead of us. I suppose that we have hit the biggest bump of the lot during the past number of weeks. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that, central to the whole question, is the importance of ensuring that the IRA—and indeed all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland—ceases its activities.
    Andrew Mackinlay: It is nearly Wednesday. How many sitting days will there be between publication of the Bill to postpone the elections and its Second Reading? Is it intended that all the Bill's stages will be taken in one day, which would be unsatisfactory?
    In the great scheme of things, my next question is perhaps unimportant, but the Secretary of State has not spoken about the staff of Members of the Legislative Assembly and the high street offices. What will happen to them, particularly as regards redundancy notices?
    Mr. Murphy: The Bill will be published by Thursday, and, so long as the House authorities and the usual channels agree, there will be a day for all stages at the beginning of next week. I know that that may be regarded as unsatisfactory, but my hon. Friend will be aware that in order to fulfil the requirements of ensuring that one election has ended and the other started we have to act within a given time frame.
    On my hon. Friend's second question, let me assure him that we are carefully considering the issue of the political parties and their staff, and not least the staff of the Assembly itself, and are looking at how to ensure that the political process continues in Northern Ireland in the months between now and when the elections are held.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Secretary of State not ashamed and embarrassed at coming to the House to defend the cancellation of elections, for cancellation is what it is? Will he explain how he could tell us on Thursday that the elections would be postponed until the autumn but that he has twice in his statement tonight reverted simply to "hoping" that the elections will take pi ace in the autumn? Is it not abundantly clear that he knows well that the conditions that he requires will not be met even in the autumn, and that his attempt was simply intended to save the skins of those Unionists who have supported the Belfast agreement against the wishes of the Unionist community?
    Mr. Murphy: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The trust and confidence necessary to re-establish the Assembly., and therefore an Executive, are important. The hon. Gentleman would agree with me—he has not mentioned it—that central to that is an end of paramilitary activity. I understand his frustration and huge disappointment, from his own and his party's point of view, with regard to the postponement of the election, but I am sure chat he would agree that there is little point in electing Members to an Assembly that could remain permanently suspended. If he knocked on the doors of his constituency and in other parts of Northern Ireland, the people whom he would ask to vote would ask him the same question.
    Mike Gapes: Five years ago the Belfast agreement was hailed throughout the world as a sign of

    661
    hope and reconciliation. What message is sent around the world by the fact that, once again, Sinn Fein is not present in the House to take part in this discussion or from the fact that the rejectionists who were against the agreement still reject it? Meanwhile, the vast majority of people in the civil society of Northern Ireland will welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to carry on the process of normalisation and hope for the future.
    Mr. Murphy: People are, of course, entitled to their own views about the Good Friday agreement. Parties represented in the Chamber—the Democratic Unionist party is one, but not the only one—made their points of view known at the time of the referendum. Since then, other views have been expressed about the agreement, and they will doubtless continue to be expressed. At the end of the day, it is all about ensuring that people have the opportunity to see a possibility of peace ahead of them. I think that people in Northern Ireland have tasted that to a large extent in the last five years, in comparison with the 30 years before that. We must continue to ensure that people continue to have that hope, from whatever part of the community they come.
    David Burnside: May I ask the Secretary of State, at one minute before midnight, to pass on to the Prime Minister our best wishes for a very happy birthday, in that for a Prime Minister who decided to take half of his birthday celebrations in Dublin with the Irish Cabinet, I think it shows a tremendous contribution to the Irish peace process?
    Now for a serious point. If the Prime Minister and the Government do not come to the House soon, they will continue to turn off the people of Northern Ireland, who are just getting fed up and disillusioned and being pushed into fanatical apathy with the whole peace process, because it just stumbles and stumbles. Why do they not tell us the truth: that we cannot have devolution without Sinn Fein? Is that the Government's position, and can we take it that that is not going to change? Is it that we cannot have devolution in Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein in the Executive? If that is the position, tell us, because some of us do not want it at that price.
    Mr. Murphy: But the issue in the agreement was that the Assembly would be inclusive, right across Northern Ireland. There is the opportunity, the possibility within the agreement itself, for parties to be excluded from that particular Executive. It would obviously be the best for all of us were we to get to a situation where there is an end to the paramilitary activity—all those things that I have described and which are in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration. Surely it is best to see an end to that, not just because of the way in which it impacts upon an Assembly and upon devolution, but the way in which it impacts on the people of Northern Ireland in general. That is the issue; we want to see a peaceful Northern Ireland with all those terrible things stopped, and that is what we, as Governments, will be pressing for over the months ahead.
    Mr. John Gummer: Is the right hon. Gentleman not in a difficulty here, because in the north
    662
    of Ireland, which after all was established originally by threat of violence, there is a continuing determination to force one side against the other? Should he not this evening take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said about the possibility of an election forcing people to find a way of creating an Executive?
    I agree that the right hon. Gentleman may have some concern when he has heard the extremist language and the revanchist views that we have listened to from those who never wanted peace anyway, but he should recognise that an election forces people to try to find a way of having an Executive. I wonder whether he would accept it from moderate people, who take neither the extreme view of the Protestant Unionists nor the views of those who are supporters of the IRA, that perhaps an election is the means of making people face the fact that in the north of Ireland, if we are to have peace, people actually have to live together and choose an Executive that makes that possible.
    Mr. Murphy: I would not dismiss that scenario at all, and that is why it was a very difficult decision. The right hon. Gentleman refers to being in difficulty. He is right; of course we are in difficulty, and it was a very difficult decision to take because the points that he has made are valid. But we had to look across the whole board and as well as looking at the political process we had to look at the peace process; they are intertwined. If at the end of the day we do not get sufficient clarity—as we have not got from the IRA—we must take that very seriously in terms of the peace process in Northern Ireland but also in terms of the impact that it has on other parties, whether or not they would join in an Executive with the IRA.
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: I take it from the comments that the Secretary of State made earlier in the evening that he would accept the credentials of those of us who are peaceful, democratic and law-abiding in our opposition to a process that we see as one of appeasement of terrorism. I take it that he will accept the credentials of those of us who have put forward that view consistently. If he does accept that, can he give an incentive to the many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are equally peaceful, democratic and law-abiding but who see an increasing degree of cynicism among their community when they see evidence of an electoral opportunity to express their views being denied them? How does he present an incentive for those people to continue in their democracy, to continue in their peace, to continue to be law-abiding when he snatches the opportunity of an election from them?
    Mr. Murphy: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are committed to peace in Northern Ireland. I do not agree, however, on his analysis of the Assembly because cynicism would be even worse if people were elected to a body that remained suspended. I see no point in that because people would see no point in voting for it if they thought that it would be continually suspended—much better

    663
    for people to vote for a body that they knew would be restored and could produce a Government for the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Does the Secretary of State agree that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, within 12 months of receiving a huge electoral mandate in this country, was hugely influential in securing the support, in particular, of the Unionist population of Northern Ireland for the Belfast agreement, but that that agreement has been unilaterally breached by Sinn Fein-IRA, by their failure to decommission weaponry, which they hold illegally, and that it is in the context of that unilateral breach that faith has been lost by so many of the Unionist community? Does he not understand that he has now put the Government in the position where they need Sinn Fein more than Sinn Fein needs them, because they are giving to Sinn Fein unilateral British disarmament in Northern Ireland as a reward for Sinn Fein's unilateral breach of the agreement?
    Mr. Murphy: That is not the case at all, because no normalisation would take place if the Chief Constable and the security forces in Northern Ireland agreed that there was still a threat. If there were still a threat, obviously, those events would not take place, and what the hon. Gentleman will read in the annexe to the joint declaration is based on the contingency of the IRA completing what we want it to complete—that is to say that it is ending paramilitary activity.
    As I say, this is ultimately about trust and confidence, but it is also about indicating to the IRA that we were not happy and that we were not content with the statements that it made. It did move; there was progress, but, frankly, it was not enough and, until there is enough, I fear that—without that trust, which is necessary to bring back what is important in Northern Ireland in every respect—we will still have to wait.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: One can genuinely sympathise with the Secretary of State in seeking to use the prospect of a future Assembly to try to bring Sinn Fein-IRA on to the democratic path permanently, but would not there be an equal or even greater incentive to do that if the elections had been allowed to go ahead, so that Sinn Fein-IRA would have felt that they were the ones who were excluding themselves, while others got on with holding the positions to which they had been democratically elected? Is not really the position that the Secretary of State is taking rather analogous—I do not mean to trivialise it—to that of a referee in the FA cup final who, when a player on one side commits a foul, instead of penalising that player, sends both teams off the field?
    Mr. Murphy: Except that the match has still to be played in the new season. I hope that, as I say, come the autumn, those elections are held and that, at the same time, we have the trust that is necessary to restore the institutions, but the hon. Gentleman is right in this respect: the decision was extremely difficult and the arguments were very finely balanced. It was not an easy decision at all. We think that we have taken the right one because, as I say, what is the point of electing people to an Assembly that remains suspended?

    Asthma
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
    12.9 am
    Mr. David Chaytor: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for my being able to introduce this short debate on asthma. It is an extremely timely debate, as Tuesday 6 May is world asthma day. In parliamentary terms, it remains Tuesday 6 May, although in real time, of course, that was yesterday.
    I want to pay tribute to the work of the National Asthma Campaign, the independent charity dedicated to conquering asthma, which launched its new asthma charter today. If implemented, the charter could literally be a breath of fresh air, as it describes the quality of care that the 5.1 million people with asthma in the United Kingdom should receive from the national health service. The charter aims to ensure that everyone who works in the national health service and in government gives asthma the priority it deserves.
    In view of the debate in the House tomorrow—perhaps I should say "today"—on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, one of the issues that deeply concerns many people is the balance between the role of primary care and the role of secondary care. Asthma—not the most glamorous end of health care policy—provides a timely example of how, if we invest more in primary care, we can ultimately save more in the costs of secondary care.
    Let us be under no illusion that asthma can and does kill: in the United Kingdom, 1,500 people die from asthma each year. That equates to four people a day and one person every six hours. We all know someone who has asthma. Currently, 5.1 million people in the United Kingdom are receiving treatment for asthma. For many people, asthma means daily anxiety about how to avoid an attack. For some, it is a matter of life and death. Currently, there is no cure for asthma. It is a real problem, but, fortunately, we can do more about it. With better care and treatment from the point of diagnosis, an estimated 90 per cent. of deaths could be prevented and 75 per cent. of hospital admissions could be avoided.
    Asthma is a condition that affects the airways—the small tubes that carry air in and out of the lungs. People with asthma have airways that are almost always red and sensitive because they are inflamed. Their airways can react badly when they have a cold or other viral infection or when they come into contact with an asthma trigger—something that sets off their symptoms. When that happens, the muscles around the walls of the airways tighten and become narrower. The lining of the airways swells and often produces a sticky mucus. As the airways narrow, the air must squeeze in and out, and that is what causes the person with asthma to find it difficult to breathe. Asthma symptoms can include coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath or a tight feeling in the chest. One of my constituents recently described an asthma attack to me, saying that it felt like an elephant sitting on their chest. It is a frightening experience, and it is important to emphasise that asthma is far more serious than an occasional shortage of breath.

    665
    One in 13 of my constituents in Bury, North suffers from asthma. A vast number of them have been in touch with me with regard to a variety of issues ranging from the impact of smoking in the workplace and other public places, asthma policies for schools, the impact of air pollution and the effect of prescription charges for asthma sufferers.
    Of course, asthma is more than a health issue. For most sufferers, it is a quality of life issue, and in the absence of a cure I want people with asthma to be able to live a symptom-free life.
    Mr. David Drew: I declare an interest as an asthma sufferer. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best changes in terms of preventive care is the way in which people's use of the drugs can be managed through advice in doctors' surgeries, often involving practice nurses? Does he also agree that as new generations of those drugs are developed, there is a need to manage carefully people's access to them? Too often, people do not know how to use the drugs in the appropriate way, and more work must be done in that area. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a way to take the matter forward?
    Mr. Chaytor: My hon. Friend speaks with personal experience as an asthma sufferer and I pay tribute to the work that he has done to raise the profile of the condition. What he says about the need to increase people's awareness of the disease and to increase their ability to manage the drugs is right and will be a theme of my remarks.
    The impact of new technology in alleviating the suffering of asthma sufferers also needs to be taken more seriously. I was recently made aware of the use of mobile phone technology by one of the major mobile phone networks to enable more direct communication at the crisis point between asthma sufferers and their GPs. Again, as time goes by, with the correct level of investment and with greater understanding and awareness of the problem by both GPs and asthma sufferers, that will lead to a severe reduction in the number of deaths from asthma.
    The data and statistics presented by the National Asthma Campaign demonstrate how enormous a burden asthma can be. I was shocked to discover that almost 4 million people with asthma needlessly experience symptoms. As a nation, we do not meet our international targets for asthma care. That is through no fault of the patients or the health care professionals; it is entirely because the nation and the Government do not give asthma sufficient priority. If we do not make it a priority, how can asthma sufferers and their carers be expected to meet those critical standards? The sheer number of emergency admissions—74,000 per annum—is surely evidence enough that people with asthma are not getting the support or care from the health service that would prevent so many of those admissions.
    People with asthma often have low expectations of how well they can be and do not realise that their health and quality of life could be better. Almost half of all people with asthma in the United Kingdom experience significant symptoms that disrupt their daily lives, such
    666
    as difficulty in walking upstairs and interrupted sleep. The majority of people with asthma do not need to tolerate asthma symptoms. They can and should be able to go through life virtually symptom free.
    The sheer scale of asthma as a condition makes it an expensive business at all levels of the health service and to society as a whole. Approximately 18,000 first or new episodes are presented to GPs each week in the United Kingdom. Respiratory disease is now the most common illness responsible for emergency admissions to hospital. Asthma costs the NHS an average of £850 million a year. At the local level, the annual cost of managing asthma for an average size primary care trust is approximately £4 million. In total, asthma costs the UK economy and the NHS more than £2 billion a year. As a consequence of symptoms and inadequate care, more than 18 million working days are lost as a result of asthma each year. That could be changed by better health care.
    People with asthma are frequently forced to visit hospital because their asthma is poorly managed. Much of the suffering and unnecessary journeys to hospitals that are sometimes many miles away could be avoided because most patients would prefer to visit their local GP. Today's modern medicines mean that people with asthma should lead symptom-free lives, but the asthma care system leaves a great deal to be desired. With good support from health care professionals, backed up by written information, the National Asthma Campaign believes that people can take the lead in managing their asthma and relieve the impact of the condition on their lives—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). That in turn will help to cut the costs of emergency admissions and reduce the number of unnecessary deaths.
    Our current system leaves a lot to be desired in terms both of cost-efficiency and cost-effectiveness. However, it is clear that changes should be made, many of which may have little cost implication. People with asthma are not asking the earth; they want only common-sense things such as a quick and accurate diagnosis, to meet their respiratory consultant and asthma nurses on a regular basis, to be shown how to use the inhaler device correctly, to agree a personal action plan with a doctor or nurse and to expect any person who works in the NHS to be aware of the serious risks that the person with asthma faces if their condition deteriorates. However, it is also clear that prescription charges are a major problem for most people with asthma in the UK. In a recent survey, 71 per cent. of people with asthma said that free prescriptions would be the most useful thing in improving their quality of life. Some people with asthma are quite unable to pay for all their prescribed medication, and are forced to choose which treatment to go without.
    Limiting asthma treatment because of financial difficulty puts the health of people with asthma at risk. Under-treatment can lead to irreversible lung damage, lower quality of life, an increase in the frequency of asthma attacks and the ultimate burden on the NHS, which is why the National Asthma Campaign wants asthma to be added to the list of clinical exemptions from prescription charges. As with many current clinical exemptions, asthma is a long-term medical condition with variable expression that requires consistent treatment to avoid worsening symptoms. There is no

    667
    clinical reason why asthma should not be added to the list. Free prescriptions for people with asthma will save NHS resources by reducing emergency hospital admissions and will improve their quality of life. In essence, better use of prescription medicines leads to less emergency health care use, less secondary care use, fewer asthma attacks and fewer days lost from work.
    I would welcome a wider role for pharmacists in asthma care, as they often have immense knowledge of asthma and have a little more time to deal with patients than GPs. They could, for example, check a patient's inhaler technique—something that is vital, yet can make such a huge difference. Incorrect inhaler use means that the medication does not work effectively to control inflammation in the airways or open them when symptoms occur. I would like the inhaler check to be a standard procedure when people pick up an asthma prescription. People with asthma often underestimate the seriousness of the disease. Many put up with poor, substandard care because they have low expectations of the health care that they receive and the quality of life that they can enjoy. I urge people with asthma to take the asthma charter to their doctor to ensure that they get the best treatment and advice.
    Only 3 per cent. of people with asthma in the United Kingdom have a personal asthma plan. Those plans are the single most effective non-drug-based way of controlling the condition, and can make the difference between a good quality of life and repeated admissions to hospital and all the associated health care costs. Making self-management plans a reality depends on the training of staff in asthma, which is neglected at present. There is an immense amount of good will among our nurses and health care professionals, but we need to harness that good will and provide structured plans so that training can come into force. Personal asthma plans lead to fewer asthma symptoms, improved lung function, fewer acute attacks because of the prompt response to a worsening condition, less need for reliever treatment, less need for steroids, less inappropriate use of antibiotics, improved compliance and a better quality of life.
    Many people with asthma do not have the chance to speak to a trained asthma nurse or respiratory specialist before they are discharged from accident and emergency. That is a key factor in avoiding repeat admission. A thorough assessment of their asthma should be made, including, perhaps most importantly, the reason for the admission, so that we can find out what precipitated the attack and how the situation could be better managed in future. Perhaps we should look at Australia as a benchmark of good practice elsewhere. It has made asthma a national priority and has more than halved asthma deaths in 11 years. It managed to lower asthma deaths by implementing better asthma care across the board.
    As a nation, we lag behind not only Australia but other European countries. In 1996, for example, mortality rates from asthma in the UK were 105 per 100,000 people, compared with 44 in France and 43 in Germany, which is why the National Asthma Campaign has long called for confidential inquiries into all asthma deaths. I want to reiterate that call so that we can know the reasons behind the 1,500 asthma deaths every year. If, as many people suspect, the reasons boil down to inadequate routine care, delay in obtaining help during
    668
    the final, fatal attack or poor adherence to medication, the Government and the NHS need to act quickly and cut the number of deaths with the easy and common-sense points on implementation to which I referred earlier.
    With one in every five households being affected by asthma, it is clear that we as parliamentarians need to do more to represent the views and needs of asthma sufferers. Regrettably, there remain many people, including politicians, doctors and nurses, who are not convinced that asthma is a problem. They do not seem to realise that their actions can make the difference between someone's asthma being under control and that person's being a regular visitor at the local accident and emergency department. I believe that the House can make a difference and I call on the Government to make asthma a national priority.
    We need more asthma clinics run by asthma-trained health professionals offering a patient-centred approach to increase patient expectations, coupled with health care trusts ensuring that asthma is a local priority. In addition, health care professionals should adhere to the latest British guidelines on asthma management. I pay tribute to the work of the National Asthma Campaign, the voice of people with asthma, for its ceaseless campaigning to improve patient care and public awareness of asthma. We in Parliament need to take heed of that, as we know that good management can lead most people with asthma to have full and active lives, and a better quality of life overall. Admittedly, the onus does not lie solely with Westminster, but it is a good opportunity for parliamentarians of all parties to use their power and influence to unite to make asthma a national priority.
    It is evident that much more work remains to be done within the NHS on behalf of the majority of people with asthma who should be experiencing a life free from symptoms. That is a problem connected with the health service, not with the health care professionals working within it. The Government should make asthma a national priority so that we can have a seamless co-ordinated system of care across primary care, accident and emergency, ambulance and in-patient and outpatient services. That m turn would cut the burden and costs incurred by the NHS and the pressure on the UK economy.
    12.26 am
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on initiating the debate. It is opportune that we are discussing asthma on world asthma day. I, too, have seen the National Asthma Campaign's 10-point charter, "A Breath of Fresh Air", which was published today. I share my hon. Friend's high regard for that campaign, with its proud record of supporting research and raising the issue of asthma, as has my hon. Friend today.
    We are making progress in improving treatment and care for people with asthma, and I welcome the opportunity to outline what has been done and what more we can do. I start by recognising, as my hon. Friend explained, how distressing and debilitating the condition can be for individuals, their carers and their families. As he rightly said, asthma is the commonest

    669
    chronic disease in the UK and it affects all age groups. Its cause, despite much research worldwide, is still not known.
    Before I deal with some of the detailed points and outline some of the action that has been and will be taken, I want to give some good news. Asthma treatments have improved and the number of deaths has fallen. Since 1988, the number of deaths in England and Wales has fallen by about 25 per cent. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about people being admitted to hospital when earlier preventive treatment could have avoided that, but admissions to hospital have fallen significantly since 1997, when they stood at 71,434 a year, to 60,134 in 2001–02. Like him, I believe that the advances in treatment are due to the commitment, dedication and expertise of the NHS and researchers.
    As my hon. Friend pointed out, asthma is mainly managed in primary care. The chronic disease management programme, which was introduced in July 1993, provides arrangements for health promotion under the GP contract. Participating GPs, who currently account for about 93 per cent. of the total number, receive a fixed annual payment for running organised programmes of care for patients with asthma.
    The asthma charter published today by the National Asthma Campaign sets out 10 rights that a person with asthma might expect from the NHS. GPs who participate in the chronic disease management programme are providing services that help to meet many of the charter rights. For example, the charter calls for access to nurses and doctors with specific asthma training. To participate in the chronic disease management programme, health professionals must be adequately trained in the management of asthma. Other requirements include ensuring that all newly diagnosed patients with asthma receive appropriate education and advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was right to say that that is an important element whereby we can improve management of asthma. GPs are expected to ensure that all patients receive continuing education, including supervision of inhaler technique if necessary, and to prepare an individual management plan with the patient and ensure regular reviews.
    All those requirements put participating practices in a strong position to meet many of the important charter rights. Of course, we need to build on that. Hon. Members will be aware that a new general medical services contract was launched in February. If that new GP contract is accepted by the profession, it will lead to unprecedented investment in general practice to deliver a wide range of high-quality services with better clinical outcomes for all patients, including those with asthma.
    The proposed contract includes a specific quality indicator for treatment and care of people with asthma that builds on the chronic disease management programme and will expect GP practices to keep records and effectively manage and review patients with asthma in order to qualify for additional quality payments. In particular, it highlights and promotes the offering and development of smoking cessation advice for patients with asthma who smoke. It promotes an increase in the number of patients who have asthma reviews and the number who have flu immunisation. If the profession
    670
    accepts the new contract, the quality indicators will help to drive up standards of treatment and care in that important area of primary care.
    It is also crucial that the work force are in place and that we have the numbers and quality of staff needed to provide the standards of care that my hon. Friend outlined. Since September 1997, there has been a growth in the number of consultants across all specialties and a 63 per cent. increase in the number specialising in respiratory medicine. Clearly, it is important that we further increase the numbers of trained specialists available to take posts in that specialty. In addition, the Department of Health and the Royal College of General Practitioners have produced a framework for implementing a scheme for general practitioners with special interests and clinical guidelines for them.
    My hon. Friend pointed out the importance of GPs and I very strongly share his view. The new guidance for the appointment of GPs with a special interest in respiratory medicine was published last month. Guidelines were written in conjunction with a range of experts, including the National Asthma Campaign and the British Thoracic Society. GPs with a special interest in respiratory medicine will be able to develop in their own services and along with their colleagues in primary care some of the improvements in treatment that we all want. They will be able to act as a clinical lead in the primary care organisation and carry out consultations with patients who may have been referred by other practitioners for advice on clinical management of problems such as asthma. That might well help to avoid the need to wait for referral to a hospital specialist or to be admitted to hospital at all.
    GPs with a special interest might also be expected to help develop the competence and confidence of their professional colleagues in providing an optimal service for people with asthma, acting as a training resource, a development and a clinical leader in the local primary care area, and helping to improve treatment for those with asthma. That scheme is an example of how we are putting into place plans to improve care for people with asthma.
    We recognise that not only GPs but specialist nurses have a very important role to play in the management of respiratory conditions such as asthma. Last month, the Department published "Liberating the Talents", a guide to inform the development of nurses with a special interest in primary care. Like GPs with a special interest, they could work across a number of practices, providing secondary care services to patients across the community. Alternatively, they might work out of a hospital trust on an outreach basis, perhaps supporting patients with asthma at home or in a local health centre.
    We need to ensure that we have more and better-quality professionals. but there is also an important role for developing the approach of patients with asthma to managing their own condition. People with asthma will benefit from the emerging expert patients programme, which, from 2004 to 2007, will provide mainstream NHS training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. The programme is piloting courses in selected primary care trust sites. We expect that it will develop to give individuals the skills to manage some of the generic issues around chronic conditions, including the need to deal with acute attacks, to make effective use of medicines and

    671
    treatments, and to cope with other people's responses. We then intend to introduce specific training modules, including one for asthma, into those pilot programme processes. Experience to date suggests that expert patients can reduce the severity of their symptoms and increase their quality of life—an area where there may be some important benefits.
    Asthma has a major impact on children. Alongside the work that we have done with the Department for Education and Skills on spelling out what we expect from schools in terms of helping children to manage their asthma and to play a full part in the life of the school, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills recently met representatives of the National Asthma Campaign to discuss what more we need to do to ensure that children have that opportunity. We are developing the national service framework for children to set standards for the care of children and young people so that all children and young people have access to good-quality care. We are developing, with input from the National Asthma Campaign, an exemplar that uses—because of its prevalence—asthma to demonstrate how services from primary care to acute care, including ambulance trusts,
    672
    must work together to ensure that the services that we provide for children with asthma are the most appropriate.
    That applies not only to children, but to adults. We recently welcomed guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on inhalers. Last year, it advised on inhalers for children aged between five and 15 and, in September 2000, for children under the age of five. We strongly support that guidance, which emphasises the importance of ensuring that the device suits the individual needs of the child. That fits with my hon. Friend's comments on making sure that we prepare patients and educate them properly about the use of drugs, and more broadly.
    On smoking, the Government's ban on tobacco advertising, work to educate parents about the effects of smoking, and support for the licensed hospitality industry's charter to improve facilities for non-smokers in pubs, bars and restaurants will be important contributions to helping to tackle asthma.
    I pay tribute to the role of the National Asthma Campaign as one of the largest funders of asthma research.
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Steel Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
9.30 am
Helen Jackson: I welcome the opportunity to open the debate. I asked for the debate a week ago today, on the day that the Corus Group held its annual general meeting at which it endorsed a new chair, Mr. Leng, and a new chief executive, Mr. Philippe Varin, and announced a restructuring and recovery plan that sheds hundreds more steel jobs around the country. Corus is the successor to British Steel. It covers the core steelmaking business in this country, which in turn serves our manufacturing capacity, and is the basis of our industrial reputation in this country and abroad.
A partnership approach with government at national and regional level is not an option to undertake as the mood of the chairman and the chief executive takes them; it is what the Government must demand. The bombshell announcement last Tuesday was so poor that the families of workers at Stocksbridge in my constituency woke to hear on the radio—as I did—that their jobs were to go and the works were to be closed ask the Government to intervene to demand a say and to ensure that every aspect of the package put forward by Corus last week is subjected to close and independent scrutiny. The implications for the UK's industrial reputation are such that the Government have a duty to intervene. The issue is not just about Corus, its management or the individuals and factors at the top of the organisation; it touches on almost every aspect of the economy.
The Government should work to ensure that external international factors, such as tariffs, the dumping of cheap products, and fluctuating exchange rates, are not a threat to the industry. That is partly why, with the support of my colleagues who are present—I am grateful for their attendance—and that of the trade unions and the UK Steel Association, an all-party steel group was established a couple of years ago to give the industry a more high-profile parliamentary focus and to enable it to work more closely with the Government. We have worked well over US steel tariffs. We have a role—we have worked on that—to press in Europe for measures against dumping and the influx of cheap products.
The all-party group also recognises that, for the steel industry, fluctuating exchange rates in Europe have been detrimental to investment planning, which they have left uncertain, and have sometimes left us at a disadvantage with European competitors. The stability which membership of the euro—at the right exchange rate—would bring is unquestioned. It is interesting that, since the group was formed two years ago, the former
146WH
chair of the Corus Group has not once made any attempt to make contact with me, as chair, or with parliamentary colleagues.
I ask the Government to maintain and extend investment in research and development in the industry in conjunction with higher education and regional bodies, and to build on new moves in metal skills training which are essential to create the flexibility that the industry needs to grasp new opportunities in the market. Although the leadership and structure of this crucial industry has been muddled and has failed, steelmaking in the regions has continued and will continue. There are new markets and capacity for a competitive and versatile steel business. New developments demand flexibility, skills, expertise and, of course, a competitive environment, investment and high productivity. We have taken those measures in the UK and have a competitive industry, which excels in world markets.
I agree wholeheartedly with the trade unions that those characteristics and skills exist across the country in both management and the work force. The leadership has let down not only them but all of us in the country. I know that other hon. Members will focus on their particular areas, but I want to concentrate on south Yorkshire, which is the home of engineering steel production. We know that the production method involves an electric arc furnace and uses scrap metal as its primary source. I suspect that it is the only heavy industry in the country that has a totally recyclable product, and it is therefore environmentally important.
We also know that Sheffield's industry goes back to the days of crucible steelmaking in which people found new functions for a brittle, hard metal substance by using its flexibility and durability, which gave our manufacturing industry the edge across the world in the past century. In recent years, that expertise has been developed under the Labour Government. In south Yorkshire, there is a partnership, in which Corus is involved, between the aerospace industry, the Boeing company, the Government and the region. It has led to the development of the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, and the Minister was welcomed in south Yorkshire when he opened it.
Those links with the aerospace industry are fundamental to a package of new initiatives, which are linked with higher and further education in the region, building on the links between engineering steel and new industries. For example, the Welding Institute has relocated to Sheffield from Cambridge and the head office of Castings is in the area. The production of new medical instruments is centred on our Medipark, where 140 companies are located. The energy, wind technology and diesel technology industries all need new specialist products made from engineering steel produced in south Yorkshire.
The debate concerns not only the steel industry but all the products that flow from it. The value-added end of production in the steel industry has led the industry into new profitable markets, and a small town in my constituency called Stocksbridge lies at the top of the value-added chain. It has about 15,000 inhabitants and is the home of special engineering steel. An early pioneer, Samuel Fox, founded the town's works, which he made profitable because he knew how to make steel bend. He introduced steel into women's corsets and

147WH
crinolines and the works went on to be the main producer of the high-tensile steel used in umbrellas. Now, Stocksbridge produces the unique, strong, high-tensile steel used in landing gear on aeroplanes. Every time we land and wonder why the aeroplane does not crash as its weight bounces along the runway, we can be thankful for the expertise of people in a small town in my constituency, which produces that grade of metal. Stocksbridge is a small town and almost everybody in it knows somebody who has worked in the steelworks. There is a pride in the product, which runs through not only the work force but the whole town.
Production comes from a re-melt facility, which takes the core engineering steel and re-melts it through a finishing and processing plant. The ingots made and melted at Stocksbridge are used to develop the product, which is unique in the United Kingdom. The plant is a world leader for quality and competitiveness and accounts for 80 per cent. of the total UK export of special engineering steel. Profit from one chunk or billet of aerospace steel is more than 10 times the profit from one chunk or billet of engineering steel. For years, that has provided the icing on the cake in terms of profits and has carried engineering steel through the ups and downs of the market.
So it is no wonder that the closure of the Stocksbridge plant last Tuesday morning was greeted with shock and bewilderment. For people in Stocksbridge, the decision is simply wrong. However, historical roots do not themselves make a business case. I must acknowledge, and thank Corus for, the detailed briefing that it gave us last Friday. Corus Engineering Steels proposes, first, to restructure in Rotherham so that steel making and the melting facilities are all on one site; and, secondly, to invest in a new ingot furnace in Rotherham, closing the melt shop and hot rolling mill at Stocksbridge so that all the primary material for the re-melt facility will come from Rotherham, while special steel processing remains at Stocksbridge. That was not what came across at 7 o'clock last Tuesday morning; it has emerged since.
I recognise that the presentation from Corus Engineering Steels focused not only on cuts but on investment to the tune of £250 million, but it left so many questions unanswered that I have to conclude that the plan is a fix—a crisis response to Corus's serious financing problem, rather than a thought-through industrial strategy. The motivation and drive behind last Tuesday's decision is, in my view, crucial to the plan's potential and viability. Is the aim simply to take out costs to meet a short-term financing crisis, or is this a real strategy for the future?
If the restructuring is profitable and right for south Yorkshire now, why has it not been put forward before? It is crucial for south Yorkshire that the plan should in no way threaten the viability of the profitable core of the business—the aerospace and reprocessing sectors, the added—value product and the output at Stocksbridge. That is like a jewel at the centre of a Russian doll. On the survival and profitability of that plant rests the health of not only steel but UK manufacturing, as I have explained, and the bulk of our exports.
Is the Corus plan playing to its strengths? Where is the vision to expand secondary special steel reprocessing to move into new markets? Should a company locate its
148WH
strongest product in the derelict and devastated atmosphere of a wider plant that has closed down and been mothballed? If the ingot production of special steels at Stocksbridge needs upgrading, why not upgrade it with a new furnace at that site? We would have more confidence in the proposals if Corus had worked through them with us at Government or regional level and with the local community during the past weeks and months, as the region has received its bids and developed its strategy for European objective 1 funding.
What efforts has Corus made during those months to win backing for its investment at Corus board level? How does its plan fit into the overall package put to the board last Tuesday? We were told that the financing of the proposals had to be in place by September—before the refinancing deal for the core Corus UK business is due. The whole plan is susceptible to the slightest flaw in the investment programme. Will Corus aerospace customers, even now, be looking to new markets as they see uncertain and failing management putting together a rushed business plan in a mood of financial crisis?
I acknowledge unashamedly that behind my efforts to secure this debate is my concern for the jobs and the workers in my constituency and my awareness of their contribution to life there, but the issue is wider than that. I am sure that the Government are eager to help. Indeed, I believe that they well understand the importance of the industry, its place in export markets and its links with other key sectors such as the motor and aerospace industries. I appreciate the Government's support on steel tariffs and the resources that have already been put into the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre.
However, in recent years Corus kept the Government's support at arm's length. It is now apparent that there never has been a strategic plan upon which to consult. This debate takes place at the start of a week in which the Government will urge us to endorse plans to bring the flexibility and risk-taking of the private sector into our major public services. In return, the Government must show that they are prepared to intervene in a major way when failures in the private sector, however they are caused, put our national interest and economy at risk.
It was clear by the end of the last Parliament that the steel industry's planning was seriously awry. Falling share prices had led to knee-jerk closures during the previous 10 years. One third of the industry's capacity has been lost. For Parliament, the decision last Tuesday was not only about the future viability of one company, Corus, but about a future vision for the British economy. The workers and the town of Stocksbridge epitomise 100 years of skills and in-depth expertise. It is the task of the Government to play to such strengths and to build for the future. We will not be forgiven if we allow a mistaken decision made in the context of one company's financial crisis to threaten the future prospects of steelworkers and manufacturing nationwide.
9.47 am
Vera Baird: Corus's announcement on 29 April meant that its steelmaking will be concentrated in Port Talbot and Scunthorpe when enhancement works have been completed there in about two years,

149WH
and that Teesside's slab and bloom will no longer be required. Teesside has been an integrated though depleted steel plant since the close of the coil plate mill in the last round of cuts. Secondary steel making will continue at Teesside—it makes structural sections—but its sections mill will get raw steel from Scunthorpe. It will not even be allowed to supply its own mill.
Teesside will have to sell all its annual output of a minimum of 3 million tonnes of slab and bloom on the stiffly competitive world market, so it will have to corner some 10 per cent. of the world market of about 30 million tonnes. That will have to be done from a standing start, because it has exported only some 120,000 tonnes so far this year. Furthermore, Corus says that the new enterprise must also be cash-positive.
It has long been understood that the future of British manufacturing is in sophisticated processes with high added value. As we cannot compete with the rest of the world on cost, the commodity end of any production is doomed to fail. The production of bloom and slab is the most commoditised part of the steel industry. Teesside was able to finish both long and flat products until 2001 and can still finish long product, which is where the profit is, but such production will be totally removed from Teesside.
Can Teesside's integrated steelworks survive as a merchant mill for slab and bloom? Corus have made it clear that the works will close if it cannot. Redcar steelworks directly employs 2,900 people, and 13,000 other jobs in Teesside depend on it. In April, unemployment in the Tees valley stood at 5.1 per cent., almost twice the national average, and that was with a steelworks. Twenty-five years ago, 30,000 people worked at the steelworks. Job cuts during those years were as much the result of improved processes as of the decline of the industry.
The steelworks in Teesside integrated with Llanwern, and since 2001 has sent its raw steel there for turning into hot-rolled strip. The unions tell me that Teesside steelworks in combination with Llanwern is making a profit. In that integrated form, it will make a considerable profit for Corus during the next two years as the predicted upturn in steel demand in western Europe and the UK emerges. It is easy for outsiders to see Teesside and its possible closure as another branch of an old industry in inevitable decline from competition in labour costs. However, through the integrated process, Teesside is currently competitive.
Problems and decline since 1999 in Teesside and UK steel generally have not been due to the inevitable decline of an old industry. They are due to the ineptitude of Corus. The merger with Hoogovens was intended to give British steel scale in the global market, but it was a catastrophe. Since it happened, there have been 11,000 job losses in the UK, and 1,150 more outside of Teeside were announced last week. Five plants have been closed or partially closed, including the coil plate mill. Corus's share of the UK market has slipped markedly.
Corus was going to buy Katowice steelworks, but it did not. Corus was going to merge with CSN, a Brazilian company, but it did not. Corus was going to sell its aluminium business to Pechiney and raise cash to pay off its debts, but it could not. It was not in debt to start with; it was cash rich. It would not be in such significant debt if it had not paid a £700 million merger
150WH
dividend to its shareholders and paid off no fewer than four chief executives since 1999. All were handsomely paid off, but all were hopeless failures.
A massive further fault with Corus's management is that they are not just uncommunicative, but secretive. In 2001, during the last round of cuts, they did not talk to the unions, MPs, the Secretary of State, nor to the Prime Minister, although I am told that they had the chance to do so. The then Secretary of State, to whom I spoke on the day before the announcement, asked where at Teesside the announcement was going to be made, to work out which bit of the works was likely to be axed. That shows how far out of Corus's confidence the then Secretary of State was. Consequently, no one in Teesside trusts Corus.
In 2001, the coil plate mill was closed, and the slab had to be sent to Llanwern to be finished. No one thought that that would be profitable because of the extra logistical costs. It is a very odd rationalisation and a bizarre way of maximising profitability to send slab at a freight cost of about £10 a tonne to be processed 200-odd miles away.
Unsurprisingly, Teesside people thought that they were being set up to fail. We thought that Corus would turn us into the weakest link, and the only word we would ever hear directly from the company would be "goodbye". "No", said Corus, as always speaking after the decision had been taken, "we have drawn a line in the sand. There will be no more rationalisation." I was told this Friday by Corus management that they have forecasts until 2012, so they spoke with authority when they drew their line in the sand.
Teesside made the odd amalgamation with Llanwern work. It shaved time, refined the process, met every productivity target and sent slab to Llanwern at a profit. Corus said that a line had been drawn in the sand and that there would be no more cuts, but to make sure of that, Teesside made a profit. The fantastic steelworkers of Teesside performed a miracle, so why are they now being cut loose, set adrift and told to find their own way? It seems obvious now that the union was right in 2001: Corus was making Teesside the weakest link, and now it is saying its deferred goodbye. Few in Redcar think that the new business venture can succeed; even fewer think that Corus thinks that it can.
This time, too, the company did not consult its work force or anyone else in Teesside before dealing the death blow to the mainstay industry of the whole sub-region. What it did this time was worse. It announced restructuring and then left it a month, while everyone in every steel community worried that it would be their plant that would go. The imposition of information and consultation requirements on companies such as Corus is long overdue.
The 2001 cuts at Redcar coincided almost to the day with Marks and Spencer's attempt to close its Paris store. The contrast between Marks and Spencer's patent inability to do that and the ease with which Corus cut 600 jobs in my constituency was educational. An obligation must be placed on such companies. Private enterprise, for its own sectional interest, cannot go on alone with no consultation, making decisions that can economically cripple an entire sub-region without opening up its thinking processes to anyone. Corus cuts itself off from better ideas, from stakeholders such as the

151WH
union, the regional development agency and the sub-regional partnership, which has a broader view of the aims of industry and can assist towards better decision making.
Consultation and information directives will be introduced in 2005, but we need information in Teesside now. It is not wholly impossible for Teesside to survive as a merchant mill; it is supremely well located for the import of raw material and the export of steel. Teesport can handle the largest bulk carriers, offering massive cost advantages to sea-borne transport. The plant is self-sufficient in coke. It has a flexible work force and a lean cost base that might become leaner, but we need information.
Teesside has no sales force. What sales resources will be allocated? Corus has no current market in slab and bloom. How is Teesside to promote its exports? How can the port handle 3 million tonnes, given that 1.8 million tonnes now travel by rail to Llanwern, the present capacity of which is 1 million or 1. 5 million tonnes? Teesside is self-sufficient in coke, but is the whole company self-sufficient in coke? If not, who receives priority? Does Teesside?
I call on the Government to use all their leverage to obtain such information from Corus quickly. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). We want to know whether this is a real challenge or just a proposal that people at Teesside work for the next two years for Corus only to be turned loose having spent their time earning their own redundancy pay. If it is a real challenge, the steelworkers of Teesside will take it on, and the Government should provide Teesside steel with advice and support, and give all the financial and investment assistance that they sustainably and lawfully can.
The steelworkers of Teesside work miracles with Llanwern. They are highly skilled; they can become Corus's most flexible friends. They are adaptable, tough and strong. They are hard working. Are the steelworkers being duped? That is the question today. I call on the Government to do everything that they can to give my constituents an answer.
9.57 am
Alan Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) for obtaining this debate. No one has done more than she has to champion the interests of the United Kingdom steel industry in Parliament. She champions her constituents, too, extremely impressively. I wish to place on the record my appreciation that the debate is being held and for her ongoing work. Members of the all-party steel group in the House of Commons regard ourselves as friends of the steel industry, but it has not always been easy to work with Corus. It is sad that we should now be debating the issue in this atmosphere.
As both my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) have explained, the past several years have been a pretty miserable time in the history of the steel industry. Repeated restructuring has led to repeated false dawns. Each attempt that the board of Corus has made to re-
152WH
establish the British steel industry as a major player on the global stage has crumbled. The latest episodes have seen the failure of the merger with CSN and the difficulties with Pechiney. All that we have heard has been a melancholy long withdrawing roar from the British steel industry, although I must say that there is a striking contrast between the unhappy performance and experience of the Corus board and the impressive achievements at regional and local levels.
At Llanwern, in my constituency in south-east Wales, there has been a most impressive and successful partnership between local management and the work force. I congratulate the Llanwern trade union liaison committee and Dr. Mark Carr, who is in charge of Corus Strip Products UK in south Wales, for what they have achieved together. Year on year, there has been impressive improvement in productivity. Notwithstanding the pressures and difficulties, and the buffeting that the work force has taken from the errors of the board, morale has been remarkably high.
However, in the latest announcement last week, 142 of my constituents at Llanwern were told that they must lose their jobs. They are 142 skilled, productive, loyal and committed people, who, through the years of stress and strain, have given absolutely everything to the company. They and their families have suffered yet another body blow because the management of the business at the highest levels have not been able to produce a viable strategy. Such damage to the livelihoods of individual workers, their families and their communities is also great in Stocksbridge, Tipton and Redcar. The anxieties and the exposure of the community in Redcar have already been described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar.
What have we to look forward to? We appear to have a strategy that confines itself to defending the home turf; of downsizing to match foreseeable United Kingdom demand. There are difficulties with that, as it is all too clear that UK demand is in long-term decline. The demand in the UK for flat-rolled steel has fallen from 6 million tonnes in 1998 to 4.8 million tonnes now, and I fear that that decline is structural, not cyclical. Are we looking forward to a process of continuing attrition and erosion? Can we say that we have seen the end of salami-slicing, or amputations?
We must maintain Corus's capacity so that it can get back on to the front foot and attack global markets to resume exporting when global market conditions permit. Although it is necessary and sensible to ensure that the core domestic base is sound, viable and able to generate cash at the bottom of the downturn—the company has explained that that is what it seeks to do—we must allow ourselves the margin to do more. The alternative is simply to retreat. I do not think that the market will be static, so it is not a viable option for Corus simply to adopt a static position. The recent strategy is not heroic; it may be sensible in that we must get the domestic base right, but we need a springboard for future growth and ambition.
In the near term, it is crucial that Corus achieves its refinancing. The new banking facilities for working capital must be agreed, as must the new long-term debt to

153WH
enable investment in new capacity. I welcome the board's intention to invest up to £250 million in improving capacity throughout the UK.
Llanwern has had a happy and successful partnership with Redcar, and we have been pleased to be partners to our friends and colleagues there. Of course, we welcome the decision to invest further at Port Talbot. From the narrow perspective of my constituents at Llanwern, it will be satisfactory to achieve a symbiosis with Port Talbot that ensures that we can buy competitively priced product from Port Talbot that can be finished at Llanwern, and that the total product of Corus Strip Products UK is competitive on that basis.
Can the new leadership do better than its predecessor? It badly needs to. It has had an inauspicious start, and I refer to Philippe Varin's terms of employment, which represent an extraordinary insensitivity on the part of the board. I have with me the press notice of 23 April that explains that Mr. Varin is to be handsomely rewarded. His annual salary will be €1 million a year. He will also receive a pension allowance of 30 per cent. of that, and a further payment of €800,000 to compensate him for the loss of his options in Pechiney.
One might say that that is handsome but not exceptional or exceptionable. However, other features of the contract make me feel queasy. If Philippe Varin is given notice in his first year of service, he will receive two years' pay. No matter how badly he does in that period, he will be quite extravagantly awarded. He is also guaranteed a 20 per cent. bonus in his first year, regardless of his performance or that of the business.
Philippe Varin has agreed to buy 1.1 million Corus shares, and the board has agreed that the shareholders should purchase another 1.1 million shares for him. I am in favour of top management owning shares in their business, but I am concerned about the share option arrangements. I shall not detail them; suffice it to say that there is a big share-options package.
I should like to quote from an article in The Times by Graham Sarjeant on 26 April. Graham Sarjeant is an experienced observer of the business and financial scene, and is a sagacious commentator. He certainly has the interests of capitalism at heart. He held up Philippe Varin's contract of employment with tongs, as it were, as an example of the kind of contract that brings business into disrepute. He makes some serious and important points. He says:
"chief executives' pay should be fully aligned with the interests of shareholders. But that is only the case when directors live off dividends from their shareholdings … Directors usually make more money if the cash that should have been used to pay dividends is instead used to buy back stock just before share options mature. That is one of the key reasons why share buybacks proliferated in the good but corrupt times while dividends lagged behind profits, helping to make the fall in UK share prices one of the worst in the world."
He concludes:
"Deals such as this guarantee that boardroom pay deals will continue to create headlines, continue to make investors unhappy with boards and continue to provide ammunition for those who really do not trust business anyway … Jim Leng, deputy chairman of Corus, is due to take over the chair in five weeks' time. He has discredited himself before he starts."
This is, of course, part of a wider problem. There have been rows about top executive pay in recent weeks involving British Gas, Shell, GlaxoSmithKline, Reuters
154WH
and Cable & Wireless, as well as Corus. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is quite right to address the problem.
I do not blame Mr. Varin. With such a package being offered to him, it is not surprising that he is taking it. I have nothing against him personally, and I hope that he succeeds. I also hope that Graham Sarjeant's judgment on the reputation and standing of Mr. Leng proves wrong, because it is desperately important for Corus and all who sail with her that the board and top management establish a good reputation and perform well. The package was not only tasteless but foolish, and was against the interests of Corus and British business. Meanwhile, we shall wait and see, and do all that we can to assist the board in holding steadily to a workable strategy.
I now come to the supportive role of the Government. Their task is to pursue policies that do not frustrate competitiveness, and to support the group, as far as that is possible. Such support means exercising continued vigilance in the matter of dumping. I am pleased that the United Kingdom supported the European Commission in taking anti-dumping measures against Slovakia and Turkey, and is encouraging the Commission to intensify anti-dumping measures against Bulgaria and South Africa. I notice that the UK objected to taking anti-dumping measures against Egypt on the basis that the damage that had been done so far, and that which was foreseeable, was not sufficiently severe. However, I was interested and personally pleased—Corus was certainly pleased—to see that the Commission disagreed with the UK.
Similarly, we must maintain all efforts against protectionism. I have nothing but praise and appreciation for the part that the Government have played in mounting a vigorous response to the section 201 protectionist measures introduced by the Bush Administration. The Government have been working with the Commission, the all-party steel group and the British-American Parliamentary Group. We have between us done something to alleviate the position, and the result is a significant reduction in the quantity of steel subject to restrictions and tariffs that is exported by Corus to the US. Nevertheless, the relevant quantity is some 600 kilotonnes—that is major damage. There is no shred of an excuse for what the US Administration have done.
Helen Jackson: On the issue of section 201 and the steel tariffs, is it not correct that the World Trade Organisation has found against the US Government partly because of the pressure? Is it not the right time to press the US Government to accept the WTO's decision, rather than move in and appeal against it?
Alan Howarth: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If the US has a rational, shrewd perception of its own interests in the wider context of international affairs, it will not want to be seen to be flouting international law and agreements. I am not entirely optimistic, because policy on such matters is effectively made by Mr. Karl Rove, who is advising the President on his re-election campaign for 2004 and who has targeted with pinpoint precision certain constituencies and swing districts in which steelmaking interests and

155WH
jobs are at stake. I fear that that set of considerations will weigh more heavily with the Administration than the factors to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention.
The Government should continue the drive to eliminate uncompetitive excess capacity across the globe. One of the anxieties around US protectionism is that certain US plants, which would not have been regarded as competitive in global terms, are coming out of chapter 11 and back into full production. That cannot be right. We must pursue the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development process to remove excess and uncompetitive capacity rationally, reasonably and on a phased timetable. The British steel industry has already made a massive contribution to that process and others must follow suit.
I hope too that the Government will be vigilant and energetic on state aids that may persist in countries in central and eastern Europe that are looking forward to entering the EU. Time being short, I will not detain the House with excess detail. I will only say that in Slovakia the new owner of the largest steel company has been given a favourable tax break and that only light output restrictions are required. I am advised by Corus that in the Czech Republic only relatively light capacity reductions are being offered in exchange for financial restructuring subsidies and that the Polish Government have made several restructuring proposals, each based on a totally unrealistic marketing plan, with negligible capacity reductions in exchange for considerable quantities of state aid. We all welcome the enlargement of the EU, but that should not be at the price of enabling countries that are low-cost producers to enter a free trade area and get around the rules constraining the longer-standing member states and their steel industries. Such matters are international responsibilities for the Government.
At home, we need to ensure that we have infrastructure in our industrial areas—particularly rail infrastructure—that is properly serviceable and has reasonable charges for access.
Will the Minister say whether the iron and steel employees re-adaptation benefit scheme—ISERBS—or an equivalent scheme will be available in this round of restructuring to people who have lost their jobs and need assistance in retraining and preparing themselves to take a different place in the labour market?
Corus has been lobbying for a long shopping list of tax changes. I have only limited sympathy with its complaints about taxes that are supposed to induce better environmental behaviour, such as the renewables obligation, the landfill tax and the aggregates levy, but I hope that the Government will heed what it says, and that they will not gratuitously impose any more taxation on our manufacturing industry than is truly justifiable in a wider context. I draw particular attention to the climate change levy. I am getting frustrated at being brushed off by the Treasury with bland, vacuous and patronising letters that fail to address our manufacturing industries' legitimate concerns about the levy or to respond to the point that Corus makes that a business that is trading internationally in intensely competitive markets already has plenty of incentive to reduce its costs and that the more that it pays in tax the
156WH
less it has available to invest in energy-efficient technology. That is a serious point that deserves a serious response.
The euro is the final issue on which the Government have to take a major decision. Corus has complained too much about the exchange rate: in recent years, it has had to cope with problems to do with a relatively strong pound, but its campaign to persuade the Government to enter the euro is misplaced, and it is something of an alibi to distract attention from the deficiencies of strategy in the business, which we have talked about.
It cannot be sensible for our steel industry to be dumped into the industrial black hole that is the eurozone. There is a world of difference between legitimately seeking policies that may cause the pound to fall somewhat in value against other currencies—difficult though it is to know what those policies could be—and proposing that we go into a permanently fixed exchange rate system with a single interest rate, which will certainly not be pitched at a level to suit us. The result of doing so would be that the stresses would have to be carried on pay and jobs, as they were during the period of the gold standard. The best prospect for the British steel industry is for it to be a well-run business in an economy that is well-run by our own elected Government.
10.17 am
Dr. Ashok Kumar: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that if it were not your job to chair this debate you would be taking part, as you are a Teesside Member of Parliament and you have championed the cause of steelworkers in the past.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing this important debate, and I strongly praise her tenacity in sticking up for those of her constituents who are about to lose their jobs in Stockbridge. However, as a Teesside Member of Parliament, I naturally wish to focus on what I consider to be a threat to the continued future of Corus on Teesside, and to comment on the links between that and our economy.
This is an important issue that is close to my heart. For 14 years, I worked at what was then British Steel, in research and development at the Teesside technology centre, and I played a role in many of the plants that are under threat, including the Redcar blast furnace and coke ovens and the Lackenby works. I have made many strong friendships among the people who work on the plant and in the iron and steel-making complex. However, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), I want to focus on Teesside as a whole.
Corus has made it clear that it no longer sees its Teesside works as a supplier of steel slab, the most basic commodity in the industry, to its finishing works elsewhere in the UK, and it wants slab production to be concentrated on Port Talbot and Scunthorpe. It argues that Teesside can find a new role and gain new opportunities by supplying steel slab to overseas markets. What concerns the people of Teesside is how deeply the plan has been thought through.
The Teesside complex manufactures some 3 million tonnes of steel per annum and almost all of it goes to Corus operations elsewhere in the UK. A small amount

157WH
is traded on the international commodity markets. The international market for slab is cyclical; across the globe there are a number of established suppliers of bulk steel, many of which seek to cement long-term arrangements with customers. At present, global demand varies between about 20 million tonnes per year at the bottom end of the cycle and some 30 million tonnes at the upper end. If the Corus board wants its Teesside operation to enter that market at its present production levels, the product will have to displace some 10 per cent. of the existing market, much of which is made up of traditional, low-cost producers from countries such as Brazil, Russia and China, so the board is advocating a tough approach.
To be successful Corus requires severe cost-cutting on a scale that has perhaps never been equaled in the United Kingdom steel industry. It will almost certainly require investment by Corus management locally and nationally to build up a dedicated and skilled local, national and international sales force—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough. Such an approach means that an urgent examination is needed of whether it is possible for Corus to enter a strategic partnership either with another steel producer or with a core customer and consumer. I feel strongly that it may also have to consider whether the plant could simply be sold.
These are uncharted and deep waters. The people of Teesside are prepared to accept great challenges if they have to, and this could be Teesside's greatest ever challenge. It is possible that the strategy will succeed, but it requires firm, decisive action by the Corus board and decisive action by its new chairman and chief executive; the foundation of that action must be put in place very soon. Entering new markets or building up strategic alliances or joint ventures takes time. Corus says that capital investment is needed to allow Port Talbot and Scunthorpe to take up the tonnage required by the exit of Teesside from the internal markets, which will take about two years to design and construct, and, given the complexities of the due diligence procedures for entering into a strategic alliance or joint venture, almost all that time will be needed for any agreement to be reached.
I simply ask the new Corus management to be open and honest with their Teesside work force and the wider Teesside community—a point that has been made by my hon. Friends. If the management believe that the plans are properly constructed and thought through, and realistic, they must be prepared to share them with all the local stakeholders. There is a mood of co-operation on Teesside but that co-operation must be won. Any suspicion that the Corus board is merely trying to defer inevitable closure for two or three years and effectively to push the redundancy costs off balance sheet for the time being to reassure institutional investors and bond holders, or that the cash needed to invest in the modernisation of Teesside processes and the building up of a sales force is simply not at hand will mean that co-operation will not be won. A massive wave of anger against the board—I emphasise the board—which has been visibly failing for many years, will sweep across Teesside unless it changes its approach.
Everyone knows what the cost of closure will be for my constituency and for other Teesside constituencies. In 2001, the time of the last major threat to steelmaking
158WH
on Teesside, a baseline economic analysis was prepared by the most affected local authority, Redcar and Cleveland borough council, and the regional development agency, One NorthEast. The figures from that survey are still relevant today. The loss of jobs will have a direct and dramatic impact, not only on the 4,500 staff directly employed by Corus but on the many thousands of others working for contractors on the site. According to the generally accepted multiplier, a further 1.7 jobs will be affected for every direct job lost. Some 7,000 jobs could be lost in the Teesside area, including those in services, local docks, freight forwarding and logistics, specialist engineering services, contract engineering maintenance and areas such as IT and telecommunications. Job losses on that scale will hit the GDP of the entire Tees valley.
The model used in the survey suggested that each redundancy would incur a loss of some £28,000 per head, leading to a total GDP loss of some £230 million in Teesside alone. That would have an impact on house prices and on investment in economic activity such as retailing. At the stroke of a pen, the work done in righting the economy since the slump of the mid-1980s and early 1990s, which incurred so much pain and suffering, would be undone.
Teesside deserves better. It certainly deserves better than the old-fashioned failed management style of Sir Brian Moffatt and his approach to running Corus. It deserves a new, innovative approach from the new chairman and chief executive. They have promised to consult, which I welcome. I think that all people on Teesside welcome that. They have said that they want to talk to local workers and managers, who will be able to tell them of the potential of the Teesside works and what the creativity, innovation and enterprise of the whole work force could promise for Corus's future.
As I said earlier, however, Corus has to be honest and open with Teesside. My hon. Friends have made that point over and over again. It has to be honest with local stakeholders and, of course, with our Government. That point has been made in relationship to the run-up to the cuts made by Corus two years ago. We can assist Corus with its strategy for Teesside if it can convince us that it is intellectually coherent, based on proper detailed analysis and able to be delivered.
Over the weekend, I spoke to many managers and middle managers. The views that I have given to the House today are shared by many. Given the difficult times that Corus and all of us are facing, Corus needs to know that until it demonstrates that openness, it is, for the people of Teesside, on parole.
10.28 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and her colleagues, the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on setting out the critical problem facing the industry. All four communicated the very real sense of pride that MPs representing steelmaking communities have and their willingness to fight for those communities.
At the outset, however, I ask whether this is the best way of advancing discussion of the subject in Parliament. I understand that the Secretary of State had

159WH
meetings with the management on Friday—that was reported. Although it will be useful to hear from the Minister, I wonder whether the matter is sufficiently serious for the Secretary of State to give a statement on it to the whole of Parliament. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that will be possible.
The key data quickly demonstrate how serious the problem is. Back in 1997, the British steel industry under Corus produced 18.5 million tonnes of steel. Once the restructuring plans are completed, that figure will be down to 10.5 million tonnes, which means that production will almost have halved within six years.
There is the fairly optimistic hope that the Redcar plant—its problems were described by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar a few moments ago—can sell 3 million tonnes of steel in the world markets. I am not in any sense an expert on the steel industry, but I understand that the plant's production costs are between $180 and $200 a tonne for standard commodity product, while its competitors in Brazil, China and Taiwan have production costs of about $100 a tonne. In an open, competitive market, it is difficult to see how that plant can survive without miraculous changes.
Those comments concern output, but the position on employment is even more extreme. I remember 30 years ago when the steel industry directly employed 250,000 people, regardless of indirect employment. That figure was down to 22,000 in 1999, and, after the successive waves of closures in the past few years, the figure is down to 11,000. We are dealing with an enormous contraction, the positive side of which—one should not forget this—is that there have been phenomenal increases in productivity. The work force have co-operated over the years in endless waves of productivity improvements and have given their all to try to save the industry through productivity gain, which has simply not been enough.
Finance is the other key indicator, and the figures are stark. In 2001, the operating loss was £385 million and last year it was £293 million, which is clearly unsustainable on any measure. The share price has also collapsed from 126p to 26p, and it is worth recording that that is not unprecedented. The British steel industry has an entry in the "Guinness Book of Records" for the worst ever financial performance, which occurred in 1980–81 when it made a loss of £1 billion on a turnover of £3 billion. Conditions were similar to today in the early 1980s because the currency was heavily overvalued and there was a recession in manufacturing industry. Those figures point to the extreme difficulties in getting the industry to run competitively.
In analysing where we are, the key question—all Members who have spoken have touched on different aspects of this—is whether the fundamental problem is one of business environment or one of management failure. Both issues are clearly involved because any industry could probably survive one or the other, but it is difficult to see how any industry could survive both. Although I certainly do not want to make excuses for management, it is clear that it has been operating in an enormously difficult business environment; in particular it has suffered from problems associated with the
160WH
exchange rate. The right hon. Member for Newport, East tended to de-emphasise that point, which is very important.
I do not want to reopen the argument about the euro, but since the mid-1990s, the effective exchange rate under which the industry has been operating has appreciated by about 30 per cent. That would be a problem for any industry, but for an industry such as bulk steel, which competes predominantly on price, it is crippling.
Dr. Kumar: When the merger went ahead between Hoogovens and British Steel, British Steel was making a profit of £1 billion and was very successful in world terms. Systematic management decisions have played a big part in creating today's situation.
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman is right that there have been management failures, which I shall briefly summarise in a few minutes. Whatever those failures have been, however, it is difficult to see how any firm could export a basic commodity for many years against that kind of exchange rate disadvantage.
The problem is not only that the British steel industry is exporting a commodity in the face of an extremely hard exchange rate. About 80 per cent. of its product goes to Europe, where it directly competes with euro-denominated products. Additionally, most of its other competitors are in the far east, where currencies have depreciated heavily against sterling. The exchange rate has been a major handicap, which one should not underestimate, and it has created an awful business environment. The irony is that this rather desperate phase of events is occurring precisely when there is some hope that the exchange rate is beginning to return to sensible levels at which the industry could possibly compete in the medium and long terms.
The hon. and learned Member for Redcar has clearly set out the management failures. One was the enormous £700 million dividend payout, which could arguably have been more usefully reinvested. There was a failure to carry through the deal with a Brazilian company. I am not sure how much that would have helped because if it had been successful, a lot of production would have been relocated to Brazil. Nevertheless, that was an objective and it failed.
There was a failure to understand the difficulties of disposing of the aluminium interests in Europe. Last but not least is the psychologically important point of the sheer insensitivity—I think that was the word that the right hon. Member for Newport, East used—of senior management in approaching their position.
We are dealing with an industry in great difficulty. Workers face constant retrenchment, yet the company's first preoccupation always seemed to be its own pocket, and the demoralising cynicism that that generates is difficult to underestimate. Mr. Peddar received a £650 million payout, plus a £2.3 million pension. The chairman who has just retired has a £300,000 per annum pension. I do not begrudge top management being paid well, but those people presided over a failed company, and it is the issue of payment for failure that is crucial. In the debate that we will have immediately after this, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) will put forward some ideas on how to deal with the

161WH
problem. It is difficult to underestimate the effects on the industry of that sheer short-sighted, selfish insensitivity of management.
I want to know what the Government can do, and perhaps the Minister will bring us up to date on what they intend to do. There has been speculation in the press this weekend that the Government are considering, or have at least been approached about a proactive form of intervention, even involving underwriting of refinancing. The industry has been arguing for renationalisation. I would have thought that improbable and certainly unwise, but perhaps the Minister will clarify whether the Government are willing in any circumstances to consider direct involvement through guarantees of financial support.
How far are the Government getting into discussions with the industry about strategy? There are all sorts of options opening up. The industry can continue under its present owners and with the present strategy. Other possibilities have been considered. The Mittal Group is known to be nosing around the industry. There are fears that its involvement would involve asset stripping and an even worse outcome than we have at the moment. Have the Government had any discussions with that group? Would they entertain the idea? What are the other strategic options and how far have the Government considered them?
What are the various practical forms of help that the Government could give? They were summarised very well in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, and I do not need to go over them in detail, but clearly the Government can help, as they have helped with earlier difficult situations in the steel industry and the car industry. They helped to retrain workers who had been laid off and provided retraining and restructuring operations working with the regional development agency. As the hon. Lady said, there are a lot of useful things that the Government can do, such as helping with skills training and research and development, without resorting to the classic bail-out. Perhaps the Minister could summarise those in his reply.
To return to the point that I made at the outset, I suggest that the situation is sufficiently serious that it merits a statement by the Secretary of State to the House as a whole.
10.38 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate, and also on the work that she has done with the all-party steelgroup. I would like to declare my interests that are in the Register of Members' Interests.
I thought that the hon. Lady made a very interesting and moving speech. I was particularly interested to hear about some of the important work that has gone on. She mentioned the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, the links with aerospace, and the way in which so much effort has gone into building links between the steel industry and new specialisms, particularly wind farms and other value-added areas of production.
I had a look at Corus's press release on Stocksbridge. There is some confusion; it says that the aerospace steels and all finishing of engineering billets will remain at the Stocksbridge site, but there will be a closure of steel
162WH
making and hot rolling at Stocksbridge. Corus said that that would happen in due course, but I gather from the hon. Lady that that has already taken place.
Helen Jackson: No, even Corus cannot close a melt shop overnight. The closure of the melt shop is scheduled for 2005, which is why it is so important that there be independent consideration of whether that is the best course of action.
Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting me right because I was slightly confused by what she said; she has made things absolutely clear now. There certainly has been confusion on the part of Corus. I agree with her that the proposals have not been properly worked through in any way, shape or form.
I was staggered when I saw from the Corus press release that it is expecting Teesside basically to stand on its own feet. Corus is not going to close the Teesside works, but it will no longer take any of the steel output, so, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) pointed out, Teesside will have to secure 10 per cent. of the world market pretty well from a standing start. That will have huge implications for the nearly 3,000 people employed directly and the many others employed indirectly. I was interested when she said that Teesside, combined with Llanwern, is making a profit at the moment and is competitive. I take on board her point about the need for Corus to re-evaluate that part of the package.
We need to focus on the Government's relationship with Corus. In February 2001, the then Secretary of State made a statement pointing out that:
"Corus has failed to discuss its plans with the Government. Relevant information has not been disclosed; the company has resisted any meaningful dialogue and has refused to discuss in detail its plans for the industry … Corus could adopt a different approach. If it were to do so, it would have the support of the Government."—[Official Report, 1 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 457–8.]
What have the Government done since then to build a meaningful dialogue with Corus? I know that it takes two to make such initiatives work, but have the Government put in place any firm proposals in the past two years to build the relationship and the dialogue? I am talking, for example, about considering the banking covenants that Corus has.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), pointed out, there certainly is substantial scope for the Government to sit down with Corus and work out exactly what the long-term strategy will be. After all, the Government have made a great deal of their strategy for manufacturing, for aerospace and for the car industry; what about a strategy for steel, as well? The right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) was quite right to refer to the way in which senior management at Corus have been at fault in not building bridges with the Government. If effort had been put into that, when the management really needed a proper dialogue with the Government, the Government would have been available and ready to help.
I take on board the point about the package for Philippe Varin. If one considers the attitude of the Corus management over the past few weeks, one can see that they have, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out,

163WH
been on the back foot. They have shown little sign of any inspiration or a "can do" attitude. They seem to be floundering to some extent. As one commentator pointed out:
"Corus has the knack of turning a crisis into a drama."
It chose to hold its annual meeting last Tuesday at the TUC headquarters. As that commentator pointed out, that is
"a bit like the IRA holding its Christmas lunch at the local Orange lodge."
Perhaps it is a bit unfair to compare Corus to the IRA, but I can see what the commentator was getting at.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that Philippe Varin's package should have been linked entirely to the future performance of the shares. When there has been much debate about corporate governance and rewards for failed directors in this country, it is quite extraordinary that Philippe Varin should be on a guaranteed 20 per cent. bonus and a two-year contract, and compensated for the loss of his Pechiney options. There is no question but that his package should have been linked to any uplift in Corus shares. If he delivers in any shape or form, it will be reflected in the share price, to which the package should be tied. Corus should have had the courage to say very clearly that he would not be employed if he was not prepared to accept a package based on such terms. As has been pointed out, he will be a success. He is a highly able individual. However, the company was in a strong position, in that many potential candidates with experience of the industry in this country were available to take the job, so he was not unique in that respect.
I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the very impressive achievements at local level and the extent to which morale has been built up at the Llanwern plant. He spoke about the 142 skilled people who are to go as a result of the most recent announcement. I should have thought that that would hardly make a dent in Corus' substantial losses, but it will cause a disproportionate amount of damage to morale in the plant and will undermine much of the good work that has been done. The right hon. Gentleman made that point particularly well.
As the right hon. Gentleman also pointed out, it would be wrong of Corus to consolidate within the UK ring-fenced environment. The Opposition entirely agree. At some stage, Corus must get back on the front foot. It must accept the possibility of world demand increasing substantially and keep open the option to exploit that and move forward.
That point was also made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar). I was particularly impressed by his comments about the knock-on effect of the loss of a substantial number of jobs in his constituency and that of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar. It may not sound a vast number, but the knock-on effects on services, subcontractors and other industries will be devastating. That point is often missed by commentators, and it is unfortunate that that particular saga has been ignored by so much of the media.
The Minister should tell us exactly why the Government will not make a statement on this very important issue. I believe that some of the confusion
164WH
among Members is based on a lack of information—there have been conflicting reports in the press. The Government made a statement in February 2001, but I would like the Secretary of State or at least the Minister to make a statement this week. I am sure that that will be possible if he has a word with the Speaker.
Will the Minister tell us exactly what value the Government can add? We discussed only recently the Industrial Development Act 1982 and the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill. What scope is there under legislation for industry-specific assistance within EU rules? We had an important debate about the ceilings being lifted substantially. There is now much more money available for industry-specific schemes, and there may be an imaginative way of using some of it. Will the Minister also comment on whether a new iron and steel employees re-adaptation benefits scheme will be introduced?
I hope that the Minister will comment on the points that have been made about the climate change levy, the extra taxes that have been put on industry and, above all, the need for the Government to show the industry and the business world that they fully understand the issue, that they will work with Corus in the future and that there will no longer be a lack of proper communication between them and Corus. I would like him to tell us exactly how the relationship with Corus will be rebuilt and what the Government can do about this extremely serious situation, which affects the lives of many people, not just in the constituencies of the four hon. Members who have spoken today but in many others as well.
10.49 am
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on securing the debate. It is consistent with the enormous work that she has done for the steel industry for many years, not least the formation of the all-party steel group. This is a particularly apposite moment to discuss the steel industry, because it is a time of great concern for the industry and those whose livelihood depends on it. I listened carefully to the expressions of concern about the future of the industry, its employees and the communities in which they live.
In the time left, I hope to hone in on the contributions made, but first I want to stress that the Government share the concerns that have been raised. We care deeply about the industry. We want a successful and profitable steel industry that will underpin UK manufacturing and feed into the many supply chains that rely on primary steel production. It is disappointing that, just over two years after we last debated the issue in this Chamber, the steel industry is again experiencing problems, and that steel workers continue to face an uncertain future. Corus accounts for more than 90 per cent. of the UK's steel production. Last week's announcement that it must undertake further restructuring will come as a bitter blow to many, especially as it follows the job losses that the company announced in 2001, which we hoped would lead to a more stable and successful future.

165WH
Steel remains an increasingly difficult market in which to operate. We all accept that. The industry has for some years been beset by global overcapacity and weak prices. It is estimated that there is 15 per cent. overcapacity in Europe. Although EU demand has remained static, global production has been boosted by the rapid development of capacity in the emerging economies of Asia—especially China—and south America, where low labour and raw material costs, exploitation of economies of scale and the latest technology have given the producers a competitive advantage.
Although it is true that UK workers are among the most productive in the world in terms of tonnes of steel made per person, we continue to experience problems, and more cost is being taken out—witness last week's announcement. However, all the major European steel manufacturers are having a difficult time in a tough global market. It is important that, in today's debate, we concentrate on what we can do to assist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough mentioned a series of measures that we could take. Of the four that she highlighted, we can certainly assist with three, and I shall mention what we can do in relation to research and development, training, education, skills and spreading best practice. It is important to mention that the decision to restructure was a commercial choice for the company, and that the strategy and financing of Corus is a matter for its management, the shareholders and the banks. I am sure that there will be independent assessments and scrutiny of the package. However, we must be very clear about what the Government can and cannot do in such situations.
My hon. Friend also gave us a fascinating history of Stocksbridge that took us from corsets to landing gear—from underwear to undercarriage, one could say. I stress that Stocksbridge will continue to finish high-added-value steel for the aerospace market. I realise how important that is.
My hon. Friend asked some fair questions about the strategy of Corus—questions that she and her colleagues will be asking in coming weeks or months of the new management team. The chief executive took up his role last Thursday, and the new chairman comes into post on 1 June. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that these are also the questions that the Government have asked in our meetings with Corus, and in particular during the meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Corus's management last Friday.
I understand that the job losses will be spread over the next two to three years. However, whenever they occur, the Government will do all that they can to help those affected. It is important to find the positive aspects. I shall come to the contributions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) shortly, but first let me stress that Corus will remain a major UK manufacturing company and steel producer, employing well over 20,000 people. We must welcome the investment decisions in the announcement, which will strengthen UK sites. We hope that that will lead to a more sustainable future.
The company will have new leadership, and we hope that the appointment of a new top management team represents a fresh start for Corus—relationships have
166WH
not always been as excellent as they should have been. My ministerial colleagues and I will be encouraging that team to work in "partnership", which was the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough. With its tremendous work force and its constructive trade unions—the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) talked about 250,000 workers 30 years ago—the increase in productivity has been amazing and spectacular. Productivity is one area of UK manufacturing where no one can accuse the work force of lagging behind. We hope that the company will work in partnership with its work force and the unions to optimise the company's assets in the UK and to put it on a much sounder footing. We also hope that it will work more closely with government.
What can the Government do to help the steel industry? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar mentioned information and consultation, and said that the directive will be introduced by 2005. We are keen to ensure that workers in this country are informed and consulted, and although the directive does not come into force until 2005, many companies should start thinking ahead to where they will be, and begin preparing by introducing best practice ahead of the directive.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar was also positive about the plan for Redcar, given the right circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) made the same point. The Government think that the plant can survive as a self-contained site supplying the global market. With 2,900 people employed there, it is important that it does. It is right to say however, that the plant requires the right climate and atmosphere of co-operation with all those involved, not least the trade unions.
For the most part, business success is down to business. The Government have a role in creating the best environment that they can in this country in which business can flourish. Various hon. Members asked specifically what assistance we can give. For example, there is ISERBS. ISERBS was part of a European Coal and Steel Community treaty, which expired in June. Obviously, we could not use the same method as we have used previously, but we will consider any ways in which we can assist the workers who involved.
Helen Jackson: I am conscious of areas such as south Yorkshire which have implemented a European objective 1 development programme. Does the Minister agree that regional and national government should also be able to use those programmes in these circumstances?
Alan Johnson: I agree. My hon. Friend will know that, other than possibly the coal industry, no industry is more bound by state aid rules than the steel industry. However, where we can assist, we intend to do so. We shall certainly place much emphasis on important regional partnerships; that work has already started. We shall also continue the work of the metals industry competitiveness enterprise, NAMTEC—the National Metals Technology Centre. Last year, I launched the advanced metals technology initiative, which is important and must be built on. It is a partnership with the Engineering Employers Federation, and its important work will be developed further.

167WH
For the steel industry, domestic demand for goods containing steel is being increasingly met by lower cost imports. In turn, that has reduced home market demand for primary steel. Nevertheless, opportunities are available to steel companies to take advantage of the engineering works that are going to take place in this country. There is increased Government expenditure on hospitals and schools, and on roads and railways, including bridges and other civil engineering works. This will provide significant opportunities for the steel industry.
Steel prices are rising from their trough. The exchange rate is moving in the right direction. The Port Talbot blast furnace is back on line, and there is cause for some optimism—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. In calling time on this 90-minute Adjournment debate, I wish to tell hon. Members that although holding the office of Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall is an honour that is much-prized among senior members of the Chairmen's Panel, the satisfaction that is gained from the exercise of its responsibilities can occasionally be tempered by the frustration and exasperation that is caused by the need to reserve expressions of opinion on the topics under discussion. The stricture to confine comment from the Chair to matters of order, procedure and discipline can be infuriating, and never more so than today.
We must now turn our attention to the next topic—the Higgs review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors.

Non-Executive Directors
11 am
Mr. Archie Norman: First, I draw the attention of the House to my declared Member's interests, and to the facts that I have 16 years' experience as the finance director, chief executive and chairman of a FTSE 100 company and have served on a number of other boards in the United Kingdom. Fortunately, the Higgs report is blind to the role of Members serving on boards, but I do not doubt that if it had anything to say about that, it would be looking for an explanation.
The Higgs report has a distinguished ancestry that stems back to the Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel reports. It is an important contribution to the tradition of voluntary and combined code compliance in corporate governance in the United Kingdom. As it represents a substantial change and a dimensional move forward in the nature of corporate governance, it is important that it attracts critical scrutiny before it is implemented. The report will have an important impact on a substantial part of the wealth-creating part of the economy. It will determine not only the way in which leading public companies are governed, but will set a tone and establish a style, and will determine the attractiveness of careers in public companies as non-executive directors.
It is important that the Higgs report receives critical analysis not only among company chairmen, the Financial Reporting Council, the Confederation of British Industry and so forth, but in Parliament. To date, the report has received no discussion in Parliament, except for a statement by the Secretary of State of which it was part of the subject. That may come as something of a relief to the business world, but it is not right that a shift of such magnitude, which will affect the future wealth-creating part of the economy, should not receive critical examination in the House. Therefore, I am delighted that we have this chance to give it that examination.
When the Higgs report was produced, the reaction to it was muted. Most people saw it as a response to the corporate difficulties of the past few years, including the well-known corporate failures. The Government seemed to be enthusiastic about the report's output: the Secretary of State warmly welcomed it, and appeared to recommend that it should be implemented in full and without substantive exception. She said that it would be referred to the FRC, which would consult on the precise wording. From the Government side, at no point has there been any questioning of the recommendations, even though they go down to detail that represents prescription in corporate governance that we have not seen hitherto. The Confederation of British Industry recommended that the report be read from cover to cover. In fact, it recommended that company chairmen should read it throughout and then read it again. Some may feel that that would be a soporific exercise. Nevertheless, the report makes quite good reading and there is no doubt that, in its recommendations and the nature of the arguments it advances, it is a distinguished report that merits the careful scrutiny of all non-executive directors.
In the weeks since the report was produced, growing reservations and arguments have emerged on points of substance and detail. Those must be taken into account.

169WH
We should give the Government and others pause to think again. There is a well-known and well-publicised CBI poll of FTSE 100 company chairman. These people are major practitioners; they know what they are doing and many of them have served on more than one company board.
The results of that poll are disturbing. About 82 per cent. of respondents agreed with the statement that the Higgs report undermines the role of the chairman, as the report has certain things to say about the role of the senior non-executive director. That amounts to substantial disagreement. About 56 per cent. disagreed strongly with the proposal that non-executive directors should meet once a year in the absence of the chairman. That would create a potential schism in the board and cut across the principle of the unitary board. About 87 per cent. disagreed, either strongly or otherwise, with the recommendation that the nominations committee should be chaired by an independent non-executive director. That substantial disagreement is far greater than when the Cadbury or Greenbury reports were introduced, although it applies to only one recommendation, not the entire report. About 50 per cent. disagreed with the idea that the chief executive officer should be disallowed from becoming the chairman of the same company. Such substantial and authoritative concerns merit serious consideration.
Digby Jones, the director general of the CBI, has referred to the damaging "unintended consequences" of the Higgs report. We should bear it in mind that such people are generally supportive of the thrust of Higgs's argument. No one believes that the central ideas set out in the Higgs report do not amount to good ideas on corporate governance. The question is should such things be incorporated in the combined code? The Association of British Insurers, the Institute of Directors and various company chairmen have made public their serious reservations.
To date, the Secretary of State has been dismissive of such concerns, but I hope that this debate will provide the Minister with a chance to give us a more reflective view on the Government's thinking. I hope, too, that she will find time to respond specifically to the issues that have been raised, and that she will not merely discuss the general background of the Higgs report. I introduce the arguments not in a spirit of partisanship, but because the report has made a valuable contribution and deserves to be heeded. There are substantial problems in corporate governance in the UK that must be dealt with.
Ministers have said that there were many reservations in the corporate community when the Cadbury report was introduced. That is fair—it was a groundbreaking move forward. About 40 per cent. of companies were non-compliant with the report, whereas 10 per cent. are non-compliant today. That reflects the fact that the report is accepted as part of the corporate governance tradition and that it has worked. There is, however, greater concern about specific issues in the Higgs report, than with the generality. We should not, therefore, simply rest on the idea that business people and directors always make a fuss, that things will settle down, and that we can then move forward. We are dealing with the stewardship and leadership of wealth-creating Britain, which is far more important. That should not be tinkered with unless there is an overwhelming argument.
170WH
Caution should be our watchword. We must not play with the way in which boards work because it seems a good idea. We must become involved only if there is a compelling and overwhelming reason to do so.
Mr. Mark Field: I endorse my hon. Friend's statement that caution should be our watchword. However, what would he say to those critics who suggest that caution goes hand in hand with complacency?
Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are no grounds for complacency. Profound issues, such as the way in which we lead, compensate and manage large companies in Britain, need to be addressed, but the question is, does the Higgs report deals with matters about which we should not be complacent? There is no question whether we should be holding this debate. I do not dispute that Derek Higgs, whom I have known for many years, has produced a distinguished report. We must give it our urgent attention, but we should be careful about implementing prescriptive changes that will have an impact on the way in which corporate governance works, and which may not result in a better outcome.
I shall cover the central issues that surround the report, after which I shall deal with three or four of the specific questions that have been raised. I shall deal first with my hon. Friend's point on whether it deals with the central issues of corporate governance, in so far as there have been corporate difficulties that should have been remedied in the past two years—for example, in respect of Marconi, Cable and Wireless or Abbey National. We all know those celebrated examples. Would the Higgs report have made a difference, or should we turn our attention to other matters? Has the Higgs report missed the point? I am not questioning whether Derek Higgs has missed the point, but did his brief do so?
Does the code enable good boards to become better? It is easy to think of ways in which to deal with the problem of weak boards, but if the code makes good boards less effective, not much has been achieved. The point is that a good code enhances the whole, and does not deal only with the problems of the weakest companies. Is the spirit of the combined code preserved? Most people consider that the voluntary nature of the combined code—the fact that companies have been able to conform broadly, unless there are good reasons not to do so—has been successful in the United Kingdom. Will the Higgs report change the entire way in which such matters are viewed?
It is my judgment that part of the problem was that the Government gave Derek Higgs a narrow brief. He was asked to deal with non-executive directors. The difficulty is that some of the real problems in corporate governance are not to do with non-executive directors. There is a presumption in the report that a few non-executive directors could have stopped the difficulties that have occurred. Let us consider some major corporate failures. Cable and Wireless, and Marconi, had distinguished boards of NEDs. They were made up of a high-calibre people. I know that, in most instances, the decisions that were made were subject to detailed scrutiny by the NEDs, who agreed with them. We should not rest on the idea that different non-executive committees will solve the problem. They will not.

171WH
There are other more fundamental problems. In the long term, the success of large companies in Britain depends on the quality of management and its long-term commitment to such companies. One of the greatest problems is our failure to attract people to management and to build up a long-term culture of commitment to business. Most executive directors are still incentivised on a far too short-term basis. Furthermore, Higgs was blind about pay, because it was not part of his brief. The Minister and I discussed conversation failure, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). It will not be touched on in debate. It will soon be the subject of a consultation paper, and it goes to the heart of the present difficulties and the question marks that hang over our corporate culture.
In my judgment, the quality of management and the ability to attract good non-executive directors in long-term conversation are important issues that sit outside the Higgs report. To some extent, the report is what one gets when one applies a Rolls-Royce mind to the wrong problem. I am not saying that non-executives are not worthy of scrutiny. However, there are much broader issues to be discussed. My view is that the Government, in responding to recent corporate failure, saw the Higgs report as a fig leaf. They decided to get Derek Higgs—a terrific and experienced guy—to give them a nice report, and thought that that would solve the problem. Unfortunately, they defined the brief rather too narrowly. It is probably fair to say that Derek Higgs had quite a job to come up with the number of constructive recommendations that he has.
Will the Higgs report apply to all boards and improve the generality of boards rather than merely address the problems of a few? Here, I do not think that it will work. The net effect of the report will be to reduce, not improve, the quality of non-executive directors. The way in which Higgs-compliant boards will work post-Higgs is to have more committees, more training, more procedure and a more divided board. I do not think that that will attract NEDs. I can tell the Minister that from my experience—I talk to many company chairmen, directors and business people—such people will no longer wish to be NEDs of FTSE 100 companies. They will think that it is just not worth it. What attracts NEDs is the idea that they can participate in business decisions and work closely with good management. They do not want to sit on lots of little committees. They do not want to sit on a divided board with other non-executives. They do not, unfortunately, particularly want to spend their time with institutional shareholders who, equally, do not want to spend their time with them.
In net terms, the job will be made less attractive. It is not a question of pay. People who become non-executive directors for pay are the wrong people to have on a board. The people whom one wants are already paid substantial sums, or have made substantial money, in business and will do the job because they are really interested in the board and the people with whom they will work.
The proposals will reduce the chemistry of the unitary board. Boards that work well have great chemistry. That is important because it is always possible for executive directors to conceal from non-executive directors what is going on. A business can have the best
172WH
non-executives in the world, who have much time and training, but if the executive does not want to tell them something, they will not know it. Boards work where the executives and non-executives are a team. The flow of information is then free and the informal contact great. Often the most valuable points are those made at the margins of a board meeting or over a sandwich lunch afterwards. That is when the information really flows. Unless that structure is created and enhanced, the effectiveness of boards is reduced. The Higgs report, with its committees, separate meetings and senior independent directors, is starting to erode that process.
Boards that work well have a long-term commitment to the company. Let us think about how Marks and Spencer and Tesco were created, or how Morrisons, which does so well today, and other great companies came into being. That happened because people, including the boards, had a long-term career commitment to those companies. Yet the Higgs report is on the margins of encouraging more short-termism. For example, it discourages the idea that non-executives should serve for more than six years.
Will the Higgs report improve the generality of boards? I think not. Not in any fundamental single way, but in aggregate, the effect of the report will be to dilute the way in which most effective boards in Britain have worked historically. It will cut across the quality of non-executives, the chemistry of the unitary board and the long-term commitment to companies.
How will the report affect the spirit of the combined code? I think it important for the Minister to recognise that that code does not work like regulation or law. It works because there is a majority consensus in the institution investing community and among directors. Generally, it is a pretty good thing and reasonable in its requirements. The difficulty with the report is that it takes that code into a further dimension in prescription and detail, and in the way in which it works. There is a real risk that, as a result, many companies will not comply with it. We will then be looking not at 10 per cent. of companies, in terms of the Cadbury report, but at 25, 30 or 40 per cent. Once that happens, the norm becomes to explain, not to comply. The power and influence of the code are then substantially diluted.
The point is that the code should contain minimum requirements to allow boards maximum flexibility. In this instance, it has gone beyond minimum requirements to, at the very least, covering good practice and, more than that, becoming a code of aspiration. Derek Higgs has said how a board should ideally work and not what is absolutely required, which was not envisaged when the combined code was introduced.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Is it not the case that in this area, above all others, one size of regulation does not fit all? It is important that we get a clear steer from everybody involved, including the Government, that some small companies would be wrong fully to comply with every aspect of the code. It would not be in the interests of their shareholders if they were to do so, because it would impose an excessive burden on them and cost their shareholders more. An explanation should be just as valid a way of dealing with the code as full compliance.
Mr. Norman: I agree 100 per cent. with my hon. Friend, who makes the important point that the code will affect small companies as well as large. The costs of compliance have been estimated at well over £200 million by leading accountancy firms, and that is the cost only in terms of non-executive directors and not the cost to the performance and effectiveness of the British economy. Ministers and Derek Higgs have said that companies do not have to comply because they can explain, but the combined code rests on the idea that it works if most people in normal circumstances comply with it. If explanation is the norm, all we will get is longer annual reports—my goodness, they are long enough already and hardly anybody reads them.
The combined code is pretty powerful. If people who are not conforming to it were to come to an annual general meeting, questions would be raised and institutional shareholders would pay attention. If, however, explanations proliferate, the code will become lax and will not work. Even worse, if the Higgs recommendations were to work, we would end up with a grey uniformity on company boards, which in many instances would be costly and bureaucratic, and fewer people would want to serve as non-executive directors, which would not help. I do not want to overstate the case, but we need to be mindful of what the combined code is meant to be and what compliance should look like.
I want to address four specific issues raised by company chairmen and business as areas of substantial concern. I reiterate that most business people and I are not opposed to the thrust of the Higgs report, which is outstanding. How some recommendations are enshrined in the combined code, however, requires careful debate. Like many semi-regulatory proposals, those in the report are accurate and it is difficult to argue against any of the individual paragraphs. However, the report's aggregate effect will be to change how boards work. More than that, it is regulatory in tone in the sense that it focuses on the means not the ends. In other words, good governance is the end and Derek Higgs is interested in prescribing exactly how it is achieved.
I want to start with the role of chairman. Strong chairmen who play an active role in a business and who are close to what is happening have led most successful British companies. They are often not the classic Cadbury-style, so-called non-executive chairmen who sit back and review the activities of executives; they are people who exercise leadership. They have often risen through a company or have worked in the same industry, and sometimes they are mavericks. They are people who expect to control, to run and to lead their boards. We want to encourage them. They should, of course, be restrained by checks and balances, but we need to make sure that the combined code enshrines the idea that we want strong leadership. In the Higgs report, the role of the chairman is substantially undermined in principle, and that may be only the beginning of the process. It is undermined first by the formalisation of the idea that there is a senior, independent director. Clearly, the assumption is that the chairman is somehow not sufficiently independent, and so there should be someone who is.
The idea of an independent director is interesting. I do not think that any director should be independent in the broad sense: I would want that director to be a partisan
174WH
of the company. I would want anyone who serves on my board to fight for the business, not against it. I know that this is a question of language, but I find it difficult to accept that one director should be singled out as being different in some way from the others.
In many companies, there is, informally, a senior non-executive director. That naturally evolves. He or she is often asked to undertake tasks by the chairman. There is nothing wrong with that. The question is, should that post be designated formally so that outsiders can see who the person is? If we were to do that, we would almost inevitably start to break up the unitary board and undermine the authority of the chairman. It is almost inevitable, too, that those in the company, including executives and outside shareholders, will see that independent senior director as a court of appeal, a way of going round the chairman. That would be a damaging part of the process. Ironically, often the informally appointed senior non-executive director would be one of the longest-serving, but one of the recommendations in the Higgs report is that we should no longer have very long-serving non-executive directors.
The report goes on to recommend that the senior independent director should visit the shareholders once a year to elicit their views away from the chairman, presumably because the chairman might misreport. There have been occasions on which chairmen have been blind to the issues raised by shareholders. There may even have been occasions on which they have misreported them, although it is perfectly easy for shareholders to make their views known through other means. In my experience, when institutional shareholders pick up the cudgels and ring up the chief executive or chairman, he stands to attention by his desk. Chairmen are absolutely focused on what shareholders have to say. The problem is not lack of access to boards, but lack of activism on the part of the shareholders. If we can get shareholders to punch their weight, we have solved half the problem.
I should also point out the practical difficulties. Research shows that most institutional shareholders do not particularly want to see the independent senior director. That is not very interesting for them unless there is a particular burning issue to talk about. Otherwise, it is a rather boring discussion. Shareholders would rather see the chief executive and talk about how the business is going or meet the chairman. Meeting the independent senior director—some charming and doubtless distinguished fellow who wants to elicit any complaints and have a cup of tea—is not a good use of the shareholders' time or his.
The companies that I served have many large institutional shareholder bodies scattered throughout the world. This senior independent director will presumably have to make himself available to people in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, Geneva, Zurich, London and Edinburgh. He will have to have a great deal of spare time and a high boredom threshold. I do not think that the recommendation is extremely practical. I just do not think that it will be carried out; it will be honoured in form, but not in substance.
To come back to my central point, we need to get institutional shareholders to intervene directly with the chairman, and not to go round him. The idea of the divided and rather political board that would result is

175WH
unacceptable, as it would be in other walks of life. I dare say that it would be unacceptable in ministerial teams if there were some senior independent Minister to whom we could complain instead of the Secretary of State. That would be nonsense.
Another issue is the idea that the chairman should not chair the nominations committee. One of the central roles of the chairman is to build a quality board, and to bring good people to it. Often that requires investment in personal capital. I know that chairmen get criticised for inviting people with whom they have had connections to serve on boards. However, I can say that persuading people to serve on a public company board is not that easy, and it is getting more difficult. Often, chairmen invest personal capital by persuading people of distinction to come and serve, and it does not stack up that they have to say to a distinguished industrialist, "We'd really like you to come and serve on our board, but I can't make the decision as I don't chair the nominations committee, which meets independently." That undermines the appetite of the chairman to build a strong board, and is a safety net for the worst.
We are trying to provide against chairmen recruiting their friends, neighbours and relatives in a way that is too close knit to allow the process to work. I do not think that that is a prevalent problem, and where it is, it is usually conspicuously obvious and can be dealt with through other means. It cuts across the idea that the unitary board undermines the authority of the chairman.
On the question of chief executive succession, the Higgs report recommends that chief executives should not become chairmen of the company in which they have served. Many people will have reservations about that, not as a general raising of an eyebrow or asking whether the right person will be chosen, but because it is part of a combined code of prescription. In the United States, 73 per cent. of Standard and Poor's companies have a combined chairman and chief executive. There is a different form of corporate governance. I make that point not because I am recommending that form, but because it demonstrates that in a successful economy there are different ways of cutting a board, and we should allow for that.
In the United Kingdom, 23 per cent. of chairmen of public companies were the chief executives in that company. We are saying that it is preferable that the chairmen in nearly a quarter of UK public companies should not be chairmen, which is a fundamental recommendation. If implemented, it would bring about a substantial change in the nature of leadership of British public companies. It would mean that distinguished chairmen would not be able to hold their posts in many companies, such as Ken Morrison, to take an extreme example, but there are many others.
When it comes to succession and someone reaches the age when they want to change role and diversify their career, we are saying that we will discard that person, with immense investment in experience, talent and knowledge of the company, and that those qualities will be lost to the company. That is a questionable idea. I accept the argument advanced in the Higgs report that there are chief executives who are not right to become chairmen because they cannot adapt to that different
176WH
role. Equally, however, there are chief executives who can become chairmen. We can leave that to companies without any overriding guidance. It is undesirable to create a negative aura around chief executives who go on to be chairmen.
There is another inadvertent side effect. If one tells a chief executive that he cannot become a chairman, he will carry on as chief executive for far too long. We will provide a roadblock in succession. Instead of people gradually moving on through the company, and young blood coming through, people will stay on because otherwise they will have to leave the company that they love, and have worked for passionately for the past 10 or 20 years. As a result, we will slow up the process of development of talent. I am confident that the effect of the recommendation will be to increase the average age of leadership in British companies.
I should say that I became chairman of a company of which I had been chief executive, and I did so with the wholehearted support of the shareholders. If I had not been able to do that, Allan Leighton, who is now chairman of the Royal Mail, would not have been able to succeed me as chief executive. I do not think that that would have been in anyone's interests—myself, Allan Leighton, the shareholders, the company, or the people who worked in that company.
I shall move on to the question whether someone should serve as the chairman of more than one leading public company. The recommendation in the Higgs report is that chairmen should be rationed to one role only; in other words, one could be a chairman of Barclays or Lloyds bank, but that would be it. That is an unusual idea. Apart from anything else, it applies only to the role of chairman, not to other roles in life. For example, people could be a Member or have various other occupations that would preclude their effectiveness as a chairman and limit their time, but the report is blind to that.
It seems that we have confused the means and the ends. The idea is perfectly good, in that someone who is the chairman of a company must have sufficient time to devote to their duties. More than that—this is the important point—the role of the chairman is to be on tap, to be available in an emergency, to step into the breach. Therefore, it is important that chairmen have not only time but spare capacity available. In the event of a crisis in the company in which the chief executive has to go, the chairman must be able to step in.
The principle that the chairman must have time available and must be able to demonstrate his commitment should be enshrined in the code, but to say that chairmen cannot serve in more than one company is overly prescriptive. It will put the ends before the means and will lead to the loss of talent in British industry. We are not flush with great chairmen in this country, and distinguished people such as Lord Stevenson, Sir Victor Blank and others do an outstanding job in more than one company.
We should not kid ourselves by thinking that late in life many chairmen will spend all their time in the garden instead of acting as chairmen of companies. They want to do other things—they are not all geriatrics. In fact, there are very few who do not have the energy, drive and talent to make a major contribution to British industry and commerce. They should be encouraged to do so, not discouraged.

177WH
Finally, on the specifics, the Higgs report proposes limiting the term of office for non-executive directors to six years. Again, that is comply and explain. However, as I said earlier, explaining should not be the norm. The issue is not whether we have too many long-term non-executive directors, but short-termism, lack of experience and the rapid rotation of, particularly, the executive content on boards. With one exception in which practically everyone left, almost every public company board on which I have served included non-executive directors who had served more than six years. They were often the most valuable people because they knew the history of the company and the mistakes that had been made.
Once again, as is so often the case with regulation of this sort, we are getting the ends and means confused. We should be trying to achieve a board with a balance of experience, energy and refreshing new insight. We should be trying also to enshrine a guideline in the code that all boards should have a mix of new and long-serving directors. To turn that round and say to directors that after six years they will be under pressure to resign, and will have to explain themselves in the annual report and at the annual general meeting, is overly prescriptive and a confusion of what we are really trying to achieve. Many of the recommendations can be enshrined in the code in a constructive form, but they must be substantially less prescriptive and detailed.
Derek Higgs has produced an outstanding report. It is a major contribution that merits serious consideration and debate. I agree with the CBI that all 100 pages should be read at least once or, for those with a great appetite, perhaps twice. It should be compulsory reading for all new non-executive directors, as it is Management 101 in corporate governance, and it is very good on how boards should aspire to work. However, that is wholly different from saying that it should be incorporated in the combined code with only minor refinements to the wording, as the Secretary of State recommended.
Boards are made up of people, several different forms of leadership and many different forms of chemistry. What matters is how that chemistry works and the quality of people who are attracted on to the board, enabling the leadership—chairmen or chief executives—to be effective, and enhancing that leadership with proper scrutiny and questioning. That does not lend itself to a highly prescriptive format. There are many different ways of running an effective board, and the combined code should allow for those different ways. However, the Higgs report is in danger of adopting a "conventional is best" view. The code must be an aspiration to best practice, and not a required minimum. Similarly, the options to comply or explain should not change so that the explain option becomes the norm. If that happens, the authority of the combined code will start to erode.
Boards that work well are not divided but united. People work together, there is absolute openness and there is no need to meet behind closed doors. Such boards attract diverse and talented people, and others aspire to serve on them. They not merely attract people who are interested in procedure and governance, but practising business men who are fascinated by business. The charter is in danger of eroding the system of corporate governance. It will deter people from
178WH
becoming non-executive directors. It will add cost, and reduce the substantive effectiveness of British management. I shall leave hon. Members with a quote from the CBI that sums things up:
"One-size-fits-all will not be good for British Business or wealth creation. This is the challenge for the DTI and the Financial Reporting Council but one to which they must rise if Higgs is to work in practice."
11.41 am
Mr. John Maples: The Chamber has been treated to one of those rare experiences of listening to an hon. Member who knows what he is talking about. It is difficult to think of much to add to what he has said, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on addressing an important subject from his background of enormous experience. He has clearly given the subject a great deal of thought. I shall not trawl over the same ground because he has made his points adequately. However, I shall mention a couple of other points.
First, I draw hon. Members' attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a non-executive director of several companies, one of which is public. I am happy to say that only one of them is public because, if I were now invited to join the board of a major FTSE 100 company for £25,000 a year, I would seriously hesitate. It is not an attractive task as it is, and this report is likely to make the job less attractive. The Minister would do well to bear that in mind.
Let us consider what has happened to those who were directors of Equitable Life. The decisions that they took were no doubt taken on professional advice, but they turned out to be disastrous. Some businesses go wrong; some go right. Unfortunately, that one went badly wrong, and its non-executive directors are now being sued for billions of pounds. They will be ruined if those lawsuits are a success. There is no fee that a non-executive director could earn that makes that risk worth while. We should therefore be very careful about making the role of a non-executive director of a major public company even less attractive than it is at the moment.
I want to emphasise a point that my hon. Friend made much more effectively than I could: directors must be a team. It is a terrible mistake to set up two classes of directors, one of which is the in-house police force—the security cops who constantly keep a check on the executives. That will not work. The executive will not tell them things and it will make its decisions outside the board meetings at executive committee meetings. The non-executives will therefore find it difficult to perform their task. Unless there is openness between members and an identity of purpose, which is for the good of the business, and unless the board operates as a team, it will not work.
There is one circumstance in which non-executives always find themselves set up with a difficult role. Dealing with executive remuneration is a difficult task, and it is one of the issues that should be on the Higgs agenda, but it is not. The public are concerned about executive remuneration and corporate failures. We have seen Marconi here and Enron in the United States. Some failures have been the result of fraud and some are the result of bad business decisions. However, the problems will not be solved by tinkering with the role of non-executive directors.

179WH
I shall pick up on a point that my hon. Friend made in passing, as it is the reason for my involvement in today's debate. The problems of excessive corporate remuneration and the rewards of failure or major corporate failures, such as Marconi, will not be solved by somehow changing the role of non-executive directors. Doing that might lead to better corporate governance, but not necessarily to better management. That is what the debate is really about. We want the companies that employ so many people in this country, provide so many of the goods and services that we all buy and are responsible for much of the productivity gain and wealth creation in Britain to be better managed. That will not be done by creating a class of non-executive directors who sit there, riding shotgun for the people trying to do their job.
The issues of performance and executive pay come back to shareholders and to shareholder responsibility. The absentee landlordism that was rife in Britain for large parts of our history—certainly in the 18th and 19th centuries—and that led to enormous economic and social problems is what we now have with shareholders. Most shares are owned by collective investment schemes of one sort of another, such as unit trusts or pension funds. We are, through our pension schemes or savings, the beneficial owners of those, but the direct owners who run them on our behalf behave like the worst absentee landlord. They think that they can simply buy or sell shares on the basis of whether they like their performance or want to take the profit. They take no responsibility for the management and performance of the company. That issue should be addressed. I do not pretend to have a solution, but while shareholders think that they can subcontract that responsibility to a couple of guys on £25,000 a year who turn up at monthly board meetings, we will not get the results that people want.
Some big shareholders simply cannot sell the stock of a company, although they might pick one company that they do not like, and I guess that the smart ones sold out of Marconi before it went badly wrong. However, major institutional shareholders cannot simply claim that they do not own BT, the major drugs companies such as GlaxoSmithKline or the big supermarkets. In fact, they own large chunks of those companies. They cannot divorce themselves from the responsibility of management. I urge the Minister to examine ways in which the Government might try to get companies to behave like the owners of those businesses and take responsibility for executive pay levels. Hardly any of the institutional shareholders bother to turn up at annual general meetings, but give the chairman their proxy. We have seen a couple of shareholder revolts over executive pay recently, and I say good luck to them. Let us keep it up—it is a very healthy sign. However, 30 per cent. voted against the Barclays chief executive's pay deal, and it has just gone through as though that had not happened. When one of those deals is defeated, we will then see shareholder power.
Why is the matter being left to ginger groups such as the Pensions and Investment Research Consultancy? Why are the mainstream institutional shareholders not taking on that role? Is there a job here for a combination of the Government, the Financial Services Authority and the Bank of England—for the usual informal
180WH
network that twists people's arms—or does the problem require legislation in the form of withdrawing tax privileges if shareholders do not exercise their votes? Unfortunately, the Government have taken away so many tax privileges from pension funds that that might not work, but some privileges still remain. Perhaps institutional shareholders should not be able to enjoy them unless they vote at meetings rather than simply giving their proxy to the chairman. I hope that we can return to examine the question of shareholder power and how it is exercised. Many shareholders behave like absentee landlords.
It is worth picking up on a couple of points. I do not see how a company can have a chairman and a senior non-executive director except in the unique circumstance in which the chairman is, in effect, the chief executive as well. Even then, I see some difficulties. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would acknowledge that that is a special case. Companies should be left to be managed and organised in the way in which their shareholders want them to be. Some companies have a history of what the Americans would call theory X management. General Motors was a good example of that, constantly renewing its own executive team from inside. It had a strong corporate culture. Other companies are led spectacularly by the strength, vision and commitment of one individual.
One cannot say into which category particular companies should fit. They ought to be allowed to develop in the way that is right for them. In some cases, that will mean a strong executive chairman; in others, an outsider who is already, effectively, the chairman of a board who can certainly perform the role of communicating with shareholders. I would be reluctant for yet another division to be introduced in the non-executive directors. It is bad enough that, for much of the time, they are forced into being box-checkers and taking on a list of corporate governance points that they feel obliged to make sure, in a rather self-defensive way, are complied with—and that is particularly so on audit committees. I would not want to introduce a division between the non-executives so that there would be not only two classes of directors, but two classes of non-executive directors. That would be a mistake.
The idea that the big corporate scandals or the huge unhappiness over executive pay will be avoided by tinkering with the roles of non-executive directors or non-executive chairmen is a fallacy. Such problems will be addressed only if shareholders demand that directors do not have more than one-year service contracts and do not give chief executives large golden hello payments, and if, as my hon. Friend suggested on another occasion, shareholders insist that it is written into contracts that the quality of a person's performance can be taken into account in assessing what their compensation for leaving office should be. Unless shareholders are prepared to use their power and exercise their responsibilities, we will not solve the problems. It would be a mistake to think that we will.
Mr. Mark Field rose—
Mr. Howard Flight rose—
Mr. Benton (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that it is the convention for the first of the

181WH
three wind-up speeches to start 30 minutes before the conclusion of the debate. I ask the two hon. Members who are seeking to catch my eye to bear that in mind when making their contributions and accepting or responding to interventions.
11.51 am
Mr. Mark Field: May I join in with the praise of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) for his tour de force on all the issues? I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said about the importance of shareholder responsibility, an issue that I will touch on in my brief comments.
There is little doubt that, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Superficially, I agree that the intentions behind the proposals were good. Those intentions lie behind Derek Higgs's long-awaited review. However, there has been relatively little recognition of the already substantial strides that UK plc has taken in areas such as remuneration and corporate governance, but I appreciate that the review was quite narrowly defined. There is no room for complacency given the number of scandals on both sides of the Atlantic. Clearly, one considers Enron and WorldCom in relation to a whole range of corporate governance issues and concerns have been voiced in relation to the role of non-executive directors of those companies. We should not feel that somehow the regime is so entirely different in this country that such scandals could not happen on these shores.
I entirely agree that it is surely for shareholders, both institutional and personal, to take on a great deal more responsibility. My grave concern is that legislation is rarely the answer. I appreciate that Higgs may or may not lead to legislation. There may just be a report and a code that comes into practice. However, there has been a worrying trend—particularly in the last year or so—in the Government's relationship with business; they are considering more regulation and legislation. Let us consider the Higgs report and the concerns that have been addressed by the Secretary of State in relation to remuneration. It cannot be a coincidence that most Sunday newspapers in recent weeks have talked about new, stricter and more draconian powers being brought to bear.
No one in this House should seek to undermine the profitability of our companies, which are, after all, our life blood when it comes to ensuring that we have not only a successful economy, but job opportunities and the public services that all of us wish to improve. I am concerned that, ever more burdens—this is another example—will lead to yet more bureaucracy and regulation, especially in what promise to be somewhat more difficult times.
I understand that compliance will not be mandatory. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells rightly pointed out that, in relation to the Cadbury report, there was 40 per cent. non-compliance initially and that now simply one tenth of companies do not comply with the code. The reality is that there will probably be more regulation, and that will come at a cost. The onus will be on a company to provide a clear and plausible explanation in its annual report if it does
182WH
not comply. The real concern is that there will be a new definition of independence that will lead to a great loss of talent from the boardroom. It has already been pointed out that too many skilled and potentially able non-executive directors will stay away from a new regime. Such a corporate backlash is, in my view, understandable.
The focus on the enhanced position of senior independent directors may be highly divisive. We have to examine the practical reality that the role of the senior independent director will potentially become key when results are announced. A high-profile company, which may have had well publicised difficulties, needs a strong relationship between the chairman and the chief executive officer to ride through the ebbs and flows of business. It is essential that such businesses have united boards. It is likely that that sense of unity will be undermined by the new, all-powerful, non-executive director role that is clearly envisaged by the Higgs commission. I am concerned that that role will become a hotline to shareholders and will undermine the position of existing executive directors. It will not undermine what might be described as the cosy relationship in the boardroom, but it might undermine a company's profitability.
I could speak for far longer on this topic, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) wants to say a few words. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells on introducing such an excellent debate. We look forward to hearing the Minister's views.
11.56 am
Mr. Howard Flight: First, I draw attention to my declaration of interests. Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing the debate.
In a non-party-political context, it is sad that there are no Labour Members in the Chamber apart from the Minister and her Parliamentary Private Secretary because the issue is important. It is perhaps a comment on the Government's large majority that there is a lack of interest in important matters such as securing the success of this country and ensuring that companies are run correctly.
The Higgs report aims to make non-executive directors discharge their responsibilities in a more professional way and to ensure that they are appointed properly. It has been said, however, that that will not guarantee good company performance. Like Marconi and Cable and Wireless, Equitable Life had one of the best quality non-executive boards, which in no way protected it against disaster.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made a good point about absentee landlords, it is slightly unrealistic to expect the international investment management industry to take on that role. Many equity positions in British businesses will be owned or managed by fund managers in New York or Hong Kong whose jobs do not involve ownership. There is a need for professional non-executives to play a greater role in protecting the interests of shareholders.
Some of the key points in the Higgs report seem to be greatly mistaken. First, on the principle of a board effectively being controlled by its non-executive

183WH
directors, my fear is that that will lead to people going through the motions at formal board meetings while key decisions are taken outside the boardroom behind closed doors. If we want to go in that direction, it would be better to go the whole hog by adopting the German two-tier board approach. If anything, the principle will cause decreased, rather than increased, transparency in decision taking.
Secondly, it is crazy not to accept that senior executives aged about 60 are often the most appropriate chairmen of businesses. HSBC, Tesco, Unilever and Sainsbury's are examples of dominant British companies that have tended to follow that tradition and clearly intend to continue to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells rightly made the point that there is a risk that chief executive officers may stay on too long. There is also the risk that other companies may poach people who cannot become chairmen and who retire as CEOs because such people might bring confidential information with them. The proposal is therefore unsatisfactory and, as has been said, is also inappropriate for small and medium-sized businesses. There is the risk that there will be a mere going through of the motions, and it is not a model that will suit most small businesses. With regard to whether it is intended to be a rule or just guidelines, the problem is that the listing authority is likely to treat it as a requirement, and to require a major justification for businesses that do not fall into line with these prescriptions.
There is a mistaken view—almost an assumption that executive management is not to be trusted. In my 30 years in the investment management industry and in participating in companies I have observed that successful businesses tend to have strong and effective executive leadership. My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed that out. Non-executive directors will—of their nature, and increasingly—be looking firstly to protect their own rears against the risk of being sued. They will not be looking to take bold executive decisions to lead companies forward and to create benefit for shareholders. Therefore, if we end up with businesses that are controlled by NEDs, that will be bad news for entrepreneurship in Britain.
I say yes to more professional non-executive directors. They have an important role, which they have not always played professionally enough, in looking out for the interests of shareholders. However, some of the key proposals in the Higgs report are contrary to that objective.
12.1 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I draw attention to my declaration of an unpaid directorship.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples): it was a privilege to listen to the comments of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). He has not only a vast amount of experience, but he has turned round a major failing company. He made a success of it, and he enjoys great respect for that reason.
The problems about corporate governance that we are concerned with are old problems. There is an eloquent passage in Adam Smith's "The Wealth of
184WH
Nations" that describes the conflict of interests between the people who own wealth and the people who manage it for them. That problem has recurred in different forms over the ages. When I was a teenager, I was introduced to American books by J.K. Galbraith and others, which talked about the death of shareholder capitalism. The issue has ebbed and flowed over the years. Although the particular set of problems that we are concerned with are immediate, they have a long lineage.
There are three immediate reasons why we have been concerned with reforms of corporate governance, which in part come from the other side of the Atlantic. One of them is the excesses of the 1980s—the conflict of interests between chief executives and chairmen, the Maxwell problem and the megalomania problem in companies. That triggered the Cadbury report and successive such episodes. Secondly, there are the more recent worries about companies such as Enron and WorldCom—about how interesting devices such as stock options, which were designed to incentivise managers to be more sensitive to their shareholders' concerns, had the opposite effect by encouraging them to manipulate share prices, and about the need for a new round of corporate governance reform. Thirdly, there is growing concern about executive remuneration and abuses thereof. I know that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells also has views on that, although the Higgs report does not directly touch on it.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells praised the Higgs report and its spirit while criticising the over-prescriptive way in which it had been implemented. He drew that distinction. It is therefore worth while to reflect on two of the main themes that came out of the report, which I think that all of us—or, at least, most of us—can endorse. The first theme was a stress on the importance of independence on boards. That is independence that acts as a source of scrutiny of management on behalf of shareholders. Although the Higgs report is concerned that there may be significant non-compliance, one of the points that has emerged from recent research is how little real independence there currently is. Recent studies of perks suggest that, in terms of the Higgs report, only 20 per cent. of boards could be described as independent—in other words, with a majority of independent non-executive directors—so we are starting from a low base. One of the report's main contributions was to suggest increasing that figure. Whether it should be as high as 95 per cent. or 80 per cent. is secondary, but the importance of independence was the key factor.
The second point—it was an important contribution to the report, and was briefly touched upon by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight)—was that non-executive directors should be better trained, more professional and more specialised. The recruitment process should be improved, so that we do not have incestuous magic circles of non-executive directors recruiting each other, but can move the system of independent non-executive directors on to a more professional footing. That depends not on the code, but on the implementation of Professor Laura Tyson's report. Indeed, that may be one of the genuinely positive things that comes out of the Higgs report that does not require prescriptive procedures.

185WH
Finally, I turn to the criticisms that are set out in the report, which fell into several categories. The first set suggested that incorporation of the combined code would do harm. It is important to stress that we are not talking about regulation, at least, not regulation in the normal sense. We are talking about voluntary self-regulation, and comply and explain is not regulation. The Government could have gone down the regulatory route, but they did not. We are not talking about that damaging sort of regulation, but the Higgs report was right to say that damage could occur in two ways.
The first, which has not been emphasised, is the role of smaller companies outside the FTSE, where a tick-box culture might do harm. One can imagine institutional investors looking down a list of companies and finding that a significant number of boxes have not been ticked. They will not know much about the companies concerned and simply will not invest in them, thus making life difficult for companies to raise capital outside the major capital markets. That is a potential problem. Equally, I can see the force of what the Higgs report said about affecting the chemistry of boards. We have to take that advice on such matters.
The second set of criticisms is quite different. One of the problems is that it does not deal with the real problems, such as abuse of remuneration. I am not sure that that is a criticism of the report; we clearly need other things to follow.
The third criticism, which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon raised, and which is also important, is to remind ourselves of the reason for independents. Their essential function is to represent shareholders, but what if shareholders do not want to be involved? One of the problems that we are already encountering is that the various shareholders' meetings on executive pay are dominated by institutional shareholders. Many of them are fund managers, and many of them suffer from the same forms of payment for failure as the companies that they are supposed to be scrutinising and criticising. There is a deep problem in creating an environment of shareholder activism and responsibility, which the Higgs report does not address but which non-executive independent directors are supposed to be aware of.
I conclude by saying that the Higgs report was a useful advance; it was positive and responded to a real need. I do not see enormous harm coming from implementation, which will be based essentially on voluntary self-regulation. However, important technical criticisms need to be taken on board, and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells referred to them eloquently and authoritatively.
12.9 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: First, I declare the interests that are listed in the Register of Members' Interests. I also sat on the board of four public limited companies when not a Member.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing this debate. If not the best speech, his was certainly one of the best that I have heard in Westminster Hall. My hon. Friend's superb knowledge and talent were much in play. He explained clearly how we should move forward. He was right to say that the Higgs report could have a great impact on wealth creation in this country. There is a
186WH
need for an extremely critical analysis. As my hon. Friend said, not enough discussion has taken place in Parliament. I understand that Her Majesty's Government initially welcomed the Higgs report. Referral to the Financial Reporting Council has been mentioned as well as the fact that all recommendations should go forward, without queries.
My hon. Friend was interesting when he referred to the view of business leaders. The Confederation of British Industry's survey showed that 80 per cent. of FTSE chairmen considered that the Higgs report will undermine the role of chairmen. He was also right to say that it was most important that a combined code was not undermined. As he said, the combined code works because nearly everyone complies with it. If 20, 30 or 35 per cent. of companies did not do so, the code would be discredited. The Government could then be tempted to consider other ways forward, such as legislation, and that would be a disaster.
I was impressed by what my hon. Friend said about the need to have a good constant supply of non-executive directors who do not want to become box-ticking apparatchiks, but believe in the company that they serve. The chemistry of a good board is difficult to make into a code, a recommendation or to put in writing. A good board is the result of strong leadership. It happens with certain companies and everyone knows exactly which companies they are.
I was also impressed by what my hon. Friend said about the role of chairmen and the need for the combined code to enshrine strong leadership, not to undermine it. I have certainly taken on board what he said about the role of senior non-executive directors being tabulated and defined clearly. As he said, the person who emerges does indeed from time to time set up links between major shareholders and will embark on other initiatives, with the support and concurrence of the chairman, other members of the board and the executive directors.
My hon. Friend made a good analogy when he said what would happen in a ministerial team if a special adviser or someone else was reporting the entire time behind the back of the Secretary of State and undertaking particular tasks. It is important for the ultimate appetite of chairmen to build strong boards. To remove even part of that role from chairmen would be a grave error.
As for succession, my hon. Friend referred to chief executive officers who could not move forward to the role of chairman. That does not happen often, but does from time to time in certain special companies. For example, Lord King of Wartnaby could still be chief executive of British Airways plc, if he had not gone forward to the chairmanship. What about Lord Hanson and what was then the Hanson Trust? It is now called Hanson plc. He could still be chief executive officer. There would be a roadblock. My hon. Friend could still be chief executive of Asda Group plc. It would have been a huge loss to the House if he had remained in that position and not gone forward to its chairmanship. There are many other examples.

187WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) rightly said that the key to solving many of the problems lies with shareholders taking more interest and not just acting as absentee landlords. That is especially pertinent to the debate about pay packages. There has been much discussion recently in the press about the pay package of Philippe Varin, the new chairman of Corus, Jean-Pierre Garnier, the chairman of GlaxoSmithKline, and Eric Daniels of Lloyds TSB. Surely the shareholders could have got a grip of things. I have no difficulty with the idea of chairmen and chief executives having generous packages, but surely that should be linked to the performance of the shares of that company.
In the case of Philippe Varin and Corus, we had a company on its knees that might have been able to renegotiate its banking covenants, but whose shares were completely brought down. Only four years ago, that company was making profits of more than £1 billion, but it is now making substantial losses. A new chairman came in with a two-year pay package and a guaranteed set of options with various other significant benefits. I find it extraordinary that that whole package is not linked directly to the performance of Corus shares. One can think of many other examples. It is up to the institutional and retail shareholders to empower themselves and take more interest.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, there is no room for complacency, but he was also concerned about bureaucracy and red tape, which as an Opposition we are very concerned about. I go along with what he said about the importance of attracting more talent and of having a united board. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made a point about Equitable Life, where there was a quality board in place, but that board, on its 25 or 30 grand a year per head, was not able to solve the problems of that company. The board is now being sued for its efforts, and all its members will be personally liable for a large amount of money that will not be covered by the insurance that the company has in place.
My hon. Friend made the point about key decisions being driven by the board as a whole, which is important. Decisions should not be moved out of the board context. If the process becomes too prescriptive, many decisions will be taken by executive directors that are outside the confines of the board. One can see an analogy with Cabinet government, particularly in this Government where most decisions are taken by the Prime Minister and a few advisers outside the Cabinet.
As an Opposition, we do not have any difficulty in supporting some recommendations set out in the Higgs report. We certainly have no difficulty in supporting the separation of roles of chairman and chief executive officer, although it is interesting that Derek Higgs is on the board of British Land, where the CEO and the chairman are the same person. We do not support the recommendation that the chairman should not chair the nominations appointments committee. The reasons for that are clear and were well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells.
188WH
We do not support the recommendation that chief executive officers should not be promoted to the chairmanship. That is rare, but such a move would stifle wealth creation in certain circumstances, and could well stifle the performance of one or two key companies in this country. We are against the recommendation that a chairman can take only one such chairmanship. It is a question of time and performance, which can be judged. It would be wrong to be over-prescriptive.
We are cautious about the position of a senior independent director because often such a person does emerge. However, I do not think that the process needs to be carefully tabulated and prescribed. That position could undermine the entire ethos and principle of a unitary board and drive a wedge between the non-executive directors and the executive directors. We are cautious, and surprised that Derek Higgs recommended that half the board should be independent. If, for example, one other director is connected to the company, albeit as a non-executive, there could well be a majority of non-executive directors. Boards could become too big and unwieldy, and there would be an unacceptable cost to small companies.
I know from my experience on the boards of two companies, before I came to the House, that the costs that those companies face in complying with existing corporate governance are difficult enough, without adding more. The Government have said that they want more companies to move on to the off-exchange market and the alternative investment market, and they want corporations to move from AIM on to the main listing, but they will have to consider carefully how those regulations will impinge on smaller companies.
As an Opposition, we are concerned about the short-termism in some of the Higgs report, particularly where it is said that there should not be, as a rule, more than two three-year terms, nine years being the exception. Prescribing particular limits is a mistake. The report comes close to proposing a maximum period of service, which would certainly be a mistake. We want to see more non-executive directors come forward, but as it stands, the report will have the law of unintended consequences, as the CBI has pointed out, and fewer people will come forward. People do not want to become box-ticking apparatchiks, putting their career and reputation on the line.
We wish Professor Laura Tyson well, but what we really want is for the Government to promote more debate and to examine carefully some of the points made this morning and in the press. We also want the Financial Reporting Council to pull out the best parts of the Higgs report, so that we can then move forward with a better combined code.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Miss Melanie Johnson): First, I convey to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) my enthusiasm for his initiation of the debate. As he and others recognised in their contributions, the issue is highly topical and very important. The Government have placed a high priority on it recently. As other Members have commented, the hon. Gentleman has a great deal of first-hand knowledge, which was obvious from his contribution. I listened carefully to his points.

189WH
By way of background, I remind hon. Members of the setting in which these issues of corporate governance have been raised. The subject of this debate is central, but the Government have undertaken many other measures such as the co-ordinating group for auditing and accounting. The Higgs report is just one of a number of measures aimed at maintaining the UK's position as a leader in corporate governance. Recent discussions with authorities in the US and elsewhere in Europe have made it clear that we are still doing the work that is necessary to maintain that position. Other work was done by Sir Robert Smith, producing guidance for audit committees, and there has been a review of the regulation of the accountancy profession and reports from the group that I chaired with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, covering such issues as auditor independence and rotation. The Government have recently put in much work on such issues in response to the concerns that we all have as a result of the Enron, WorldCom and other situations.
The review by Derek Higgs of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors has played an important part in that package of post-Enron initiatives and has served well its central purpose of examining how UK productivity through corporate enterprise could be improved. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned the importance of that in terms of wealth creation and the wider economic agenda. The review was not aimed at taking a swipe at companies or their chairmen, as some would now have us believe, but was about enhancing the effectiveness of non-executive directors in maintaining the best regarded framework of corporate governance in the world and providing a badge for UK business through improvements to the best practice doctrine, rather than a rules-based approach.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friends or the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) would disagree with any of that. I do not think that much has been said, in terms of the major, overall objectives, on which any of us would disagree. In a statement to the House on 29 January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry strongly welcomed the Higgs report and emphasised its importance. She highlighted Derek Higgs's conclusions that at least half the board and the chairman at the time of appointment should be independent, that all members of audit and remuneration committees should be independent and that the separate roles of chairman and chief executive should be reinforced. She stressed how crucial she thought it was that appointments be made on merit, not, as is the case for more than half of appointments at present, through personal contacts and friendships. However, she also said—I repeat this in light of contributions made by Opposition Members—that that was not a regulatory approach.
The way to raise corporate governance standards is to use the existing successful approach of the combined code guidance and the principle of comply or explain. That means that if a company, such as a small listed company of the sort that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) mentioned, considers that particular provisions are not relevant or
190WH
manageable, it can, as now, simply explain why it is not complying. Its shareholders and the market will judge whether that explanation is reasonable. I will go into more detail on comply and explain later.
Since the publication of the Higgs report, there has been plenty of media coverage of its implications, and some concerns that have been raised were mentioned again today. We are well aware of the responses to the selective questions asked by the Confederation of British Industry, and of course we note the concerns. However, the institutional investor community is generally supportive of the report, and many in business support the majority of the report's findings. That agrees with the view I expressed that the majority of those who contributed to the debate have also, broadly speaking, supported the report. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells said something to the effect that its central ideas are good, but that substantive issues need to be addressed. We share that view.
On making good boards better, the Higgs report mandate was to improve company performance and productivity—I thought that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was rather unkind to suggest that the report was a narrowly drawn exercise—in particular, through the progressive strengthening of quality in the role of non-executive directors. However, it was to do so in a wider setting. The approach is based on best practice and builds on the Cadbury and Hampel reports as well as the best practice developed by leading companies, which raises the gain for some but does not diminish the effectiveness of many.
In response to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), I point out that the report is an attempt to solve problems using a much wider package. It is not as narrowly focused as he suggests. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear to Parliament, and confirmed in her Mansion house speech and her address to the Association of British Insurers, that the Government welcome the Higgs report. It marks an important contribution to corporate governance and to restoring investor confidence.
Of course, I am aware of the main concerns that have been raised, as well as of the broad support for the report, but I regard it as inappropriate for the Government to comment on individual proposed changes to the combined code. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is smiling, but I do not think that it will come as an enormous surprise to him that the changes to the combined code are the responsibility of the Financial Reporting Council, not the Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the FRC is studying the responses to its consultation. The debate is timely because it can contribute to the FRC's considerations. I will say a little more about some overarching issues, but I should also remark that if the Government were to comment in detail at this stage, we would be criticised by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
The new combined code will operate under the comply-or-explain approach, which, as Derek Higgs observes in his report, has served UK corporate governance well. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman accepts its success. The question is, will the report's recommendations change the whole approach? The hon. Gentleman is arguing strongly that there will, effectively, be a compliance target. I disagree strongly. We are still resting, as we have been doing, on the

191WH
strength of comply or explain, which was established by the Cadbury report more than 10 years ago. That is an integral part of how corporate governance operates in this country. Listed companies are required to report on whether and how they apply the detailed provisions in the combined codes principles, and if not, why not. That approach confers responsibilities on companies to examine their adherence to the code and to give adequate explanations when they do not, and on their shareholders to give proper consideration to such explanations to avoid—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order. We come to the next debate.

Dementia Services (South Derbyshire)
12.30 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: The purpose of this debate is to highlight how an important new service and change to an existing service can be handled effectively, and some of the pitfalls that can occur when that does not happen.
On the background, the illness of dementia is reasonably well known, so I shall not describe either the distressing way in which its onset can have a huge impact on the lifestyle of the individual and the carers who know that person well, or the need for special help to deal with the facets of an illness that can have a range of different effects on the individual's personality and in relation to the built facility in which that person is accommodated. Some people with the symptoms of dementia need extremely specialised care and support, and some built environments are not suitable for them.
Having given that brief introduction, I am proud to describe some of the past history of south Derbyshire, where an attempt has already been made to establish innovative ways of supporting people with dementia. Joint NHS and county council provision was tested at the Oaklands residential home some years back and was visited by the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), when he came to my constituency about three years ago. That provision set high standards in examining how one could respond to the residential requirements of people with dementia, and in offering outreach services, whereby people came in and spent some time in the centre being supported and working with their carers with an appropriate package of assistance to make their lives better.
Sadly, that experiment was terminated when it was decided that the built environment at Oaklands—it is a 1960s or 1970s building near the centre of Swadlincote with a large amount of glass and many corridors—was unsuitable for some people with dementia as it might contain hazards that could produce harm. I understand why the decision was taken to stop the scheme, but I have been looking forward to the provision of a new, coherent range of dementia services in south Derbyshire for the future.
If one considers the strategic context in which the matter has been approached, one can see that there has been a good deal of sensible thinking. However, some of the conclusions reached, as well as the means of communicating the conclusions, have left a lot to be desired. Let us consider the role of Derbyshire county council, which owns the Oaklands residential home, and its approach to its building stock for elderly people's residential care. The strategic document, which supported the local improvement finance trust LIFT—bid from the partnership group that has sponsored a range of health improvements in my area, says in its section on Derbyshire county council that, within the LIFT projects, particular interest would be attached to the
"refurbishment or replacement of a number of County Council residential homes for older people. The intention is to modernise the service so that the facilities meet the National Care Standards Commission requirements."

193WH
I applaud that. We recognise that the timetable for meeting those requirements is not immediate. Nevertheless, it is right that that should be our goal.
The document continues:
"The strategic direction of the service is to support more older people in their own homes."
Derbyshire county council has a proud record of doing just that. It has placed considerable emphasis on supporting older people in their homes, rather than on moving them into residential care. The document adds:
"This means that there will be a move away from the provision of predominantly long term care. The service will increasingly focus on shorter term intermediate care support or more specialist longer term care such as for older people with mental ill health."
I probably agree with the priority implied in that paragraph, but the difficulty is that Derbyshire county council owns a substantial stock of residential homes that are occupied by a large number of older people. The bald statement that there will be a move away from standard residential care for older people towards more specialist care implies dramatic changes in the living conditions of many older people, and that can cause them and their carers distress. The document sets the strategic context of the proposal. In essence, Derbyshire county council wants to reduce substantially, or to eliminate, its residential care for older people unless they have particular needs that require support from other agencies.
Derbyshire county council, Derbyshire Dales and South Derbyshire primary care trust and the Derbyshire Mental Health Services NHS trust have co-operated to produce a proposal for a dementia resource centre at Oaklands in Swadlincote. One of the reasons for the selection of that site is Oaklands' history of provision of specific services for dementia, to which I referred at the start of my speech. It does not currently provide such services, but its history indicates that the site may have been suitable for some people with dementia and could provide the support that they need.
Another reason for the selection of the site is, to put it bluntly, that the county council owns it. As I said when I quoted from its strategic statement in support of the LIFT proposal, it is seeking to find ways of moving away from standard residential care for older people. It believes that Oaklands does not have a particular problem in meeting National Care Standards Commission requirements, but that a minority of the rooms do not currently comply with them. It has not estimated how much it might cost to meet those requirements at some stage: as I said, that is not yet an urgent priority. Nevertheless, the crux of the matter is that the county council owns the site and the building. There is, therefore, some freedom to proceed with the proposal.
The proposal is for a mixed provision of mental health services beds for those with acute dementia requirements and a smaller number of beds for social services specialist cases. In both instances, the provision is aimed at those with some form of dementia, whether acute or with lesser expressions of the illness. In many ways, I applaud such a proposal, as my area needs such provision. Some people in my area have said that it is not a priority, but I believe that it is, so I am delighted that a proposal is coming before the decision-making bodies involved in the LIFT project.
194WH
However, one difficulty is that the selection of Oaklands had an immediate impact on the well-being of the residents, many of whom have been there for a considerable time. It caused significant distress, which was not helped by the clumsy way in which the proposal was communicated locally. Perhaps understandably, it was felt that a briefing to staff would be sensible, and that was done just before Christmas. However, that was naive, because the local newspaper was then told of the proposal by a member of staff who thought that their job might be threatened or that the story was of local interest. The proposal was then communicated informally through the newspaper to residents and carers just before Christmas, causing considerable distress and concern.
There was a great deal of confusion about the exact proposal: what was its time scale, how quickly would one expect the building to be demolished, would there be any possibility of retaining residential accommodation on site or would it be a wholesale demolition and so on? Poor communication added considerably to the distress of all concerned. That distress has gone beyond the community of those immediately involved with Oaklands. The local vicar, the Rev. Horsfall, whose church is next door, expressed his concern about the project, and I know that some local county councillors who have been contacted about how the council has addressed it have also expressed concern.
The first question is: is it the right site to choose? I would argue that two issues should be confronted. First, is it the easiest way to proceed for such a project? It is clear that gaining occupancy of the site and removing those who are currently resident—we must be blunt about it—will be both distressing and difficult. It will take some months, and possibly years, to achieve that outcome sensitively, which is how I expect Derbyshire county council to work. Secondly, are there alternatives? It has been drawn to my attention that one residential home in the private sector in south Derbyshire—Cedar Court at Bretby—already provides dementia beds. It is happy to co-operate with the county council and the NHS in developing a more specialist role in that field, but it has found it incredibly difficult to get the decision makers to discuss that in an organised fashion. I am not saying that that proposal is right, but I would expect it at least to be given proper reflection by the county council, the primary care trust and those on the mental health services trust who would be involved in delivering the service.
What appears to have happened instead is a fairly lengthy and inconclusive correspondence, which may have been guided by some issues that are not atypical in the nursing home and residential sector, including concerns about existing arrangements at that home and whether nursing cover has been adequate. All Members know that residential homes sometimes find it difficult to recruit nurses on a continuing basis, and Cedar Court at Bretby has had that difficulty. Nevertheless, I would expect it to be possible to discuss how a facility could be provided there as an alternative strategy to that identified in the LIFT project.
LIFT is a sensible way of funding a range of primary care services in my constituency, and in those of other hon. Members, but I am far from clear about it. That may be an innate difficulty with how the mechanism delivers such projects. The financial implications of the

195WH
project's delivery are unclear, because they depend substantially on the private sector partner and its input. It is, therefore, difficult to evaluate the project in the way one would do normally.
An estimated capital cost of £2.7 million has been set aside in the LIFT proposal. However, of equal importance, if not more so, are the revenue consequences of the bid and how it will be distributed between the county council—the ongoing manager of services—and the mental health services trust. The project requires rather sharper evaluation than it has received; it must be benchmarked against other means of delivering a laudable goal. I do not want to give the impression that I do not wish such a project to proceed in my constituency. However, the detailed means by which the county council and the NHS intend that the project should proceed require further consideration before authorisation is given.
12.46 pm
The Parlliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing this important debate and thank him for the considered, thoughtful way in which he made his representations. Also, I acknowledge his support for changes and improvements to services for older people with dementia in his constituency. He raised some important issues.
I share my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents who live and work at the Oaklands residential home, and I understand the impact of the proposed changes on individuals, especially when they are elderly or in poor health. Such changes can cause immense distress. The closure of that residential home for older people is a matter for Derbyshire county council. My hon. Friend says that he has had close discussions with the council about that, and I am sure that they will continue as the process moves towards formal consultation. This is only the pre-consultation stage and a range of ideas is being considered. Nevertheless, if there were a proposal to close the home, there should also be a period of formal consultation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will retain close contact with the process.
There are those in the area who wish that the home could remain. I understand, however, that that cannot happen without significant investment to bring it up to the national requirements set by the National Care Standards Commission. I appreciate that the time scale is lengthy, but the home would need to achieve significant changes, if not some demolition and rebuilding, to meet those standards. We must consider things in that context.
Mr. Todd: Will my hon. Friend set matters out in more detail? There is, as she said, a long timetable for compliance. It would be helpful if she told us how long that could take, or if there is any uncertainty about it.
Ms Blears: Clearly, the original time scale pertaining to the physical requirements of existing properties has been put back, and it now runs beyond 2007. I could supply my hon. Friend with a more detailed timetable,
196WH
if that would assist him. In any event, it is correct that authorities should plan ahead, consider the context of existing buildings, be aware of requirements that will come their way in due course and make contingency plans and decisions accordingly.
I would expect any relocation of individuals to be dealt with sensitively and the wishes of individuals and their families to be respected. I know that my hon. Friend has concerns about how the matter has been handled. Local social services representatives have already had discussions with the individuals, their carers and relatives. It is important in such circumstances to outline the available options, and I would expect the families to be offered a variety. Derbyshire county council generally has a good record in such matters, and its service that provides care for older people scored well in the recent comprehensive performance assessment of local authorities. I urge the council to handle the matter sensitively.
I understand that long-stay admissions to the residential home have been stopped to try to ensure that a range of options is developed. With the proposed closure likely to be at least 12 months away, if it goes ahead, there should be plenty of time for suitable arrangements to be made that meet the needs of individual patients and their families. I also expect that appropriate arrangements will be put in place for the staff at the centre. Again, that is a matter for the county council to resolve.
Mr. Todd: About 30 people reside at Oaklands, so we are discussing a significant task. I share the Minister's view that the county council has a good track record on delivering service for elderly people and on consulting, but the concern with this project is that the elderly will be railroaded out.
Ms Blears: Elderly people should not in any circumstances be subject to any pre-emptive decision making that would, in my hon. Friend's terms, railroad them out. Clearly, the issue is difficult. It is a matter for negotiation not only with the patients, but with their carers and families, to ensure that any alternative options meet needs that are, in some cases, complex. Decisions should not be taken unless proper options have been developed. I urge the local authority to make every effort it can in that respect.
As part of the NHS review of services in Derbyshire for older people with mental health care needs, it is proposed that services, particularly for those with dementia, should be developed from locally accessible resource centres. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's support for that general policy thrust. Such centres do not exist. Indeed, the joint mental health strategy for older people's services identified a need for significant investment in community mental health service provision. Many people have to go to Derby or other centres for services. The move is to bring those services out of the centre and put them closer to people's homes. The strategy has been jointly prepared by the primary care trust, social services and Derbyshire mental health services trust, so there is good joined-up strategy development.
A hub-and-spoke model is proposed, with one-stop primary care centres in Ashbourne and Swadlincote. Such centres would provide a full spectrum of health

197WH
and social services. The NHS in Derbyshire proposes developing dementia care from four community-based resource centres, including one to serve the Swadlincote area. Social services and the NHS are working together to develop a joint service delivery plan, which will build on their good working relationships. The centres will offer specialist care in a multipurpose resource with sheltered housing and day services close by. They will provide joint social care and NHS community facilities, including provision for in-patient services, a community team and day assessment services. I believe that my hon. Friend would acknowledge that that will be a significant improvement on the services that are available.
There will be less emphasis on long-stay care, which is why the service must be redesigned. Our policy is to provide more care in people's homes and in the community. There will also be a dramatic increase in the number of staff—up to 120 from 24—providing dementia care in the community across southern Derbyshire. That represents a major shift of resources. For the Swadlincote area, the increase will be from three staff to 14. That significant extra help will be redeployed from existing central services.
It is proposed for the moment that the Swadlincote centre should use the site occupied by the Oaklands residential home. The proposal is to demolish the building, which does not meet the required standards, although linking the centre's development to the local improvement finance trust—LIFT—project would be one way to bring it on stream sooner than by simply awaiting capital from the NHS source.
The estimated capital cost of the building is £2.7 million, and the LIFT option is being appraised. If the company accepts, it would fall in the second tranche of the delivery programme. The first is due for invitation to tender and financial close by December. Approval of the second tranche, which the centre would come under, would follow early in the new year, fairly shortly after closure on the first. Any construction on the Oaklands site would therefore be unlikely to commence until mid-2004. That is the time scale we are looking at for the development.
My hon. Friend mentioned the other proposal from Bretby, which involves Cedar Court. I understand that the county council is talking to the organisation to consider the proposals. My hon. Friend is right: one proposal should not be favoured, and all proposals should be properly evaluated to see which is the best way forward. If it is decided that this proposal should not be in the LIFT scheme, other funding arrangements will be considered, including seeking partners for a separate private finance initiative. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the LIFT company is considering putting the proposal in its programme.
My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, as well as the four resource centres across Derbyshire, we are funding the creation of a dementia service development centre for the east midlands. The centre will improve dementia care throughout the region, including his constituency, through a combination of information, education and training. The resource centres will provide the physical base for the services, and the information and education base will be improved. That will concentrate on four key areas: staff
198WH
training and practice development; data collection and sharing; service development; and research. We are putting £62,000 into that project this year, and similar amounts will be provided in the next two years.
My hon. Friend has a particular interest in services for the group of people that we are discussing, and I hope that he is encouraged that we want not only to redesign the service, but to make it one that people want to work in—an attractive place to work. People will have access to research, training and information, so that they can share the good practice that they develop throughout the region and provide better services.
I understand my hon. Friend's concern that if a proposal is not handled sensitively and properly, distress will be caused to patients, their families, carers and the whole community. Any change or major service redesign is difficult to accommodate, particularly when people have made a residential home their home. That is why I will say clearly to the local authority that it needs to ensure that there is proper, detailed and individual consultation with everyone involved, and that they should be given a variety of options and as much security for the future as possible.
The Government have made the care of older people a top clinical priority. That is why we have the national service framework for older people, why there is such emphasis in standard 7 of the NSF on services for people with dementia and why there is such focus on developing integrated services between the NHS and social services. We are trying to ensure that we create a seamless system of care.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the planning and priorities framework for the coming year requires that, by 2004, protocols must be in place across all health and social services systems for the proper care and management of older people with mental health problems. Placing that requirement in the planning and priorities framework gives us a performance management lever to ensure that our objective is achieved in communities, and that people who, perhaps for many years, have been neglected become a real priority for both services. I am advised that all trusts in the Trent strategic health authority area, including those in Derbyshire, will have their protocols in place by the April 2004 deadline, and that they take this matter extremely seriously.
Extra investment is going into the service. There will be an extra £1 billion for social services for older people by 2006, including £100 million for additional carers services, which will increase to £185 million, and £70 million to support the training of social care staff. All that extra funding will help to improve services for older people with mental health problems.
The primary care trust and the social services department in my hon. Friend's area collaborated on proposals to redesign and improve services for that group of people. He is absolutely right to raise concerns about whether this is the right site, whether there are alternatives and whether we can proceed as quickly as possible, perhaps through the LIFT company. I urge him to continue his constructive discussions with the local authority and to ensure that the proposed service developments really make an improvement.

NHS Complaints Procedure
1 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I am delighted to have secured this short debate. There is a widespread consensus across the House and in the Government that the NHS complaints procedure is in need of reform and, almost without exception, hon. Members will have had experiences of cases that demonstrate that need. Although the issues are largely generic, it was the death of Mrs. Peggy Scott, the mother of my constituent, Mrs. Christine Hawkins, in Eastbourne general hospital that brought these issues forcefully to my attention and underlies my request for today's debate. I shall refer to the specific complaint in respect of Mrs. Scott's unexpected death but, of course, I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond on a case-specific basis. Instead, I would like to try to draw some general points from Mrs. Hawkins' experience of the complaints process.
Mrs. Hawkins' concern to find out what really happened to her mother was treated as a complaint from the outset. Although it was initially a search for information and the truth, the system insisted on treating it as a complaint. Mrs. Hawkins first came to see me in 2001, some two years after her mother's death, and it was not until last June that the process reached its culmination with the publication of the report by the health service ombudsman on Mrs. Scott's death. For almost all the period that I have been involved with the case, the Government's commitment to reform of the NHS complaints procedure has acted a backdrop to the specifics of this case.
I began applying for this Adjournment debate some time ago, certainly before the publication of the Government's document on NHS reform. It is purely fortuitous that the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which will deal with these issues to some extent, will receive its Second Reading tomorrow.
Because things have moved on in the past few months, I hope that I can draw the Minister specifically on how the Government's proposed reforms will address specific issues that are raised by Mrs. Hawkins' complaint about her mother's treatment. In particular I should like to try to penetrate what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, speaking in the context of local government reorganisation, described as a British "obsession" with institutional change and to understand how the proposed institutional changes will make a practical difference to the way the complaints system works and the attitudes that the various players within it adopt.
Nothing that any complaints system can do will reverse the pain and suffering that Mrs. Scott endured alone in her final hours; no compensation can ever put right the fact that Mrs. Scott's family were not with her when she died, nor were they even aware that her condition was serious. Moreover, it was not with a view to obtaining compensation that Mrs. Hawkins embarked upon the assault course that the current NHS complaints procedure represents. Instead, it was an attempt to establish the truth and, as the facts began to emerge, to try to ensure that appropriate action would be taken to ensure that the errors and failures that were exposed could not be repeated.
200WH
At the end of a process that has lasted nearly four years, Mrs. Hawkins remains totally dissatisfied. She is dissatisfied with the conduct of her complaint, the follow-up action, or lack of it, by the trust and the apparent inability of the system to ensure that the shortcomings of the individuals involved in Mrs. Scott's care were properly addressed.
Briefly, because we do not have time to go through the details of Mrs. Scott's treatment, I will outline the salient facts. Mrs. Scott was admitted to Eastbourne general hospital following complaints of abdominal pain and diagnosed as suffering from constipation and a urinary tract infection. She was about to be sent home from the accident and emergency department when Mrs. Hawkins arrived, expressed concern about her condition and insisted on a further examination. As a consequence of that examination, Mrs. Scott was admitted to the hospital and a care plan was drawn up for her, although it is not at all clear that that plan was followed beyond that point.
Throughout Mrs. Scott's stay in the hospital, clinical and nursing notes were maintained in a grossly inadequate fashion. It was impossible to identify the authors of some of the notes—for example, some were recorded on sheets without the patient's name. Despite significant changes in her condition, including a very significant drop in her blood pressure, no entries were recorded in her nursing notes on 30 June—the day before she died—between just after midnight and 8 pm, despite the requirements of the care plan.
Much of the investigation that followed focused on contradictory entries made in Mrs. Scott's records during the evening before she died and the lack of clarity about whether she had been administered the painkiller Tramadol once or twice. The ombudsman eventually concluded that the notes recorded by doctors and nurses of events occurring at different times were in fact notes of the same event. There were serious cases of misrecording.
As Mrs. Scott's condition deteriorated, it was clear that a more senior doctor should have become involved in her diagnosis and treatment, but none did. If the ombudsman's report has correctly deduced what happened, Mrs. Scott was given only one dose of Tramadol at 8 pm in the evening and, when she died some five hours later, she would almost certainly have been in extreme pain. It may well be that, because of Mrs Scott's age, weight and general condition, surgical intervention would ultimately not have been successful, but it is absolutely clear from the reports that it should have been considered and that it was not. Because of shortness of time, I shall not quote from the reports, but it is clear that there was a catalogue of failures by the hospital and the staff involved in recognising and acting upon the obvious deterioration in Mrs. Scott's condition.
Like all hon. Members, I have had to deal with many constituents who have had experience of the NHS complaints system at every level. We also often have the opportunity to see matters from a different perspective from that of the complainant by talking informally to NHS staff and managers. I want to extrapolate the general issues from Mrs. Scott's case.
The focus, as I understand it, of the Government's proposed reform of the complaints system—clause 109 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and

201WH
Standards) Bill, which contains a regulation-making power that means that we shall not see the detail for quite some time yet—is on changes to the independent review panel stage of the procedure. That is clearly a welcome reform, because there seems to be universal dissatisfaction among complainants with that stage of the procedure and a clear feeling that the word "independent" is a misnomer.
As I understand it, the intention is that the yet-to-be-created Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection should take the lead role in conducting the independent review stage. I have mixed feelings about that proposal. It seems to me that CHAI's intended principal role is to improve standards of clinical governance through audit and support of systems. Its role in the independent review process will facilitate rapid feedback from findings in individual cases to improve the system, which is a good thing.
I am slightly less comfortable about CHAI having a lead role in the resolution of an individual complaint. That proposal seems to sit a little uncomfortably with the broader role envisaged for CHAI. To my mind, that is akin to asking the Audit Commission to manage appeals against local authority housing allocation decisions, and that would involve two separate issues being merged into one. My conclusion is that, if CHAI is to be involved at that stage of the complaint procedure, its involvement will have to be carefully defined to ensure that its principal role of extracting and ensuring the implementation of general lessons from an individual case is not compromised by—and, does not compromise in turn—the other important objective of the complaints procedure, which is to ensure an acceptable outcome from the point of view of the individual complainant.
My real concern, which I want to put to the Minister today, is that the problem lies further back in the process—in the development of a deeply defensive culture among NHS staff and managers. Perhaps inevitably in the context of an ever-more litigious society, that, if anything, seems to be getting stronger. Complaints are seen as wholly negative. There is a sense of closing ranks among staff. Complainants such as Mrs. Hawkins, who are essentially seeking information and reassurance that individual inappropriate behaviour has been identified, are treated from the outset as potential litigants. Apart from being extremely wasteful, the creation of an adversarial atmosphere around the complaints process from the outset creates a danger that, at the very early stages of the process, defensive postures will be struck and defensive statements will be made. They will become entrenched and effectively obstruct a more objective analysis later.
In short, I suggest that often during the local resolution stage of a complaint, which is as far as most complaints ever go, there may be a tendency to try to put the matter to bed, rather than to open it up and explore it more fully. That leads to complainants feeling obstructed by the lack of transparency, to staff often taking up positions that they feel obliged to repeat and reinforce later and to mangers focusing on an explanation that will prevent the complaint progressing to the next level. It requires a great deal of energy to pursue a complaint through the system and there is the suspicion that the focus of the first stage is sometimes on providing an explanation that will deter even the
202WH
moderately strong from further inquiry. Many complainants find deeply offensive the implication from the outset that they may be seeking compensation. I suggest to the Minister that there needs to be a way of clearly separating complaints that are focused on the pursuit of compensation, or that might reasonably lead to a compensation claim, from those that clearly are not.
Another specific concern underlined by Mrs. Scott's case that I want to raise, is the securing of evidence in the context of the long time scales of the complaints procedure. Many local resolution procedures currently take a very long time. There is clearly a need to set a maximum time scale so that, if matters are to proceed beyond the local resolution stage, that can happen at a time when the incident is still relatively fresh in the memories of those involved. One of the striking and alarming things in Mrs. Scott's case is the lack of proper record keeping, which was compounded by the inability of key members of staff to remember the salient incidents in her treatment—no doubt a function of the pressure under which NHS staff operate. Surely there is a case for the taking of early statements from the clinical staff involved in an unexpected death or other untoward incident.
The other deeply unsatisfactory aspect of Mrs. Scott's case is the inability of any of the bodies involved in the complaints process—the trust itself, the independent review panel or the health ombudsman—to obtain a response from a staff nurse, a key member of staff, despite communicating with him at the address on the register held by what was the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. It appears that the system does not have the ability to enforce co-operation with the complaints process and, with the increased volatility of staff in the NHS and the increasing use of agency staff. That seems to me to be cause for serious concern.
Finally, complainants—Mrs. Hawkins included—find it difficult to understand why the independent review panel is unable to apportion responsibility for an incident even when the conclusions of the report are clear in that respect. The independent review panel is specifically not permitted to make recommendations for, or to instigate, disciplinary action against individuals. That is supposed to be a function of the employing trust in response to the report. In this case, there was no follow-up by the trust in relation to the shortcomings of individual identified members of staff. It is clear that CHAI would have a role in auditing procedural changes arising from a report into a complaint, which is certainly positive. Will the Minister tell us whether it would also have a role in ensuring a proper response by the trust at the level of the individual?
The complainant has little scope to address the situation, as Mrs. Hawkins found out. The professional disciplinary bodies—the General Medical Council and so on—can investigate complaints only when the conduct complained of is sufficiently serious to warrant striking off a member from the register. In other cases, it is for the trust alone to carry out appropriate disciplinary procedures.
I welcome the Government's commitment to reform the NHS complaints procedure. I ask the Minister to address specifically a number of questions that arise from Mrs. Hawkins's case, but which have a much more

203WH
general applicability. In doing so, perhaps she could confirm to the House how the proposed new system will address those issues. Will she tell us who will be responsible for setting down procedures for documenting events surrounding unexpected deaths or other untoward clinical incidents, including the taking and preserving of statements from the staff involved? Do the Government intend to introduce an obligation on persons registered with professional bodies to co-operate in the NHS complaints procedure? In short, I should like an assurance from the Minister that it will not be possible for a nurse who worked for an NHS trust to leave it and, while remaining registered with the UKCC, simply to ignore communications from the trust, the independent review panel and ultimately the health ombudsman regarding his or her role in an incident that is under investigation.
Will the Minister confirm that CHAI will have responsibility for auditing the process by which NHS trusts respond to its findings, and to those of independent review panels, during the local resolution of complaints? That includes findings relating to individual members of staff and disciplining those individuals. Can she tell the Chamber how she intends to ensure that the complaints process is focused on the complainants' objectives, as well as on the need for the system to learn from mistakes? In particular, how does she intend to end the defensive culture, which is inappropriate for the large majority of cases where, provided the complainant gets a satisfactory response from the process, litigation is not in prospect?
How does the Minister intend to ensure openness in the early stages of investigating a complaint? I should like to know whether the Government will address what is viewed by complainants as a grossly unfair bias in the system whereby the trust under investigation has the opportunity to review and comment on a report by the ombudsman prior to publication, but the complainant, who has been living, eating and drinking the details of the case for four years and is at least as well versed in them as anyone else, is not given such an opportunity. Finally, will the complainant have the ability to initiate the independent review panel process independently of the trust, or will the process still be something that only the trust can initiate?
Mrs. Hawkins has been engaged for the best part of four years in seeking to achieve a satisfactory conclusion to her complaint about the treatment of her mother and the events leading up to her death. The impression that she has is of a system incapable of getting to the truth behind those events and designed to protect those responsible for the serious lapses in Mrs. Scott's care from facing the consequences of their actions. Although Mrs. Hawkins feels that the system has failed her personally, it is her sincere desire that some good should come of her mother's death by exposing the weakness in the system. It is with that intention that she has dedicated herself over such a long period to pursuing this case.
Mrs. Hawkins will welcome, as I do, the fact that the Government are willing to make changes to the NHS complaints system. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me and, through me, Mrs. Hawkins an assurance that she will take on board the lessons from the case—I
204WH
am happy to give her the full details and copies of all the reports—as she frames and shapes a robust and practical system for dealing with similar complaints in future.
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on securing the debate. As he said, it is particularly prescient in respect of tomorrow's Second Reading and the publication of the document about reforming the complaints procedure.
The hon. Gentleman raised some very important points, and not just in relation to his constituent's case. I am aware of that case, however, and I shall try to deal with some of the related issues. The hon. Gentleman raised points about the operation of the service and, fundamentally, the culture of the service in dealing with complaints. We need to change not just institutions and structures, but attitudes and the way in which complaints are viewed throughout the service. That applies both to individual instances and to trends of complaints, which can tell us things about the service more generally. The service can learn from mistakes. Things will go wrong in any organisation that treats 1 million people every 36 hours, and sometimes they will be extremely distressing for the individuals involved, so it is incumbent on the NHS to learn from such incidents wherever it can.
I shall deal with Mrs. Hawkins's case and then address some of the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I am certainly very sorry about the circumstances in which Mrs. Hawkins' mother died. I know that Mrs Hawkins was extremely unhappy with the care that her mother received at the Eastbourne Hospitals NHS trust before her death. Any death is extremely difficult for relatives to deal with. When it happens in hospital, however, and those close to the deceased believe that better care could have been provided, their distress can only increase. I certainly offer my condolences to Mrs. Hawkins and her family. I know that she feels let down by the complaints system, particularly given what happened following her complaint at the independent review stage and the ombudsman report stage, and I am extremely sorry that that is the case.
I understand that at its meeting on 30 April the board of what is now the East Sussex Hospitals NHS trust considered and approved a position paper on the progress and developments that had been made since Mrs. Hawkins's complaint. The paper detailed the ongoing actions that the trust was taking in response to the recommendations of the independent review panel, the ombudsman's subsequent report and the review of nursing at the hospital which Ray Greenwood carried out in response to the incident as long ago as 1999.
I cart update the hon. Gentleman on a few of the things that the hospital has done. Now that its medical assessment unit has opened, more senior medical staff are available on the unit for patient care. That has lead to better patient care and certainly to greater supervision of junior nursing staff, which was a real issue in this case.
The hospital's clinical governance committee has recently approved new policy and practice for minimum observation and monitoring of post-operative patients

205WH
on wards, as well as guidelines for monitoring patients receiving intermittent opiate analgesia. Again, that means much better monitoring and supervision.
The committee has also approved new policies and procedures on nursing documentation. The standard of documentation was clearly not what it should have been. There are also new guidelines on the care of the dying, the care of the deceased patient and the bereaved, the management of incidents, and nutrition. All those elements were relevant in the case of Mrs. Hawkins' mother. There was also an issue about notes not being dated, timed or having appropriate signatures on them, and there is now a computerised nursing documentation system at the hospital to ensure that those things are done for all notes.
Another issue was what discussions had taken place with the relevant staff to ensure that they took the independent review panel's recommendations on board and learned from what had happened. I understand that a copy of the panel's report has been sent to, and discussed individually with, every member of staff involved in the incidents that occurred in the case of Mrs. Hawkins' mother. With effect from as long ago as 1 April 2001, general managers have been in place in every clinical directorate. They are instructed to ensure that statements are taken from everyone involved and that there is proper documentation.
I believe that the trust is now fully committed to learning the lessons from Mrs. Hawkins' complaint. A new chairman and a new chief executive are in place, and there is a real concentration on the issues that led to that unfortunate incident.
I want to deal now with the general matters that the hon. Gentleman raised and to set out the proposals for changing the complaints procedure. The then Conservative Government introduced the current procedure in April 1996. There was a commitment to evaluation, to see how the procedure was working and what could be improved. We maintained that commitment by undertaking an independent evaluation study. It took two years, so it was very lengthy. A listening exercise was also conducted.
The evaluation process produced several key messages. First, people were unclear about how to pursue complaints and said that the process was often difficult to use. They said that there was frequently a delay in responding and that there was too often a negative attitude to complaints—the defensiveness that the hon. Gentleman described. Many complainants did not feel that they got a fair hearing or that they got support at the appropriate times when they wanted to complain. One of the most powerful messages was that the independent review stage did not have the credibility that it needed; people did not perceive it as truly independent from the service.
Another complaint was that the process did not provide the redress that patients wanted. As the hon. Gentleman said, many people were not looking for financial compensation but for apologies and for an acknowledgement that something had gone wrong. Crucially, they wanted systems to be put in place to ensure that the same things did not happen to other people in future. No systems were in place to use the feedback from complaints to drive improvements in services. The evaluation was clear about what people wanted us to ensure would happen.
206WH
We have now identified four key areas in which to move forward. First, we need to change the way in which the NHS and its staff view patients and handle complaints. That is a cultural, not a structural, change. We are working closely on that with the NHS university and the professional bodies to develop a number of training programmes on customer care and communications skills. Those programmes should ensure that everyone in the NHS, at all levels, will be more attuned to what patients want and will view complaints as requiring the provision of a first-class service, as for the rest of the business, rather than automatically seeing complaints as a personal attack and retreating into a defensive mode. The foundation of that change will be to ensure that the education, training and culture are right.
Secondly, we want to ensure that the NHS deals with complaints positively as an integral part of service delivery, and not as something on the outside that happens after the event, somewhere down the track, when things have become increasingly complicated. In that context, the introduction of the patient advice and liaison services, which now exist in 98 per cent. of trusts, will be a real step forward. PALS aim, as far as possible, to resolve complaints on the spot. They can bring people together, and they can get very senior clinicians to explain to patients some of the decisions that have been made. Many complaints arise from a lack of communication, from confusion or obfuscation, or because the clinician and the patient are not talking the same language. PALS can act as a facilitator in bringing people together.
An interesting figure that I saw recently was for the East Kent Hospitals trust, which experienced a 68 per cent. reduction in formal complaints in the six months following January 2002, when the PALS was established. That is an incredible result. I do not pretend that that can be extrapolated across the service, but it shows that PALS can help in such circumstances.
Mr. Hammond: I know that we are running out of time, but I wanted to ask a specific question. The Minister said that all staff involved at the hospital had seen the IRP report and discussed it, but I presume that that did not include the staff nurse who could not be traced. Do the Government propose to place an obligation on professional staff to co-operate with inquiries into incidents in NHS hospitals, as a condition of remaining registered?
Ms Blears: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about that. I cannot give him an undertaking on that today, but I will write to him with details of what steps can be taken in that regard. It is an important matter: people should not be able to evade their responsibility by not co-operating.
First, we must get the culture right, and secondly we must get things right at the front end, with local resolution through PALS, and through the introduction of modern matrons. Thirdly, we want radically to reform the independent review element of the complaints procedure. That is why that element will pass across to CHAI. The hon. Gentleman made the important point that the complaints process should be clearly separated from that organisation's inspection functions, but I believe that by bringing those functions

207WH
together under the same roof we will provide the opportunity for the complaints to inform clinical governance, the inspection process and the agenda for improvement.
We will set out in regulations how those separate functions will be administered. The details of what CHAI will do in relation to the independent review stage have yet to be formulated, but we envisage that it will have a range of options. It will be able to recommend to the organisation what it should do it may conduct a detailed investigation; or it may fast-track an issue through to the ombudsman if it is complicated and needs more serious review. CHAI will examine what needs to be done, by whom and in what time scale, and it will take a proactive approach. That will meet people's requirements for a truly independent part of the system that is outside the NHS, and it will take the matter seriously. If we get right the independent part of the process, that will increase credibility and trust in the system.
Fourthly, we must ensure that we learn from complaints about how to drive up standards. If we consider the pieces of the jigsaw—the new system of organisation of complaints, the statutory requirement for quality, the adverse incident reporting system through the National Patient Safety Agency, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence with its guidelines for treatment, the renewed emphasis on clinical governance and the reform of the system of professional regulation, which the hon. Gentleman raised—we can see that, together, they represent a real drive for quality. I believe that we will be able to achieve the required cultural change to complement the institutional change.
The hon. Gentleman raised important issues about whether CHAI could audit the process of trust responses. Clearly, patients need to know what has happened as a result of the decisions taken, and I will respond to him about that. We need to ensure that people have the opportunity to comment equally and equitably on ombudsman reports. Again, I will respond to the hon. Gentleman on that important point.
We have set out a time scale for the changes that we want to happen. Provided that our primary legislation is passed, we anticipate that the process will start in April 2004.
I also want to mention the independent complaints advocacy service—
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Order.

Council Housing (Nottingham)
1.30 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: Local tenants and residents groups asked me to raise their fears about the future of council housing, and I am grateful that Lord Rooker, the Minister for Housing and Planning, has agreed to visit Nottingham. When he does so, he will have the pleasure of meeting the newly elected leader of the city council, Jon Collins. I place on record my congratulations to Jon Collins—he is a very capable person, from whom we expect great things—and my thanks to his predecessor, Brian Parbutt, and his predecessor, Graham Chapman. They were able leaders of the council who shared the concerns of all the people in Nottingham about arm's length management organisations.
I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). It is the first time that I have had the pleasure of taking part in a debate with him. I do not know whether he will thank me for saying so, but I believe him to be one of the most able of the new generation of Ministers. If he is allowed to, I believe that he will produce creative and inspirational answers to some of the problems that we face. Just as importantly, he was the leader of a council in a previous life and he brings that experience to bear in this debate.
I will step back a little to provide some perspective on the issue. As we know, the dominance of the Government in our political system has often had a suffocating impact on our Parliament, but nowhere are the effects of our monopoly politics more obvious than in the massively imbalanced relationship between central and local government. Central Government command, but local government is often little more than an agent. The only surprise in 30 per cent. of people voting in last week's local elections is that the figure was so high, given the constant atrophy of local government powers.
Arm's length management organisations—ALMOs—are the latest bright idea to be imposed on the localities by central Government. In many ways, the Prime Minister is lucky that the legislation to impose foundation housing on much of the electorate was passed when we were all so optimistic after the 1997 election, unlike the legislation on foundation hospitals and foundation schools, which may have a more difficult passage.
It need not be like this. This country has a proud tradition of municipal housing. Not long ago, Nottingham city council and its tenants celebrated the 75th anniversary of council housing in the city. Alan Allsopp, the assistant director of housing, told me that, over that period, successive municipal administrations of all parties constructed more than 50,000 homes in the city. That is a record of public provision of which generations of local councillors, public servants and the residents of the city have every right to be proud.
In an era in which our political leaders seem to have little faith in the ability of the public sector, politics or even local government to deliver answers and in which only schoolboy economics from No. 10 are given any validity, this massive local government achievement should give us confidence that such an alternative could

209WH
exist again in the public sector, albeit in a different form. Local authorities tackled the most appalling slum housing in Nottingham, responded to admonishments to build homes fit for heroes and did their best to ensure that decent housing could be offered to the citizens of Nottingham.
Many homes in the eight large council estates in my constituency of Nottingham, North are a part of this legacy. They were built by the city council for its citizens. We can and should be proud of that legacy. The homes are good: they are solid houses with gardens, or attractive bungalows. There is no deck access, and there are no tower blocks. The majority are popular with tenants, and it is no secret that a fair number have been bought by their tenants over the years. Most observers and tenants unfamiliar with the definition of a decent home would say that those properties represent their idea of a good home—a nice house with a reasonable garden in a well laid out estate.
However, as the Government recognised, we were told in the 18 years up to 1997 that we should not be so proud of council housing. The 18 years of Thatcherite thinking sank their roots deep into political thinking—a particularly acute problem for those who had never thought through a clear alternative. I understand that, at the fag end of those years, the civil service proposed the dismembering of council estates. Thankfully, in 1997 a newly elected Government came in. However, after a year's moratorium, they too seemed to propose a dismembering of council estates. Are those traditional values in a modern setting, or civil service values without political control? Hon. Members can take their choice.
There is now an alternative for this Administration or the next to think through. They could free local government, get off its back, let it make its own mistakes and successes, and let the electorate, not Whitehall, hold it to account and decide whether it has been successful. All that depends on democratically establishing independent local government, ending Whitehall control over the last country in the empire, and letting the natives find their own answers. That would be the antithesis of central control. To partner that, local government would need the financial freedom to raise its own revenue and be responsible for its own borrowing. That would require a leap of policy and imagination that no one seems yet to have dared raise with Sir Humphrey.
Nottingham, like many places, was put in a financial straitjacket when it came to carrying out the modernisation works required to keep its homes in the condition that those who built them would have expected them to be in. I have seen the impact of that struggle in my constituency. In its efforts to be a responsible landlord, the city council has had to repair things that should have been replaced. It has had to put off modernising homes that need modernisation. Throughout, however, the city council stuck to the principle that tenants and residents of the estates that it managed deserved not only a decent home but a decent environment in which to live.
Priority was given to that broader philosophy, and it was backed up by resources. The city council's housing service, Housing Direct, sums up that philosophy with its slogan, "Decent homes in a decent neighbourhood". The incoming Labour Government recognise the challenge of the housing modernisation backlog, and
210WH
that recognition is genuinely and warmly welcomed in Nottingham. Its chosen weapon is the decent homes standard, which has much to recommend it. Its emphasis will ensure that some of the problems of repair and maintenance raised by tenants will be solved.
However, I repeat that the really big issue for tenants is not the age of their kitchen or the number of cupboards specified in the decent homes standard, but the environment in which they live. The outside environment is just as important as the dry statistics on what should be inside the home. The outside environment must be high quality and sustainable. There must be proper walls and fencing, user-friendly layout, trees, road improvements, safe play areas, off-street parking and secure boundaries. It would be perverse if we aggravated the problems of neighbourhood decay that have blighted other cities in the midlands and the north because we have pursued improvement of the internal environment at the expense of the external.
The decay in other cities in the midlands and the north has been fought off, not least by recent council leaders whom I have mentioned—Councillors Brian Parbutt and Graham Chapman foremost among them. They have realised that we must prevent the decay before it starts. We hope that Government policy will not inadvertently reverse the great effort that has gone into making housing in Nottingham such a success in recent years.
The well known slogan in the private housing sector is "location, location, location". We cannot change the location of our social housing, and must therefore ensure that the environment in areas of such housing is modernised and improved to keep pace with accepted standards, and join up our thinking on antisocial behaviour, poor educational attainment and what goes on in the streets.
Nottingham held a successful series of consultations for tenants to listen to residents' views about the future of council homes. Tenants were very clear in their opinions. They wanted to rent their homes from the city council. Many of them saw no reason why the council should not remain their landlord and why money should not be made available to modernise their homes. However, although it is important for Ministers to see that councils separate the management of housing services from their strategic housing functions, few of us have ever come across a tenant who has argued that the service that they expect to receive from their landlord would be better, "If only the council would separate its strategy for housing from the management of my home."
Nevertheless, we are where we are, and the council cannot be blamed for trying to make the best of that. Tenants welcomed the opportunity to learn more about the challenges that the council faced to improve the standard of their homes, and to express their views on the way forward. If councils are denied the ability to invest as they see fit, arm's length management is the only opportunity to fill the investment gap and to meet the decent homes standards by 2010.
Such is the power of central Government that I suppose that we must be grateful for having a choice rather than the imposition of stock transfer, and the commitment to provide a means of increasing

211WH
investment in social housing—which has recently been reinforced in the Deputy Prime Minister's regional communities plan—is welcome. It provides a realistic prospect that the much-needed renewal, modernisation and maintenance can be got under way. Nottingham's insistence on greater involvement of tenants at the highest levels will ensure a vigorous and renewed focus for discussions between tenants and landlords on priorities and the future of council housing.
The relaxation of the star rating required of local councils to bid for ALMO cash from three stars to a rating of two to three stars will enable those authorities that are striving to improve to take that route. I know from the quality of the local officers and councillors in my city that they will seize that opportunity with both hands, if the Government encourage them.
However, I would appreciate the Minister's comments on a number of issues. I understand that the funding for ALMOs permits only 5 per cent. of funds to be spent on the environment, as the focus is on meeting the targets for decent homes by 2010. Because a greater sum of money is required to ensure the sustainability of certain neighbourhoods and areas, and because that may be supported by the tenants, is any flexibility proposed for that percentage? Good work in retaining good neighbourhoods and environments alongside good stock could be lost if we are not allowed to support environmental works as well as housing improvements.
I am also concerned about the adequacy of the money that is allocated. I will not bid for money in the next round because I know that the Minister would tell me that, at this juncture, that would be premature. However, I will press him with a different question: if local councils cannot have the housing money that they need without being ALMOs, will they be adequately funded if they take that option? I understand that 14 authorities have already submitted an expression of interest for the next round of bidding, which amounts to £1.5 billion. Together with the ALMOs that have already been approved, that is likely to represent a large commitment with regard to the allocations announced in the spending review. Are there any proposals to re-examine the allocation of moneys in the future? If ALMOs are successful, we would hope that those authorities that can become ALMOs can access some of this money.
I turn now to the question of allowing ALMOs to succeed. Many tenants groups in Nottingham have told me that they are anxious that ALMOs are underpowered and that, if they fail, that would be the slippery slope to privatisation. If they fail, one would imagine that privatisation rather than municipalisation would be next on the agenda. Is consideration therefore being given to ensure the continuing role of ALMOs in the social housing sector? That could be done by granting them greater freedom in, for instance, borrowing from their own resources, or through the retention of a greater proportion of right-to-buy capital receipts, the delegation of responsibilities from local authorities, such as the issuing of antisocial behaviour orders, and other things that would put ALMOs on a more level playing field with registered social landlords.
212WH
Almost everyone involved in housing wishes that we were not in the current situation. However, we are in it, so I assure the Minister that everyone in Nottingham—from tenants' groups to councillors and officers of the council—is determined to grasp the opportunities that the Government are offering. I hope that the Minister, in answering some of my points, can help us to make ALMOs a success in Nottingham and that, above all, he will reassure those tenants who, even though hon. Members may be familiar with the legislation, are only now becoming aware of the issues. With the effort of people locally, the commitment of professionals and those from the political level in Nottingham, and the good will of the Minister, we can make ALMOs the success that he and I wish them to be.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I am grateful for an opportunity to explain a key element of the Government's housing policy. This debate is timely and on a subject that is of immediate and profound interest to the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell).
Nottingham city council owns just over 34,000 properties. Following a 10 per cent. stock survey between November 2001 and April 2002, the council has assessed that some 47 per cent. of the stock—16,000-odd properties—does not meet the decency standard. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North and the council are taking such an active interest in overcoming the problem of substandard housing. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Nottingham city council on setting up the strategic partnership and on much else that it has already done in the city.
I shall not dwell on the matter, but there was much in my hon. Friend's introduction with which I profoundly disagree. We are not talking about foundation housing. If we were and if that was before our legislature today, hon. Members would be as foolish to vote against it as they would be to vote against foundation hospitals tomorrow. Although there is a proud tradition of municipal housing up and down the land, the best that one can say is that since those municipal houses were built, the record of maintenance, refurbishment and turning estates in stable communities has in some areas been less than proud and sustainable. That is partly why we are here today.
There is a range of options on social housing, but we are not dismembering council estates. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that most housing practitioners wish that we were not here. I have gone round much of the housing sector over the last year, and that has certainly not been my experience. Tenants have expressed any number of preferences up and down the country. However, despite the odd setback, such as in Stockport and Birmingham, there is still a considerable record of achievement from those councils that have chosen large-scale voluntary transfer. The tenants' voice has been measured by ballots, and tenants have said precisely that they think that they will get a better service elsewhere.
However, I take the three key points to which my hon. Friend referred. The Government want to play their part in tackling the challenge. From talking to my hon.

213WH
Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East, I am keenly aware that chance or luck is not the reason why Nottingham is not in the same position as other midlands and northern towns, in terms of low demand, mass abandonment and other problems. That has taken a lot of work, and I congratulate the city council on it.
Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North said, my noble Friend Lord Rooker will be visiting the city on 11 June, and has already had a meeting with my hon. Friend to talk about the option of an arm's length management organisation. It might be useful if I very briefly explain something about the background of ALMOs.
ALMOs have created a new movement in social housing. Local authorities are being galvanised and transformed. The ALMO boards have attracted good-quality committee members. I met the new National Federation of Arm's Length Management Organisations just last week. I told it that, rather than—as some detractors would have it—the ALMO model being large-scale voluntary transfer by the back door, it is community empowerment by the back door, and the front door. Where they have been most successful, ALMOs have taken their tenants with them and have put their tenants in a really powerful, empowered, participating position. That is to be commended.
We must always remember that the ownership of the stock remains with the council, and the tenants remain secure council tenants. In the unlikely event of ALMO failure, that remains the case. I do not understand the point that was made about tenants fearing that a failed ALMO marks a step on the road to privatisation. Perhaps we could discuss that point another time.
Currently, there are 25 ALMOs in operation; they are responsible for managing and improving around 360,000 properties, or one in eight of all council homes. Between them, round one and round two ALMOs are seeking to invest an extra £1.8 billion to bring all their stock up to decent home standards. It is a huge investment. In many areas, tenants are already seeing the benefits in terms of physical improvements, and, perhaps more importantly, an improved relationship with their housing managers. I congratulate all round one ALMOs that qualified for additional funding by achieving the necessary rating of at least two stars from the housing inspectorate. I particularly congratulate the three that achieved excellent three-star ratings: Derby, Westminster and Ashfield—the last being about the closest to my hon. Friend's constituency. Some inspections of round two ALMOs are already in progress, with some due later this year. We await the results with interest.
ALMOs have got off to a great start, but we must not become complacent; there is still a lot to do. Many ALMOs have made tremendous progress to achieve their two or three-star housing inspection rating. Now we want them to sustain that success and bring further improvements for tenants.
The bidding process, the need to win the support of tenants and other stakeholders, the opportunity to operate at arm's length and the need to earn at least two stars from inspectors all appear to have triggered some very constructive thinking about the delivery of services. Very often, the process of bidding—or thinking about
214WH
bidding—galvanises real concerns about tenants, and an involvement of tenants in a way that does not happen when something is simply imposed from on high, or by the council. That catharsis is very welcome.
Last week, I had a very constructive meeting with representatives of the National Federation of Arm's Length Management Organisations, who impressed me with their enthusiasm and ideas for developing the ALMO concept. I have invited them to take more steps forward. I did not then, and I certainly shall not today, give a thumbnail sketch of what I see ALMOs being some five or 10 years down the line. We have learned already that the key to the success of ALMOs is making the process about more than bricks and mortar—about the environment; about regeneration; about a comprehensive concern for the whole community. There is not much point in having decent homes and refurbished homes in areas where people do not want to live. Nottingham's record up to now is something that, whichever option is chosen, we want to build on.
I discussed with the national federation many of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised, particularly about flexibility, and how ALMOs go forward in terms of a level playing field and other elements. I have told it, for now at least, that the one thing that cannot happen is that ALMOs be set in aspic as a 2001 or 2002 solution to problems that will still exist in 2010, 2020, and beyond. They need to evolve, and discussions are taking place about how that might happen over coming years. I do not think that that will necessarily impact on the criteria for rounds three and four, but it must be an organic and evolving model—a dynamic model, rather than a fixed one. That is entirely right.
As for flexibility, we have just introduced the 5 per cent. flexibility rule for issues such as the environment. We want to see how that beds in before we go any further in topslicing ALMO money. In addition, my hon. Friend made points about other flexibilities to allow best-performing ALMOs scope for borrowing and other such elements. Those things are on the agenda and are being considered. I can say no more than that; they will not happen in an instant.
Mr. Allen: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply on the question of flexibility. I take it that he is saying that if the council, the ALMOs and the tenants all felt that the balance could be adjusted, he would be open to their representations for more flexibility than 5 per cent.
Mr. McNulty: I would certainly be open to listening to their views as and when ALMOs are up and running and developing. We put in the 5 per cent. flexibility rule precisely to take into account aspects of the shift from bricks and mortar to elements such as regeneration of the environment. That will be reflected, at least in part, in the bidding criteria for successive rounds—that is only right and proper.
People may have concerns about adequate funding. Sufficient funding is in place for rounds three and four. It is complicated, my hon. Friend will know, by the tails from rounds one, two, three and four—there is money there. However, there is still a good deal of money that can make a difference to many communities. With the support given in 2002–03, there is a four-year total of

215WH
£2.1 billion. Of that, we estimate that about £1.4 billion has been or will be allocated to existing ALMOs through the tail that I mentioned, with some £700 million available for new ALMOs started in 2004–05. As my hon. Friend has said, there is interest; some 200,000 tenanted properties, of which 54 per cent. are assessed as failing the standards, are covered by expressions of interest for round three. If those expressions all lead to bidding by the closing date of 16 May, ALMOs could be looking to invest over £1.5 billion between 2004 and 2010. That is not necessarily £1.5 billion of the £700 million that is left, so we are in negative equity, for want of a better phrase. It is about the tails that will follow through.
I cannot comment on the success or otherwise that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have in the next comprehensive spending review round; bidding does not start until 2004. However, there is a strong commitment, as I said to the national federation, from the ODPM that existing ALMOs and those from rounds three and four will make a substantive difference to their communities and will be funded accordingly. As in many areas of ODPM work, the shift must be away from bricks and mortar to sustainability. It is no accident that the ODPM's core policy document on that area was called "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future". ALMOs will have to dovetail with the range of other initiatives and programmes.
I know that Radford and Hyson Green new deal for communities programme is in Nottingham, East. The NDC and the city are talking about what they both do in the housing field—they dovetail and complement each other rather than going along separate routes. That
216WH
is important. There will be other initiatives in Nottingham, now and in the future. The ALMO will have to take account of and work with them. Nottingham council is very active and hands-on anyway, but I know that the council's role does not stop post-ALMO. The people still belong to it; they are its communities. They may have sidelined certain management functions in a particular spot through the ALMO, but the estates are still a vibrant part of the Nottingham community and the council still has a significant role.
What is the way forward for Nottingham? It is in Nottingham's hands. By 2006 it has to come up with a stock option appraisal. It is more than welcome to go down the route of applying for an ALMO. In the next few weeks we shall issue new guidance on both the option appraisal and the criteria for ALMOs. I encourage—I know that it is happening anyway—the city of Nottingham to explore all the options, to consult widely, and to press on with the options and appraisals. If an ALMO is shown to be the right option for Nottingham, I look forward to receiving its bid, and I wish the city council and my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, North and for Nottingham, East the best of luck in their bid, should it come, for serving their constituents and the people of Nottingham in something as crucial as housing and the sustainability of communities. That is what we are here for.
This has been a worthwhile debate and I encourage and commend Nottingham for all that it has done so far. If a bid is forthcoming, I look forward to receiving it. However, I make no comment on its chance of success.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Cars
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what conclusions she has reached on the consultation on reducing the statutory notice periods for cars abandoned on private land. [110663]

  Mr. Meacher
  We plan to publish the consultation document in the very near future.

  CAP Reform
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of the European Commission's proposals for CAP reform on growers of unsupported crops. [109849]

  Margaret Beckett
  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 of the proposed new system on producers of unsupported crops.

  Farming
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the financial impact of the European Commission's decoupling proposals on those farm businesses that have acquired IACS registered land since the end of the reference period now proposed by the Commission. [109837]

  Margaret Beckett
  It is difficult to predict precisely what the financial impact on such farm businesses will be. However, we are in discussion with the European Commission about possible ways of protecting the interests of such businesses, such as by ensuring that entitlements to the decoupled payment flow to those farming the land on the introduction of the new system. Some producers who have purchased land since the publication of the Commission's proposals will have benefited from lower land prices.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has made to the European Commission about the impact of the Commission's decoupling proposals on people who have entered farming after the proposed reference years. [109838]

  Margaret Beckett
  The European Commission's proposals include provision for a national reserve of decoupled payment entitlements. The Commission has confirmed that member states can use this reserve to 536W
  allocate full or enhanced entitlements to producers who have entered farming since the start of the proposed reference period.

  Grass Keep
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the position, under the European Commission's mid-term review proposals, of land rented for grass keep; what her policy is on this matter; and if she will make a statement. [109844]

  Margaret Beckett
  It is difficult to predict the likely impact on individual businesses, but our initial analysis suggests that, at an aggregate level, the proposals will not have a significant impact on the rental value of land for grass keep.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the compatibility of the information technology systems operated by the(a) State Veterinary Service, (b) British Cattle Movement Service and (c) Rural Payments Agency. [109843]

  Margaret Beckett
  The main IT system used by the State Veterinary Service (SVS) to administer their work has been in service for a number of years. When the British Cattle Movement service came into existence, the Cattle Tracing System was set up with links and interfaces to the SVS's system.

  A major investment in IT improvements is being made at the BCMS. The system will be moved onto a more secure platform and a facility is being developed to provide for the issue of 'statements' to producers showing details of the animals recorded on their holdings.

  The new computer system being developed for bovine schemes under the RPA Change Programme will provide interfaces to the systems used by the BCMS.

  Defra is moving forward in a co-ordinated way, using the RPA to lead in the development of Customer and Land registers which will form the basis of Defra-wide information. Care will be taken to ensure interoperability between existing and planned systems.

  Long Leys
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on long leys systems of farming of the European Commission's mid-term review proposals. [109845]

  Margaret Beckett
  We have been pressing the European Commission to introduce sufficient flexibility within the rules of the proposed decoupled system to allow such systems of farming to continue.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to press in the Council of Ministers for an exception to be made from the European Commission's definition of permanent pasture to benefit farmers who operate a system of long leys. [109846]
  537W
  Margaret Beckett
  We have been pressing the European Commission to allow a greater degree of flexibility in their definition of permanent pasture to ensure that such farmers are not disadvantaged. The Commission appear sympathetic to the issue and we are working with them on a solution.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the impact of the proposed milk quota replacement compensation scheme on producers of high butterfat milk; [110169]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the method of calculation that she proposes to adopt for the purposes of the milk quota replacement compensation scheme. [110168]

  Margaret Beckett
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the dairy premium, which it is proposed should be paid in compensation for dairy support price cuts. Under Agenda 2000, these cuts are due to take place from 2005, and under the CAP reform proposals published on 22 January, from 2004. Under the Agenda 2000 agreement, eligibility for the dairy premium was to be based on the net litreage of quota held at the end of the quota year in each year of payment, and set by EC Council Regulation—it was not within national discretion to determine the eligibility criteria. This remains the case under the Commission's current CAP reform proposals, with (decoupled) payments still currently to be based on the net litreage of quota held, but fixed as at 31 March 2004 (that is, they would not vary from year to year).

  We have no evidence to suggest that producers of high butterfat milk would suffer any particularly adverse consequences as a result of these proposals, as compared to other dairy producers. Indeed, the reverse might prove the case, as high butterfat milk producers tend to supply the high-value, as opposed to bulk commodity, markets, and could continue to command some premium under the new support arrangements envisaged.

  Nuclear Waste
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her policy to allow indefinite disposal of low-level radioactive waste at landfill sites. [109625]

  Mr. Meacher
  Current policy for controlled burial of low level radioactive wastes at landfill sites is set out in the 1995 White Paper "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Final Conclusions" (Cm2919). The White Paper concluded that controlled burial to landfill should continue to be available as a disposal route, particularly for "small users" of radioactivity— such as hospitals, universities, research laboratories and non-nuclear industries—subject to agreement of the site operators and the necessary regulatory requirements being met. In addition, I accept that the agreement of local residents is also important. Despite acknowledging that there might be sound economic and radiological grounds for encouraging greater use of controlled burial to landfill, Cm2919 concluded that its greater use by the 538W
  nuclear industry should not be encouraged due to genuine anxieties that the proposal aroused among local residents.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the(a) public health and (b) environmental risks posed by the disposal of low-level nuclear waste in landfill sites. [109626]

  Mr. Meacher
  An assessment of the radiological impact of disposals of radioactive waste from nuclear sites to Clifton Marsh was carried out in 2002 as part of the Environment Agency's review of radioactive waste disposal authorisations from the BNFL Springfields site. This showed that the operational and post-closure risks were acceptable and in line with regulatory guidance.

  An assessment of the impact of disposals to Hilts Quarry will be carried out in 2003 as part of the Environment Agency's review of the radioactive waste disposal authorisations for the Rolls-Royce Derby site.

  The Environment Agency has an established programme of environmental monitoring at current and disused landfill sites, focusing on levels of radioactivity in leachate which might arise at landfill sites. The results of this programme are included in the Agency's annual Radioactivity in the Environment report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. In most cases results show that radioactivity concentrations are not elevated above levels expected to be found naturally.

  Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to incorporate annual emissions of pollutants from(a) local authority integrated pollution prevention and control sites (Part A(2) sites) and (b) local air pollution prevention and control (Part B sites) into the Environment Agency's pollution inventory; [110380]

  (2) if she will make a statement on plans for incorporating annual emissions of pollutants from (a) local authority integrated pollution prevention and control sites (Part A(2) sites) and (b) local air pollution prevention and control sites (Part B sites) into the Environment Agency's pollution inventory. [111104]

  Mr. Meacher
  The pollution inventory contains information about emissions to air, land and water from various industrial installations, including all processes subject to integrated pollution control (IPC). Operators have to report annually from a list of 150 substances where they exceed the reporting thresholds.

  As part of the development of the pollution inventory, the Environment Agency has been preparing for the implementation (in June 2003) of the integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) European pollutant emission register (EPER). This requires European Union member countries to report on 50 pollutants released to air and water from all IPPC sites every three years, whether or not they are yet permitted under IPPC.
  539W
  Under EPER, local authorities are required to collect emission data from the Part A(2) sites that they regulate under IPPC and this data are being incorporated into the UK report to the European Commission.

  The Department commissioned consultants in 1999 to investigate the feasibility of establishing a pollution inventory for processes under the then local air pollution control (LAPC) regime. The report was issued for comment to some 200 organisations on 18 January 2001 and received seven responses. The report reviewed a range of options and recommended that inventory data for air emissions should be collected only for those substances covered by the national air quality strategy together with a list of 15 additional substances.

  Those LAPC processes with the greater potential for pollution are now being transferred to Part A(2) and are subject to the EPER. Of the remainder, local authorities already need to collect Part B emissions data for the purposes of local air quality management review and assessment, and the national atmospheric emissions inventory includes data about all significant sources of man-made emissions, including those emitted from Part B installations. In view of this, and the likelihood that relatively few Part B installations not transferred to A(2) will emit substances above the reporting threshold levels set in the Environment Agency's pollution inventory, the Department has not considered it a priority to extend the inventory to Part Bs. However, this is being kept under review, in consultation with the Environment Agency.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs(a) how many and (b) what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of the Department. [109462]

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

  Regional Policy
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department has 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. [108577]

  Alun Michael
  Defra's induction programmes seeks to make staff aware of the vision, aims and objectives and scope of the work of the Department. This includes the regional and devolution dimensions. Staff attend more specific learning and development events offered internally or by the Civil Service College when appropriate.
  540W
  In the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, 16 Defra staff have undertaken interchange activity in regional organisations. This compares with seven in the previous year.

  Mobility between HQ policy and regionally based delivery units is a strategic priority. Defra's Interchange Strategy places strong emphasis on interchange with partner organisations that are involved in the delivery of the Public Service Agreement Delivery Plans. The scope of these Plans ensures that interchange between headquarters regional offices and the Government Offices and organisations in the Regions are involved. We are liaising with the Devolved Administrations, local authorities and the voluntary sector to seek further opportunities.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the salary bill was for special advisers in her Department in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in 2003–04. [108493]

  Margaret Beckett
  I refer the hon. member to the reply given to him on 24 April by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office.

  Sulphur Emmissions
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of sulphur emissions in the UK. [111589]

  Alun Michael
  The latest estimate of UK atmospheric sulphur emissions is 1,125 kilotonnes in 2001. This is a 70 per cent. reduction on the 1990 emission (of 3,719 kilotonnes), and ahead of the UK's 2005 target of 1,470 kilotonnes in the 1994 UN/ECE protocol on the further reduction of sulphur emissions. The reductions are mainly attributed to lower emissions from power stations, homes and industry from the use of cleaner fuels and the fitting of emission abatement equipment, and from transport following the introduction of low sulphur fuels. Time series of UK emissions of pollutants are published annually in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI), which can be viewed on the Internet atwww.naei.org.uk.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the Environmental Protection (Waste Recycling Payments) (Amendment) (England) Regulations. [111734]

  Mr. Meacher
  None.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the Countryside Agency about the impact of onshore wind turbines on the rural economy and environment. [109847]

  Margaret Beckett
  I have received no representations from the Countryside Agency on this topic.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Basic Pension
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce a reduced basic pension for people who have paid the reduced liability rate of national insurance; and if he will make a statement. [110771]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Those married women who choose to pay the reduced liability of national insurance contributions were made aware of the consequences of their decision. We therefore have no plans to introduce a reduced basic pension for those women. However, they will get a basic pension of around 60 per cent. of their husband's entitlement when both have reached state pension age and made claims.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the national insurance contribution requirements are for a basic pension; and whether those currently paying the reduced rate of national insurance will qualify for a basic pension. [110772]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In order to become entitled to the basic state pension, a person has to satisfy two conditions. The basic state pension is available to both the employed and self-employed. In addition, anyone may make voluntary national insurance contributions, subject to a time limit, if this is necessary to build up entitlement.

  The first basic state pension entitlement condition is that a person has either: one qualifying year since 6 April 1975 which is derived from the payment of class 1, 2 or 3 national insurance contributions or from class 1 contributions treated as paid; or paid 50 flat rate contributions at any time before 6 April 1975.

  The second basic state pension entitlement condition relates to the number of qualifying years a person has. Currently to get a full basic state pension a man needs 44, and a woman 39, qualifying years. The number of qualifying years can be reduced if a person is entitled to Home Responsibilities Protection. The basic state pension cannot be paid if a person has less than 25 per cent. of the qualifying years needed for a full state pension.

  In certain circumstances a person may be credited with earnings to help them get a state pension if they do not have enough earnings in a tax year to reach the level needed to make it a qualifying year.

  The payment of the reduced rate contribution does not give entitlement to the basic state pension but married women will get a basic state pension of around 60 per cent. of their husband's entitlement when both have reached state pension age and made claims.

  British Sign Language
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 3 April 2003, Official Report, column 838W, on British Sign Language, what the financial value was of the contracts allocated(a) to improve the training infrastructure and (b) to address the shortage of British Sign Language interpreters since 1997; and if he will make a statement on the effects on BSL interpreter numbers in Britain. [109367]
  542W
  Maria Eagle
  The contract with the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People (CACDP) to improve the training infrastructure for British Sign Language was worth a total of £198,750. Separately, a contract exists with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID) to recruit and train interpreters, to which DfEE/DWP and the RNID will each contribute £245,400 over its lifetime.

  These initiatives have made a contribution towards an increase in the number of registered interpreters in Britain, and there are currently 298 interpreters registered by the Independent Registration Panel with the CACDP. However, the system for registration and the basis of registration changed in April 2002, therefore it is not possible to directly compare these figures with those pre-April 2002.

  Benefit Leaflets
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements are in place to ensure the leaflets available(a) in Jobcentre Plus offices and (b) from the Pensions Service are up-to-date; and what plans he has to re-introduce the former Benefits Agency guidance to ensure that the quarterly checks carried out by customer service managers include the accuracy of leaflets. [107414]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are absolutely determined to ensure that we give accurate and up to date information to our customers. That is why we have introduced an electronic ordering system which makes it impossible for staff or outside organisations to order out of date stock, and why we are undertaking a Mystery Shopping Pilot at four Pension Centres. This will give a measure of performance against set quality standards—such as the content of a telephone greeting or the availability of leaflets, while offering an objective view of customer service.

  Detailed procedures exist to ensure that the Department's main suite of benefits information leaflets for the public are up to date. These include a six-monthly review of all such leaflets to check that they are factually accurate and remain up to date. In addition, information for staff and external bodies about current editions of leaflets is available electronically and kept up to date continuously.

  The Pensions Service has recently introduced an information management system which ensures that all products for the public are the responsibility of a named senior civil servant. A major overhaul of leaflets for people of working age this year will address procedures in Jobcentre Plus, including the role local managers in carrying out checks to ensure that leaflets provided over the counter for the public are up to date.

  Benefits
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what benefits are available to women who have paid reduced rate contributions of national insurance. [110773]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Married women paying reduced rate contributions may be entitled to statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay in addition to the full range of industrial injuries benefits. They will get a basic state
  543W
  pension of around 60 per cent of their husband's entitlement when both have reached state pension age and made a claim. They can also get widows' benefits based on their husband's insurance.

  Like full rate contributors, they enjoy free access to the National Health Service and may be entitled to non-contributory benefits such as the minimum income guarantee, child benefit, carer's allowance, housing benefit, disability living allowance, attendance allowance and council tax benefit on a similar basis. We are committed to ensuring that the Government's pension reforms improve women's pension rights. The introduction of stakeholder pensions, state second pension, winter fuel payments, improvements to the minimum income guarantee and, from October 2003, pension credit together with the £100 a year payment to people aged 80 and over announced in the Budget are, or will be, of particular help to women.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in(a) the Selly Oak constituency and (b) Birmingham draw their benefits at (i) post offices and (ii) banks or building societies; and what change there has been in the last six months. [110486]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. Information available prior to 28 December 2002 has not been geographically referenced. Information provided in the requested format has been compiled from the data available on 28 December 2002 and 22 March 2003 respectively, and are shown in the following tables:

  1. Pensioners in the Selly Oak constituency

  From data available on:

  Total number of pensioners receiving benefit (s)

  Drawing at least one benefit at a post office

  Drawing at least one benefit at a bank or building society

  28 December 2002

  14,974

  8,582

  7,157

  22 March 2003

  14,877

  8,413

  7,202

  2. Pensioners in Birmingham Local Authority

  From data available on:

  Total number of pensioners receiving benefit(s)

  Drawing at least one benefit at a post office

  Drawing at least one benefit at a bank or building society

  28 December 2002

  160,619

  102,958

  65,324

  22 March 2003

  160,021

  101,533

  66,218

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Answer of 3 April, Official Report, column 837W, on benefit uprating, for what reasons the minimum income guarantee is not uprated by the Rossi index. [109371]

  Maria Eagle
  We have made a commitment to uprate the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) in line with average earnings for the rest of this Parliament. Since April 2003, a single pensioner receiving the MIG is at least £930 a year better off in real terms than in 1997. A pensioner couple is at least £1,400 a week better off.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will issue guidance to ensure that callers to the benefits payment helpline wishing to 544W
  open a post office account are given every assistance in opening such an account, rather than a bank account. [111088]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Government's information campaign, to support the move to Direct Payment, provides customers with factual information on the banking options available to them, including information on the Post Office card account. We will write directly to all customers affected by the change to provide them with the information they need to decide which option is best for them. The information is presented in a way that enables customers to decide which option is best for their individual circumstances. All of the information material, including the scripts used by our call centre staff, sets out the key features of the various types of accounts and mentions Post Office access and the Post Office card account.

  Card-based accounts may not be the most suitable option for many people. They may prefer to use an account with a cheque book or pass book. Customers will be supplied with information which clearly sets out their account options and which will enable them to decide which account is right for them.

  A copy of the script used by the Customer Conversion Centre staff to assist them in helping people who wish to open a Post Office card account is available in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants have chosen to receive benefits by(a) basic bank account, (b) ordinary bank and building society account and (c) post office card account. [111221]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at 18 April, 1,071,072 customers have responded and opted for payment into a bank or building society account.

  We cannot distinguish between existing or basic bank accounts. Many of these people will choose to access their bank account at a Post Office branch.

  The total number of customers requesting post office card accounts is 203,404.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for an exceptions service to assist people with disabilities to receive their benefits following the introduction of direct ACT payments; what the timetable is for introduction of such a service; and if he will make a statement. [111222]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer I gave the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on 1 April 2003,Official Report, column 606W.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to allow casual agents to collect benefits on behalf of elderly and disabled claimants following the introduction of direct ACT payment of benefits. [111223]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The current system which allows "casual agents" to collect money on behalf of the customer is one of the reasons order books and girocheques are so prone to fraud.
  545W
  There are arrangements in place to allow regular carers/helpers to access money paid to customers. There are no corresponding arrangements in place for those customers with no regular carer/helper and we are looking to find the best way to meet the needs of these people.

  Where people need help to collect their money they will, for the meantime, be allowed to keep their order book. We will monitor how the new arrangements work in practice to see how many people are affected and what their precise circumstances are.

  For many people payment into a bank account, where a cheque book facility is available, could offer a more effective way of obtaining their entitlements: for example the customer could simply write the "casual agent" a cheque rather than require them to attend a post office on their behalf.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the consequences are to a claimant of failure to respond to correspondence concerning direct payment of benefits by ACT; how many claimants have failed to respond; what consequences have followed such failures; and if he will make a statement. [111224]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department is contacting 13.5 million customers over a two-year period, providing them with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the account options as part of the move to Direct Payment. 87 per cent. of our customers currently have access to an account suitable for Direct Payment.

  Responses as at 18 April are very good but we recognise that we may need to contact some people more than once. 37.8 per cent. (782,543 customers) of invited customers have not yet responded, but we expect the overwhelming majority will do so following further contact.

  Direct Payment is now the normal method of paying benefits and pensions. Over the next two years order books will be phased out. From 2005 they will no longer be an option so customers will normally have to be paid by Direct Payment.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps have to be taken by(a) a claimant, (b) the Post Office and (c) his Department in order for a claimant to receive benefits through a Post Office card account. [111225]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The process for opening the Post Office card account is relatively straightforward and no more complicated than opening any new bank account.

  Customers do not need to take any action to change to Direct Payment until the Department contacts them. Once they receive a letter from us and they want information about the Post Office card account they are asked to contact the Department. This will ensure they have considered all their options and have the information they need to choose the account that best suits their needs. If the customer chooses to opt for a Post Office card account, the next stage is to issue them with a letter inviting them to apply for a card account, this is known as the Personal Invitation Document (PID).
  546W
  Customers take the PID to their local Post Office branch where they will fill in a Post Office card account application form. The application form sets out the documentation that customers will need to open a Post Office card account.

  Child Support
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total cumulative amount is of unpaid child support owed to parents with care. [107560]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Selous, dated 6 May 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You ask what the total cumulative amount is of unpaid child support owed to parents with care.

  The Agency accounts to 31 March 2002 show a total cumulative debt of £1.447 billion arising on full maintenance assessments which the Agency has made (Page 74 para 6.1 of the Child Support Agency Annual Report and Accounts 2001/02). I am unable to indicate what part of this may be due to the parent with care and what part to the Secretary of State.

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place a copy of the Child Support Agency's Enforcement Guide in the Library. [104241]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He: will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Liz Blackman, dated 6 May 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You ask if we will place a copy of the Child Support Agency's Enforcement Guide in the Library.

  I am happy to confirm that a copy of the Agency's Enforcement Guide, which is currently being produced and is expected to be published late summer, will be placed in the Library.

  Crabbe Yard, Wadborough
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will ask the Health and Safety Executive to examine the operation of Crabbe Yard, Wadborough, Worcestershire. [109858]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The HSE has procedures to investigate specific concerns about work related health and safety matters in proportion to the seriousness of the issue.

  The HSE visited the site at Crabbe Yard, Wadborough, on two occasions during 2000. Following the visits an improvement notice was issued and subsequently complied with.

  HSE has not visited the site since 3 August 2000.
  547W
  If the hon. Member has new concerns about Crabbe Yard he should raise them, in the first instance, with the HSE, an independent government agency.

  Disability Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received about the Disability Discrimination (Blind and Partially Sighted Persons) Regulations. [109956]

  Maria Eagle
  Copies of the draft Regulations were circulated to a number of organisations for comment prior to being laid. Responses were received from the Disability Rights Commission, the Royal National

  Energy consumption (Gwh/y)

  Energy expenditure (£M/y)

  Energy/m2 (Kwh/m2/y)

  Savings over 1997–8 (Per cent.)

  Energy efficiency spend (£k/y)

  1997–98

  739 40

  7.94

  314.94

  —

  —

  1998–99

  667 56

  7.39

  300.44

  10

  —

  1999–2000

  705 41

  7.18

  310.96

  5

  —

  2000–01

  665 86

  6.29

  277.53

  10

  —

  2001–02

  694.31

  6.82

  289.14

  6

  —

  Notes:

  Energy Consumption: this is weather-corrected in the usual manner, using annual degree days relative to the 20 year average for 1990–91.

  The figures are those reported on for the Central Government Estate campaign, and generally include each department's main estate plus all agencies, but not NDPBs.

  Energy Expenditure: this is actual spend, and from April 2001, includes the Climate Change Levy.

  Energy/m2: this variable allows for changes in both weather and estate size on energy consumption. So annual changes will generally reflect efficiency changes.

  Savings over 1997–98: These have been expressed as percentage savings relative to the first year quoted here, and are based on the figures in the preceding column.

  Energy efficiency spend: Investment in energy efficiency measures is made by the Departments Estates Partners; as such we are unable to include details of expenditure for commercial reasons. A number of investment scheme projects were initiated during 2002, which are currently being rolled out across the whole estate.

  The Energy White Paper, Our Energy Future-Creating a Low Carbon Economy made clear the importance the Government attach to improving energy efficiency in their own estate. This is reflected in several targets. There is currently an interim target of a 1 per cent. pa ongoing reduction in weather-corrected carbon emissions, pending the development of new indicators and targets based on benchmaking the performance of each Department's largest buildings. These new targets are planned to be in place later this year. New targets for Government Departments' use of CHP generated electricity will also be established during 2003.

  In addition, the review of Government procurement has identified areas where procurement could reinforce the achievement of these targets, and arrangements are being made centrally for Departments to purchase goods with high energy efficiency standards and which provide good value for money.

  On the purchase of renewable electricity, ministers agreed the following target in May 2001:
  "All departments will ensure that by 31 March 2003, at least 5 per cent. of their electricity comes from renewable sources that are exempt from the Climate Change Levy or from self generation, provided this does not entail excessive cost. This will rise to at least 10 per cent. supply from such sources by 31 March 2008, but will be reviewed after 31 March 2003 to take account of market conditions following the introduction of the renewables obligation. The review of 2003 will include consideration of increasing or bringing forward the target".
  548W
  Institute for the Blind, and the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, all of whom welcomed the Regulations.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement, in relation to his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible, on(a) the amount of energy consumed, (b) spending on (i) energy and (ii) energy efficiency measures (c) the amount saved through energy efficiency measures and (d) energy policy in each of the last five years. [108860]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the table.

  DWP currently has 17.5 per cent. of its total electricity supplied from renewable resources.

  Hazardous Installations Directorate
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Health and Safety inspectors are being transferred from the Field Operations Directorate to the Hazardous Installations Directorate. [110618]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: Three Health and Safety Inspectors transferred on 1 April 2003 with a further 13 to transfer in the near future.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many businesses recorded contacts carried out by the Health and Safety Executive since 1997 were made(a) on site and (b) through telephone calls. [110619]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: The total number of regulatory contacts since 1997–98 is shown in the table. HSE does not record separately the numbers of contacts made (a) on site and (b) through telephone calls.

  549W

  Regulatory contacts

  1997–98

  186,000

  1998–99

  183,000

  1999–2000

  185,496

  2000–01

  192,693

  2001–02

  195,695

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many contacts the Health and Safety Executive has had with businesses each year since 1997; what proportion of visits were made by fully qualified warrant-carrying health and safety inspectors; and how many were carried out by workplace contact officers. [110620]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: The total number of regulatory contacts since 1997–98 is shown in the table. It is not possible without disproportionate effort to distinguish between contacts made by fully qualified warrant-carrying health and safety inspectors and those made by workplace contact officers.

  Regulatory contacts

  1997–98

  186,000

  1998–99

  183,000

  1999–2000

  185,496

  2000–01

  192,693

  2001–02

  195,695

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many workplace contact officers were employed by the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1997. [110621]

  Carer's Allowance (CA)1 : numbers of claims received and decided in Great Britain, and their outcome, in each quarter2 from April 2001

  Claims Received3

  Claims Decided

  Quarter to end of

  Successful3

  Unsuccessful4

  June 20015

  37,765

  32,205

  11,775

  Over State Pension age

  Under State Pension age

  Over State Pension age

  Under State Pension age

  September 2001

  3,160

  31,820

  1,595

  28,560

  11,965

  December 2001

  2,525

  29,510

  1,405

  26,110

  11,415

  March 2002

  2,930

  32,615

  1,655

  28,910

  12,120

  June 2002

  3,090

  32,640

  1,535

  26,725

  6—

  September 2002

  5,485

  33,510

  5,260

  29,685

  12,530

  December 2002

  715,695

  31,505

  713,990

  29,490

  12,515

  Notes:

  1 Invalid care allowance (ICA) was renamed carer's allowance (CA) on 1 April 2003.

  2 Figures are not available on a monthly basis. The figures given in the table are for the end of each quarter and are rounded to the nearest 5.

  3 Figures for 'claims received' refer to numbers of people making claims, as input to CACS in that quarter. Figures for 'successful' claims refer to numbers of awards of entitlement, including cases where payment is not made because of the operation of the overlapping benefits regulations (although people in these circumstances may qualify for the carer premium in the income-related benefits). The date of input of a successful claim may fall in a later quarter than that in which the claim was received or from which entitlement to the allowance started.

  4 A person may make more than one claim and have more than one award, and these may be input on the CACS in different quarters. Therefore, the difference between the figures for the numbers of people from whom a claim is received and the figures for the numbers of awards in successful claims will not equate to the figures for the numbers of unsuccessful claims.

  5 Separate figures for people over and under pension age are not available for the quarter to the end of June 2001.

  6 Reliable data is not available for 'unsuccessful' claims for the quarter to the end of June 2002

  7 State Pension age is age 60 for women and age 65 for men. The upper age limit, which precluded claims to CA by people aged 65 and over, was removed on 28 October 2002.

  Source:

  100 per cent data from the CA Computer System (CACS) supplied by Information

  Analysis Division.

  550W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: In each of the years 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 the Health and Safety Executive's Field Operations Directorate (FOD) deployed approximately 24 staff-years/year to workplace contact officer (WCO) work. In 2001–02 and 2002–03 respectively an additional six and eight Railway Inspectorate Contact Officers (RICOs) were deployed in HM Railway Inspectorate (HMRI), making a total for HSE in those years of around 30 and 32 staff-years.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will instruct the Health and Safety Executive to take early steps to ensure that contractors and sub-contractors have employer's liability insurance. [110799]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: Yes. Employers (with some exceptions such as public organisations and family businesses) are required by law to insure against injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment.

  The Health and Safety Executive has enforcement responsibility for employer's liability insurance and will carry out their duties in line with current procedures.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims for invalid care allowance he has received in each of the last 24 months; and how many of these have been(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful, broken down by applicants (i) over and (ii) under state pension age; and if he will make a statement. [110179]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what work has been completed since 1997 on redefining the ratio between the number of job centre vacancies and the total number of vacancies in the economy, and the extent to which this ratio varies in different areas across the country. [110685]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Frank Field, dated 6 May 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on what work has been completed since 1997 on redefining the ratio between the number of Jobcentre vacancies and the total number of vacancies in the economy and the extent to which this ratio varies in different areas across the country. I am replying in his absence. (110685)

  Direct comparisons between Jobcentre vacancies and estimated totals of vacancies in the economy are not presently possible, as the numbers of unfilled vacancies at Jobcentres have not been published since April 2001. This is because of distortions to the data which occurred as a result of the introduction of the 'Employer Direct' initiative by Jobcentre Plus which altered the method of dealing with notified vacancies. Nevertheless, the ratio between the Jobcentre vacancies and the number of vacancies in the economy has been investigated by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) as part of an assessment last year of estimates of the total number of vacancies from a new survey of job vacancies now being published monthly on an experimental basis. The assessment included a review of information available from previous occasional surveys conducted on behalf of Jobcentre Plus.

  Details of the ONS survey and the assessment were published in an article 'A new survey of job vacancies' in the October 2002 issue of Labour Market Trends (pages 535 to 548). On the basis of the pilot of a question on notified vacancies included in the survey, this concluded that the proportion of all vacancies notified to Jobcentres, as reported by employers, was likely to be in the range of around a third to around a half. There is no information currently available on the extent to which the proportion varies in different parts of the country.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what account is taken, when decisions are made to close or reduce services at JobCentre Plus offices, of views of(a) customers of the office concerned and (b) the wider community; how those views are ascertained; what account is taken of public transport availability to the proposed alternative; what is considered to be a reasonable (i) travel time and (ii) travel cost to be met by the customer referred to a different office of JobCentre Plus; and if he will make a statement. [108235]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 9 April 2003]: The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Acting Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, Clare Dodgson. She will write to my hon. Friend.
  552W
  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Andrew Dismore, dated April 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning how we take the views of our customers into account when decisions are made to change our services, and what consideration we give to accessibility by public transport. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.

  In creating a network of about 1000 sites we are increasing the access and availability of our services to people who use only ex-Benefits Agency sites, and reducing the need for other customers to visit both a Jobcentre and a social security office. Our current arrangements for undertaking home visits and permitting certain individuals to sign by post still apply.

  The introduction of advanced telephony and modern IT. equipment is enabling us to provide new ways of accessing our services. To make a claim for a Jobcentre Plus benefit the customer contacts us on a local rate phone number. Personal details are taken, forms are posted out and an appointment with a Personal Adviser is arranged. Providing access to job vacancies by telephone and the Internet also enables customers to access our services at a time and from a location of their choice.

  Jobcentre Plus District Managers have many criteria to consider when they are planning the location of sites and the delivery of services in their areas. In particular they consider the availability of public transport, travel time and cost. The availability and cost of public transport varies widely across the country, so it is not possible to be prescriptive. Planning for the implementation of Jobcentre Plus is a local process designed to meet the needs of local communities, with decisions best being made by local managers. This means that many different and specific factors can be considered at that level.

  With regard to travel time, we have asked District Managers to ensure that, as far as possible, customers will not have to travel for an unreasonable amount of time as a result of closing an existing office. Careful account is taken of population size and spread, where people are located, and many other factors, to ensure that we agree the best location for our new offices.

  In our early planning for each Job Centre Plus district we are sharing our proposals for service delivery with a wide variety of people and organisations. While these are determined by local management they will include, for example, local MP's, Local Authorities, service delivery partners, employers' representatives, Citizens Advice Bureaux, welfare rights organisations, other Government Agencies, Health Authorities, Housing Associations, our staff and trade union representatives. After views and comments have been taken on board District Managers then share the finally agreed plans with the people and groups described above.

  We do survey our customers to find out their opinions of the service that we provide. This information is used to improve that service. It is not however practical or possible to consult all our customers and potential customers about major changes to our service, including possible office closures.

  For districts introducing the new service in 2002/03 the main communications exercises took place between June and September, and we were pleased to receivecomments and views on many aspects of our plans. We have taken account of those views, changed our plans where appropriate and responded to those who contacted us.

  I hope this is helpful.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the recent dismissal of 600 employees from local jobcentres and social security offices in London; [105479]

  (2) what the basis is upon which the headcount target of staff working in jobcentres and social security offices in London has been calculated. [105480]
  553W
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the acting Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, Clare Dodgson. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Mr. John McDonnell, dated April 2003:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the reduction of staff numbers in Jobcentre Plus, London Region. This falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The national roll-out of Jobcentre Plus is bringing together the old separate Jobcentres and Benefit Offices to form our new integrated offices, which will provide both services in one place. Staff movement between different roles is an ongoing feature of the development of this new service.

  Jobcentre Plus is contributing to the wider DWP modernisation and efficiency agenda and the workforce planning levels agreed for Jobcentre Plus in London form part of this. The allocation of resource budgets within Jobcentre Plus is linked to expected workloads and performance targets. Each Region, including London, has a share of the total Jobcentre Plus performance target. The headcount target for London region, like all regions, is based on this.

  Between April 2002 and February 2003, Jobcentre Plus London region reduced its permanent staffing by 668 in line with workforce efficiency plans. This was achieved through a combination of staff moving to The Pension Service, other parts of the Department for Work and Pensions, other Government Departments or through natural wastage. In reaching the reduction in staffing figures, no permanent members of staff were dismissed or made redundant.

  A number of meetings, at both Regional and District level, have taken place with union representatives since last summer about this matter. These meetings have also been supplemented by ongoing correspondence. Headcount target figures were shared with PCS Regional colleagues in September and a discussion on measures required to manage towards those workforce numbers took place at a meeting on 25 September 2002. More recently, a meeting took place in January 2003 and was followed up by detailed letters, with a further meeting taking place in February 2003.

  In managing our target headcount level in London 350 temporary staff were released prior to the end of the 2002/03 operational year. Where operational needs were identified, 250 temporary staff were retained in London Region Jobcentres and Social Security Offices after 31 March 2003.

  The radical modernisation of our services as part of the Jobcentre Plus rollout will inevitably lead to some disruption. However, we are managing these changes to minimise any negative impact on the delivery of our services to customers.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance there are, broken down by the principal occupation code of those seeking work. [108386]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The latest information available has been placed in the Library.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in Hendon(a) have agreed to participate in New Deal for Lone Parents, (b) have declined to participate in New Deal
  554W
  for Lone Parents and (c) have gained employment through New Deal for Lone Parents; and if he will make a statement. [109025]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The New Deal for Lone Parents is a voluntary programme open to any lone parent who is working for less than 16 hours a week, to help them overcome the problems they face when trying to find work.

  In Hendon since the start of the New Deal for Lone Parents, of the 650 lone parents who have attended an initial interview, 560 have agreed to participate in the programme, and 240 of these participants have already gained employment.

  Post Office Cards
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what timetable has been established to implement changes to the Post Office card account PIN pad to improve accessibility for disabled people. [108947]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Post Office is working to ensure their services are as accessible to as many customers as possible. In the short term the Post Office intends to improve current PIN pads by fitting a guard over the buttons to help guide customers. I understand that this will be done as soon as possible. In the longer term they intend to look at technological options to provide a secure alternative to PIN pads for people with disabilities.

  This is a matter which falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Regional Policy
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress his Department has made towards the aim in the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice, of assessing the balance of staff between the centre and the regions in terms of effective policy design and implementation; and what examples there have been since the publication of the White Paper of the Department deciding between locating new streams of work(a) in and (b) outside London and the South East. [108571]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions currently has no single geographical work force strategy addressing staff and work move shifts from London and the South East to the regions. However, local labour market conditions mean that there is less pressure on recruitment and retention away from London.

  Jobcentre Plus already processes London benefit related work at sites at Ashton-in-Makerfield, in north-west Glasgow and Belfast. In moving to centralised processing operations, The Pension Service has decided to locate all 26 Pension Centres outside London and the South East although there will continue to be a Pension Local Service presence in these regions. Some businesses have used centralised processing and contract centres for some time e.g. Child Support Agency Centres and Disability Benefit Centres.
  555W
  By the nature of its business (more face to face contact) and customer base, the department, particularly Jobcentre Plus, will continue to have a presence in all large urban areas including London. There are also plans to encourage customers to make greater use of the telephone for their initial contact.

  Around 90 per cent. of DWP staff work in delivery businesses while 10 per cent. are in headquarters working on a range of policy and support functions. The highest concentration of headquarters staff, 30 per cent., is in the Yorkshire and Humber region followed by the North West region (26 per cent.), London (16 per cent.) and the North West (14 per cent.).

  Information on the distribution of DWP staff between Government Office Regions and function is in the following table:

  Government office region

  Delivery staff

  Headquarters staff

  Total staff

  East Midlands

  6,490

  263

  6,753

  East Midlands

  6,639

  129

  6,768

  London

  12,404

  2,219

  14,623

  North East

  13,424

  1,946

  15,370

  North West

  23,395

  3,532

  26,927

  Scotland

  14,683

  464

  15,147

  South East

  9,423

  133

  9,556

  South West

  8,511

  186

  8,697

  Wales

  7,230

  340

  7,570

  West Midlands

  11,613

  420

  12,033

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  10,394

  4,071

  14,465

  Total

  124,206

  13,703

  137,909

  Note:

  Numbers are point in time as at 31 January 2003.

  Numbers are expressed as staff in post (headcount) and are consistent with Cabinet Office definitions other than the inclusion of staff on paid maternity leave.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106770]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available for the financial year 2002–03, is in the table:

  Department for Work and Pensions

  Agency/Body

  Full-time post allocation1

  Approximate costs2 (£)

  Corporate Centre

  15.94

  331.000

  Jobcentre Plus

  240.76

  4,998,800

  The Pension Service

  8

  166,100

  Child Support Agency

  28.5

  591,700

  Other

  21.25

  441,200

  Total

  314,45

  6528,800

  1 This is not necessarily equivalent to the number of union officials because some officials are part time and some union posts are not filled.

  2 The figures rounded to the nearest one hundred pounds, have been calculated using average, not actual, salaries.

  Travel-to-work Areas
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how travel to work areas are defined; and what changes have been made in this definition since 1979. [110686]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Frank Field, dated 6 May 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the definition of Travel to Work Areas (TTWAs) and the changes in this definition since 1979. I am replying in his absence. (110686)

  The current criteria for defining TTWAs are that at least 75 per cent. of the area's resident workforce must work in the area and at least 75 per cent. of the people who work in the area must also live in the area. The area must also have a working population of at least 3,500. For areas with a working population in excess of 20,000, the self-containment rate is reduced to 70 per cent. TTWA boundaries must be non-overlapping and contiguous, covering the entire United Kingdom. TTWAs do not cross national boundaries.

  TTWAs are produced by analysing commuting flows from the decennial Census of Population. The current geography, based on the 1991 Census, was published in May 1998. A report of this exercise, entitled "1991-based Travel-to-Work Areas", is held in the House of Commons Library. Prior to May 1998, the TTWAs were based on the 1981 Census and were published in September 1984; they were created using the current methods.

  The TTWA geography in existence in 1979, based on the 1971 Census, was published in July 1978. While this map was also based on a self-containment rate of 75 per cent. there were several methodological changes introduced for the 1984 map. These improvements to the precision and robustness of the map were made possible by the introduction of computers and postcoded data. More details are available in an article in an Occasional Supplement to the Employment Gazette 92 (9), which is also available from the House of Commons Library.

  The 1979 TTWA map was defined in terms of Employment Office (Jobcentre) areas. Since the TTWA map based on the 1981 Census, the definition has been by aggregations of wards.

  ONS are currently investigating the usage and potential demand for an update to the TTWA geography based on data from the 2001 Census.

  There have been significant changes to the availability of local area data since the last update. Professor Coombes of Newcastle University was commissioned to write a report on this and some of the data issues that affect the 2001 Census.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) unemployed claimants and (b) unfilled vacancies there are in each travel to work area; and if he will express these data as an employment to vacancy ratio. [110762]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Frank Field, dated 6 May 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the number of unemployed claimants and unfilled vacancies for each travel-to-work-area. I am replying in his absence. (110762)
  557W
  I am placing in the House of Commons Library tables showing the claimant count, that is the numbers claiming Jobseeker's Allowance, and data on unfilled vacancies at Jobcentres as requested. Because of distortions to the Jobcentre vacancy data which occurred as a result of the introduction of the 'Employer Direct' initiative by Jobcentre Plus, data on unfilled vacancies have not been published since April 2001. Therefore, I have provided claimant count data for March 2003, the most recent available, as well as data for April 2001 for comparison with the unfilled vacancies. The data are not seasonally adjusted.

  Please note that the Jobcentre data represent only a proportion of vacancies in the economy. The experimental survey of job vacancies, which asks employers for the number of vacancies they have, is not available below national level.

  Working Patterns
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he intends to take to enable people to work longer if they choose. [108680]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall), on 17 March 2003,Official Report, volume 401, column 599–600W.

PRIME MINISTER

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement, in relation to his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible, on(a) the amount of energy consumed, (b) spending on (i) energy and (ii) energy efficiency measures, (c) the amount saved through energy efficiency measures and (d) energy policy in each of the last five years. [108854]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on Downing Street is not available in this format as it forms part of the Cabinet Office estate. I have therefore asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office to reply and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what contingency preparations he authorised civil servants to make for his resignation before the parliamentary vote on war with Iraq. [111216]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [110615]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: We continue to receive a large number of representations on a wide range of issues concerning Iraq. Some of these have been about looting. The Coalition consulted widely before 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.
  558W
  Experts from the MacDonald Institute of Archaeology, the British Museum and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be going to Iraq shortly to assist their Iraqi colleagues.

  KOMOS
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the letter from KOMOS of 15 April. [110622]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, my office has not yet received a letter from KOMOS.
  559W

  Meetings
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet(a) President George W. Bush, (b) US Secretary of State Colin Powell and (c) Prime Minister John Howard. [110695]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to meet President Bush or Secretary of State Colin Powell before their visit to Europe in late May. I hope to meet Prime Minister Howard tomorrow.

  Ministerial Responsibility
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister who the Government Minister responsible for co-ordination against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attack is. [110800]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave him in the House on 28 April 2003, Official Report, column 10.

  Official Visits
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 1 March 2003 on which public expenditure has been incurred on official visits by Mrs. Blair. [111131]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1 March 2003, Mrs. Blair has accompanied me on a visit to Aldershot Garrison and RAF Lyneham on 3 April 2003. No additional expense was incurred on this visit.

  Pensions Minister
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to appoint a Minister of State for Pensions. [110413]

  The Prime Minister
  An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

  Security (Northern Ireland)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Sinn Fein on the future use of the home battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment in security duties in Northern Ireland. [110788]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings under exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Special Advisers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 526W, on special advisers, for what reason Lord Birt is not listed. [111153]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Birt is an unpaid adviser not a special adviser.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [111603]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are concerned at the deepening crisis in Zimbabwe and ZANU(PF)'s failure to address the situation. The economy is rapidly deteriorating. Over 7 million people remain dependent on food aid. 159 people were tortured by the security authorities in March alone. We call on the Government of Zimbabwe to end violence and begin a dialogue with the opposition and civil society, as a first step towards restoring good governance, democratic accountability and economic prosperity for the people of Zimbabwe.

  Middle East
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's attempts to secure a middle east peace settlement. [111608]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We continue to support Quartet efforts to bring about the resumption of a meaningful peace process. The Quartet road map represents the best chance for peace in Israel and Palestine, and we expect all parties to respond positively and start implementing it without delay. The UK will continue to do all it can to help.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the role of the UN in building international recognition for political developments in the middle east. [111609]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As a member of the Quartet, the UN has a central role in encouraging and supporting developments in the Middle East Peace Process. On 30 April, the Quartet presented to Prime Ministers Sharon and Abbas its road map to a two-state solution. The UN, along with other Quartet members, will verify the parties' implementation of the roadmap. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242,338 and 1397 remain the internationally agreed basis for a settlement.

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US Administration on progress towards a two state solution for the Israeli and Palestinian people. [111612]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, FCO officials and I are in constant touch with US colleagues on Israel/560W
  Palestine. The UK Government believe that a secure and stable two-state solution, as called for in President Bush's speech of 24 June 2002 and reached through early implementation of the Quartet road map, is the only credible way to deliver to both Israelis and Palestinians the peaceful future they both need.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 529W, on the Middle East, whether the Government regard the B'Tselem list as authoritative. [110410]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No such list can be completely authoritative. It is difficult to get accurate details of an incident, and the Israeli Government does not always confirm its involvement in targeted killings. However, B'Tselem is a reputable human rights organisation and we believe the list under question is useful if only as a guide.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America on safeguarding Iraq's archaeological heritage in the course of war. [111610]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This is one of the many issues on Iraq that I have discussed with the US Government.

  Coalition commanders took great pains in the planning and conduct of the campaign in Iraq to protect Iraq's archaeological and cultural and religious heritage.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage reform of the Iraqi criminal justice system in line with international human rights standards. [111611]

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to encourage reform of the Iraqi criminal justice system in line with international human rights standards. [111618]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Security and stability in Iraq continue to be the priority, to provide the platform to deliver humanitarian relief. An ORHA team is currently in Iraq to review options for a new judicial system. The aim must be to help raise the standards of justice in Iraq to meet international standards of human rights. It will of course be for a properly constituted Iraqi authority to undertake substantive reform of the Iraqi justice system.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the involvement of Mr. Ahmed Chalabi in the post-war government in Iraq. [108273]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Chalabi is a prominent opposition figure. It is therefore only appropriate that the group he represents should be able to play a role in Iraq's future. But that role is for the people of Iraq to determine.
  561W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what timetable he proposes for the establishment of a new government in Iraq; and when he expects elections will take place for a new government. [110872]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The role of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) is helping to facilitate the creation of a democratic process in Iraq. A series of meetings (which began in Nasiriyah and Baghdad) will draw together Iraqi consensus from a broad range of opinion. The aim is to help establish an Iraqi Interim Authority in four weeks time. It is too early to predict when elections can be held and Iraqi self-governance attained.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what oil revenues are being held by the United Nations in a trust for the people of Iraq. [110873]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is currently no UN trust fund holding oil revenues for the people of Iraq. However, under the Oil For Food programme all revenues from Iraqi oil exports are held in UN escrow accounts. 72 per cent. of these revenues fund humanitarian supplies to Iraq, 25 per cent. go into a fund to pay compensation to victims of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and 3 per cent. pay for operating costs.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place about debt-restructuring in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [110979]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Finance Ministers at the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) meeting asked the Paris Club of official creditors to engage on Iraq's debt. This engagement has commenced with Paris Club creditors carrying out a data call to provide a comprehensive assessment of Iraq's indebtedness to them.

  The UK Government have made it clear that they are seeking a fair and sustainable solution to Iraq's debt problems.

  North Korea
  Mr. Gary Streeter)
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what plans he has to visit North Korea to discuss its nuclear weapon programme. [111613]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are no plans for a British Minister to visit North Korea.

  India/Pakistan
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with representatives of the Governments of Pakistan and India on monitoring by the United Nations of alleged border incursions and terrorism. [111615]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The specific issue of UN monitoring has not arisen in my right hon. Friend's recent contacts with Indian and Pakistani representatives. We believe that outstanding differences 562W
  between those two countries, including Kashmir, will be found through a sustained political process between India and Pakistan. Our role, like that of those who wish them well, is that we stand ready, where we can, to help India and Pakistan start and pursue such a process. In this respect we welcome the encouraging news of a resumption of direct: political contact between India and Pakistan, with the telephone call on 28 April between Pakistani Prime Minister Jamali and Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee. We are encouraging both sides to build on the important change in atmospherics which this represents.

  United Nations
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held on reform of UN processes for dealing with states where major human rights abuses occur. [111616]

  Mr. Rammell
  When I attended the UN Commission on Human Rights on 19 March, I discussed the need to enhance the effectiveness of the UN human rights mechanisms with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and representatives of a number of countries.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking alongside the United States, Germany and France to strengthen the United Nations, following the war with Iraq. [110870]

  Mr. Rammell
  We continue to work in the Security Council with the United States, France, Germany and other partners on a wide range of issues concerning international peace and security. We are discussing with them the UN's role in Iraq following the Coalition's military action.

  We remain committed to enlarging the membership of the Security Council so that it better represents the modern world. We are also working on the wider UN reform agenda to ensure that the organisation can more effectively fulfil the tasks entrusted to it by the international community.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government has; held with other members of the United Nations regarding the(a) future constitution and (b) structure of government for Iraq. [110871]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Questions regarding the future constitution and structure of government for Iraq is for the Iraqi people to decide. The Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance is helping the democratic process, through facilitating Iraqi consensus towards the creation of an Iraqi Interim Authority and eventual constitutional self-governance. Iraq's democratic future belongs to the Iraqis. We continue to be in contact with many countries including members of the UN Security Council about various aspects of our policy on Iraq.

  Iran
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the government of Iran concerning the middle east peace process. [111617]
  563W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the Middle East Peace Process in a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Mr. Kharrazi on 30 March. I also raised the issue with the Foreign Minister and Mohsen Mirdamadi, Chairman of the Majles Security and Foreign Policy Committee, when I visited Iran on 13 April. We urge the Iranians to cease support for rejectionist groups, in particular those responsible for suicide bombings in Israel, and to use their influence in support of a two-state solution. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the Middle East Peace Process in a telephone conversation with the Iranian Foreign Minister Mr Kharrazi on 30 March. I also raised the issue with the Foreign Minister and Mohsen Mirdamadi, Chairman of the Majles Security and Foreign Policy Committee, when I visited Iran on 13 April. We urge the Iranians to cease support for rejectionist groups, in particular those responsible for suicide bombings in Israel, and to use their influence in support of a two-state solution.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK-Iran relations. [110408]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Through critical engagement, the UK seeks to apply a twin-track approach in respect of Iran. We support reform in Iran while maintaining a robust dialogue on matters of concern such as human rights and weapons of mass destruction.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to address the issue of age discrimination. [109447]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The issue of age discrimination is included in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Equal Opportunity polices and is taken into account when we monitor appraisals recruitment and promotions. We have given staff in bands A to D more flexibility over the age at which they retire, as recommended by the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit report, Winning the Generation Game (2000).

  We are also examining our age profile, as part of our Human Resources Planning, to ensure it reflects the working population.

  Anglo/US Discussions
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration regarding the future development of NATO. [110712]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regular discussions on the future development of NATO with the US and with other NATO Allies.

  At the Prague Summit in November 2002, NATO Heads of State and Government took decisions to transform the Alliance to meet the new threats and security challenges of the 21st Century. To do this, NATO must develop new military capabilities to meet
  564W
  these new threats, streamline NATO command structures and have flexible Allied forces able to move quickly to wherever they are needed.

  NATO decided on 16 April 2003 to offer increased support to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. NATO already plays a significant planning role in support of the existing ISAF force. This substantially enhanced support is a logical continuation of this process and evidence of NATO's continued adaptation to the evolving security agenda.

  Foreign Ministers will be meeting in Madrid on 3–4 June for the NATO Spring Ministerials. This will be an important opportunity to review progress since Prague.

  China, Israel and Pakistan
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government has for dealing with weapons of mass destruction, abuses of human rights and breach of United Nations resolutions in(a) China, (b) Israel and (c) Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [110365]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are regularly engaged in discussion with the Governments of China, Israel and Pakistan on a range of issues including WMD, Human Rights and obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions.

  We continue to press all states to sign and ratify the various non-proliferation treaties, to accede to the core human rights conventions and to meet all obligations placed upon them by Resolutions of the UN Security Council.

  Cuba
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the recent imprisonment of pro-democracy campaigners in Cuba, (b) the state of negotiations regarding Cuban membership on the Cotonou pact and (c) the recent comments of the European Commission Chargé d'affaires in Havana, that his office has responsibility for political relations with Cuba. [109886]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We strongly condemn the unjust arrests, summary trials and harsh sentencing of citizens peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and expression in Cuba, and urge the Government of Cuba to release them. EU partners will discuss Cuba's application to join Cotonou once the Commission's technical analysis is complete; recent events will undoubtedly have an impact on these discussions. We hope the newly appointed EU Commission Representative in Havana will play a full part in the EU's relationship with all sectors of Cuban society. Under the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy, primary responsibility for the EU's political dialogue with third countries lies with member states.

  Democratisation
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's budget is for assistance in building democracy in post-conflict situations. [110341]
  565W
  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: Democracy building is not accounted for as a distinct FCO budget line. The FCO funds democracy building activity in a variety of ways. In 2003–04 the Global Conflict Prevention Pool (£74 million—managed jointly with MOD and DFID). Human Rights Project Fund (£7 million), and various bilateral programmes all contain elements of democracy building. In addition the FCO will fund the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (£4.1 million) which promotes democracy world-wide and the British Council which will spend £12.1 million on governance, which includes democracy building. Furthermore, the FCO works in partnership with DfID and MOD as part of the Africa Conflict Prevention Pool (£50 million) which seeks to address the peace and security challenges in Africa—a prerequisite for democracy. Some of the new Global Opportunities Fund will also be used for some democracy building work. Identifying the post conflict democracy building activities within these programmes could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EEC-Russia Co-operation Committee, the number of times and the dates on which it has met since January 2002, the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, the decisions it has made since January 2002 and the means used to communicate these decisions to the House. [110497]

  Mr. MacShane
  The EU Russia Co-operation Committee meets at senior official level in Troika format (ie the EU is represented by the Presidency, Commission and Council Secretariat). The remaining 14 European Union member states contribute to the detailed preparation of the Committee and are able to observe the formal session. Since 17 April 2003, delegates from the 10 EU accession states are also entitled to attend most EU committees, including the EU-Russia Co-operation Committee, as observers. The EU-Russia Co-operation Committee normally meets once a year to discuss areas of policy which come under the framework of the EU's Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA) with Russia. It last met in October 2002.

  Decisions made by the committee of direct significance for the UK are submitted to Parliament under established scrutiny procedures and are considered and reported on by the House of Lords European Union Committee, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, and the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on implementation of the programme of assistance to promote the transition to a market economy and to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in the partner states of eastern Europe and Central Asia (TACIS), (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
  566W
  decisions it has made since January 2002 and (e) the means used to communicate the decisions to the House. [110537]

  Mr. MacShane
  The EU TACIS Management Committee meets at senior official level, is chaired by the commission, and attended by the 15 member states. Since 17 April 2003, delegates from the 10 EU accession states are also entitled to attend most EU committees, including the EU TACIS Management Committee, as observers. The UK is represented on the Committee by officials from the Department for International Development, and by members of staff of the United Kingdom Representation in Brussels.

  The TACIS Management Committee meets as often as is necessary to exercise oversight of the EC programme of technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS). It has met eight times since January 2002, with the most recent meeting taking place on 23 April 2003.

  Decisions made by the committee of direct significance for the UK are submitted to Parliament under established scrutiny procedures and are considered and reported on by the House of Lords European Union Committee, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, and the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of the Government towards the proposal laid down in the proposed European Constitution that Europe should be governed on a federal basis. [110700]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government consider the proposal made by the Praesidium of the Convention on the Future of Europe that"the Union … shall administer certain common competences on a federal basis"
  to be misleading. It has therefore proposed that the words on a federal basis" be replaced by
  "shall co-ordinate certain policies at a European level to achieve goals that they cannot achieve on their own".
  EU member states will discuss the convention's outcome in an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) before taking final decisions on it by unanimity.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of the Government towards the proposal laid down in the proposed European Constitution stating that the European Union should have a legal personality. [110701]

  Mr. MacShane
  The explicit grant of legal personality to the European Union would have the advantage of clarity and simplicity. But the Government would only accept it on the basis that the distinct arrangements for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and aspects of Justice and Home Affairs were fully safeguarded, along with the existing arrangements for representation in international bodies.
  567W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of the Government towards the proposal laid down in the proposed European Constitution stating that the member states may accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [110702]

  Mr. MacShane
  All European Union member states are already party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of the Government towards the proposal laid down in the proposed European Constitution with regard to the creation of citizenship of the Union. [110703]

  Mr. MacShane
  EU citizenship was established by the Treaty on European Union. The provisions governing Union citizenship are contained in Part Two of the Treaty establishing the European Community. It is expressly stated that the EU citizenship conferred upon persons holding the nationality of a member state shall"complement and not replace national citizenship".
  The draft Constitutional Treaty being debated by the Convention on the Future of Europe sets out similar provisions. The Government support this policy.

  India (Tamil Nadu Ordinance)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made on the impact of religious freedom of the Tamil Nadu ordinance on movement within the state; and if he will make a statement; [110110]

  (2) what reports he has received on the impact on the Dalit people in India of the ordinance relating to movement in the state passed by the Tamil Nadu State Government; and if he will make a statement. [110111]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since the Tamil Nadu Ordinance on Religious Conversions was passed into law on 2 December 2002, some observers in the state have noted a general fall in the number of public conversions there, but we have not been able to corroborate this. The law's effects on Tamil Nadu's Dalit population are also as yet unclear. We are not aware of any cases that have yet been brought to court under the law's provisions.

  Although the impact of this law is not yet clear, we are concerned that this legislation might in practice discourage Tamil Nadu's citizens from adopting the religion of their choice. Such an effect might limit religious freedoms as outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which India has ratified. We have had no discussions with the Government of India about this legislation. But our Missions in India will continue to monitor closely the implementation of the law, and we will discuss with EU Partners whether any EU action is necessary.

  Kuwait
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 1 April 2003,Official Report, column 645W, on Kuwait,
  568W
  which four categories have not been resolved and what were the respective amounts for each category; which two categories have not been resolved; why these have not been resolved; and what amounts are involved. [110422]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Of the six categories of claims being dealt with by the UN Compensation Commission (UNCC) four relate to claims by individuals and the other two to claims by corporations, Governments and international organisations. The Governing Council of the UNCC took a decision to prioritise claims made by individuals. Other claims continue to be processed. Full details of all claims, both resolved and outstanding, can be found on the UNCC website: www.unog.ch/uncc.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the estimated cost is in 2003–04 to his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible of the increase in the national minimum wage from £4.20 per hour to £4.50 per hour. [110442]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The increase in the national minimum wage from £4.20 per hour to £4.50 per hour will have no cost impact on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2003–04, nor on any of the agencies or non-departmental public bodies for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible. There are no staff on the minimum wage in the FCO.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to include Dafur within human rights monitoring as part of the Sudan peace process. [111371]

  Mr. Rammell
  Human rights provisions of the eventual peace agreement will apply throughout Sudan. The talks have not yet progressed to the stage of agreement on monitoring arrangements.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the inter-tribal conflict in Dafur, Sudan. [111372]

  Mr. Rammell
  The situation in Dafur is extremely complex with unresolved inter-Arab disputes and Arab-African ethnic clashes. Previous efforts at mediation have not succeeded. In the near future further conflict may prevent the delivery of humanitarian relief. International staff of international non-Governmental organisations (INGOs) and the UN have been withdrawn and access to Dafur remains difficult.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the demonstrations that have taken place in Dafur, Sudan, on the security situation in the region. [111373]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have received reports that a demonstration took place in Geneina on the Chadian border in Dariur on 26 April. Following clashes in the area demonstrators protested at the killings and the failure to arrest those responsible. There were also protests on 26 April against the Sudan Liberation
  569W
  Movement following its attack against the airport in El-Fashir. International staff of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) and the UN have been withdrawn and access to Dafur remains difficult. Further conflict may prevent the delivery of humanitarian relief.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Sudan on the situation in Dafur, Sudan. [111378]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development raised the situation in Dafur with the Sudanese First Vice-President on 29 April, during his visit to London. The British Embassy in Khartoum will continue to monitor the situation in Dafur. They are in contact with a wide range of Government and National Congress party officials in addition to Dafur MPs and other local representatives.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision of the UN Commission on Human Rights to vote against the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Sudan; and what discussions he has had with the Russian Government on this matter. [111379]

  Mr. Rammell
  We were disappointed that the EU sponsored resolution on Sudan was not carried at the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR) on 16 April. The result of the vote (24 in favour, 26 against and three abstentions) was the first defeat for this resolution in 10 years and means the termination of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur, Gerhard Baum.

  At CHR, we and EU partners had extensive discussions on EU initiatives with all CHR members, including Russia.

  Syria
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK-Syria relations. [110409]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK remains committed to a policy of constructive and, where necessary, critical engagement with Syria. This allows us to support reform while maintaining a robust dialogue on issues of concern including her attitude to Iraq, support for certain Palestinian rejectionist groups, WMD and human rights.

  Western Sahara
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects a referendum to be held on the future of the Western Sahara under UN auspices; and if he will make a statement. [110265]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 133W. The United Kingdom supports fully the efforts of the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) and his Personal Envoy, James Baker, to find a just, lasting and mutually acceptable solution to the Western Sahara dispute that provides for self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. In March this year the
  570W
  Security Council asked the UNSG to provide a report on the situation by 19 May, to allow Mr. Baker time to consider the responses of the parties to his proposals. I do not wish to pre-judge the outcome of this process.

DEFENCE

  Depleted Uranium
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Society on the clean-up and monitoring of depleted uranium used on battlefield sites. [110488]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Fur
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what animal fur, broken down by species and value, has been purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years; and what use was made of the fur. [111124]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has not purchased any animal fur for use as a raw material in the last 10 years. The MOD does, however, purchase various clothing items which incorporate animal fur as part of their specification. A wide range of clothing products, such as socks and pullovers, incorporate animal fur or wool to an agreed quality standard. There are, however, a limited number of items for which a specific type of fur or wool is included within the specification. These are as follows:

  Product/Species

  Number of products (per annum)

  Busby

  Scandinavian Blue Fox

  2 (maximum)

  Coney (Rabbit)

  42

  Sheep (Astrakhan)

  1 (maximum)

  Bearskin

  Black Bear

  60

  Flounce

  Black/Black Faced Brown Bear

  1

  Sheep (Astrakhan)

  (5 in 20 years)

  Saddle Cover

  Black Bear

  5

  Sheep

  40

  It is not possible to readily identify the value of these animal products as the cost incurred by the MOD is for the finished and complete item, not just the animal component.

  Homecoming Parades
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will organise a parade to welcome UK servicemen home from the Persian Gulf. [110546]

  Mr. Ingram
  An event for armed forces personnel returning from duty in the Gulf is being considered by the Government. No decision has yet been taken.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British-made arms and military equipment have been discovered in Iraq since the war began; to which countries these were originally supplied; and what actions he intends to take against countries who have diverted or re-exported arms to Iraq. [109003]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, no British-made military equipment or arms have been reported as having been discovered in Iraq that were supplied since sanctions have been in force. If any United Kingdom equipment were to be found which is proven to have been diverted or re-exported to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions regime, appropriate procedures would be followed.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to protect the integrity of Iraq's infrastructure against looting; and if he will make a statement. [109004]

  Mr. Ingram
  Coalition forces take law and order seriously and have been conducting joint patrols with local police. In Basra, several hundred police have now returned to duty and are participating in joint patrols with United Kingdom forces, These measures, supported by local leaders and community effort, have been effective in minimising looting.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what preparations were made to ensure the(a) safety and (b) property of the hospitals from looters in Iraq; and when further action will be taken. [110387]

  Mr. Ingram
  Immediately following the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime some looting of equipment and supplies from hospitals in Iraq did take place in some areas before the Coalition forces established a presence and began to secure the facilities. In Basra, the presence of joint patrols between Coalition forces and local police, and the engagement with local leaders and the community has significantly reduced the incidence of looting. Medical supplies and facilities are returning to pre-conflict levels.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the basis on which decisions are taken to return British troops from Iraq. [110994]

  Mr. Ingram
  Decisions on the withdrawal or roulement of British units are taken on the basis of a range of considerations, including the requirements of the mission, the capabilities of different units, the length of time for which units have already been deployed and the availability of other units to replace them where necessary.

  Joint Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government has to undergo a Joint Rapid Reaction Force exercise where participants do not have prior notice; and if he will make a statement. [110554]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Rapid Reaction Forces are exercised on a regular basis but we currently have no plans for an exercise in which the participants would 572W
  have no prior notice. We do, however, arrange at least one Command Post Exercise each year for the Commander Joint Force Operations and his staff, in which they participate without any prior notice. The purpose of these is to exercise the Commander and staff in the planning and execution of a short notice deployment.

  Joint Services Group
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many covert human intelligence sources are handled by the Joint Services Group. [110864]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding information on covert human intelligence sources under section 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who the head is of the Joint Services Group; and who provides its secretariat. [111640]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding the requested information under Exemption 1a (national security) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  OCCAR
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money Britain contributes to each of the OCCAR projects; what proportion this represents of the total costs of each of the projects; and what proportion this represents of the total OCCAR budget. [109085]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: The Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation (OCCAR) currently manages seven collaborative defence equipment programmes. Of these, the UK participates in the COBRA (Counter Battery Radar) and BOXER (Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle) programmes. The UK does not participate in, nor contribute towards, the other OCCAR programmes, which include the TIGER helicopter, and FSAF, ROLAND and HOT/MILAN missile systems programmes.

  OCCAR's budgeting and accounting is in cash terms. On this basis, the UK's expected monetary contribution to OCCAR for the current phases of the BOXER and COBRA programmes, and our share of these costs is:

  Programme

  UK contribution

  UK share (percentage)

  BOXER

  40

  32

  COBRA

  99

  23

  These figures relate only to contracts that are currently in place, and cover the UK's expected contribution towards both acquisition costs and OCCAR running costs for the relevant contract phase. OCCAR budgets for subsequent contract phases have still to be established.

  OCCAR programme equipment budgets are calculated individually involving only OCCAR and the national participants concerned. The UK does not therefore have, nor do we need, visibility of all

  573W
  OCCAR's budgets. However, it is intended that OCCAR will produce annual total cost figures that will quantify the overall scale of its operations each year.

  RAF Standardisation Exercise
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result was of the RAF NAR team Standardisation Exercise in Suffolk; and what recommendations have been put forward as a result of this exercise. [110888]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RAF NAR team Standardisation Exercise in Suffolk was assessed as satisfactory. A number of recommendations have been made which include aspects of the Public Relations response and the liaison with the emergency services.

  Reservists
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Prime Minister's statement of 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 29, which United Kingdom armed forces are being held in reserve and prepared for deployment to the Gulf. [105640]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's two written ministerial statements on Iraq Force Level Adjustments 11 April 2003,Official Report, columns 38–39WS and 30 April 2003, Official Report, columns 15–16WS.

  SA80 A2 Rifle
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of the SA80 A2 used by British troops in the recent Iraq conflict. [111656]

  Mr. Ingram
  Post operational reporting will provide analysis and an assessment of the performance of equipment deployed on operations in Iraq. It would, therefore, be premature for me to provide a detailed assessment of the performance at this stage. Early indications are, however, that SA80 A2 performed well overall.

  Submarines
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the submarines which are not available for deployment, together with the reasons for non-availability in each case. [111338]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following submarines are currently not available for deployment:

  Submarine

  Reasons for non-availability

  HMS Talent

  Upkeep maintenance in dry dock

  HMS Trenchant

  Upkeep maintenance in dry dock

  HMS Spartan

  Conducting post upkeep sea trials

  HMS Sceptre

  Conducting post upkeep sea trials

  HMS Superb

  Undergoing maintenance

  HMS Trafalgar

  Undergoing maintenance

  HMS Vanguard

  Upkeep maintenance in dry dock

  HMS Vigilant

  Undergoing maintenance

  BBC Broadcasts (Gulf)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the showing of BBC News coverage to HM forces deployed in the Persian Gulf. [110590]

  Mr. Ingram
  The British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) is produced by the Services Sound and Vision Corporation (SSVC) under contract to the Ministry of Defence and provides radio and television services to most locations overseas where significant numbers of British forces are permanently stationed and, subject to practicality, to operational theatres.

  The television channels available to British land-based forces deployed in the Gulf have included two 24-hour BFBS channels, one of which includes: BBC 'Breakfast', BBC 6 o'clock News and, until 26 April, BBC News at 10 o'clock. SSVC also re-broadcasts BBC 'News 24' and 'Sky News' as additional 24-hour news channels. To receive these channels, SSVC has installed a large number of stand alone satellite television systems, initially in Kuwait and more recently in Southern Iraq.

  For the British forces onboard ships equipped with stabilised receiver dishes (eg HMS Ark Royal and HMS Ocean) the fall range of television channels has been available, however many ships do not have this capability and therefore for those with connectivity to the Skynet satellites a single television channel capability has been developed. The programme content is specified by the Royal Navy and has during the past two months included BBC News 24, Sky News and some news programmes from the BFBS channels. RN and RFA ships and submarines without access to the Skynet satellites have not been capable of receiving live television but have been provided with a taped SSVC television service that specifically excludes news programmes due to its non-live nature.

  SSVC is providing two radio channels for the Gulf area: BFBS Radio 1 includes Independent Radio News (IRN) on the hour, plus each weekday the re-broadcast of several BBC Radio 4 and 5 programmes including PM, '6 o'clock News' and 'The World Tonight'. BFBS Radio 2 also re-broadcasts, each weekday, the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme in addition to the BBC News programmes included within the BFBS Radio 1 schedule.

  Warships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels(a) are and (b) are scheduled to become non-operational because of manpower shortages. [111314]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no Royal Navy or Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels non-operational or scheduled to become non-operational because of manpower shortages. However, a number of vessels are pursuing limited programmes due to the commitment of personnel to fire-fighting duties and training under Operation Fresco.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [110730]

  Clare Short
  Reporting by the UN and other relief agencies continues to show the very serious humanitarian consequences for the civilian population of nearly five years of conflict in DRC and previous mismanagement. DFID is providing substantial help to efforts directed at reducing the suffering of civilians with urgent humanitarian needs in Congo. In the last financial year DFID provided over £11.5 million through the UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross (in response to their emergency appeals) and through international NGOs in the areas of health, nutrition, and refugees.

  We stand ready to provide further humanitarian assistance to those most in need: so far this financial year we have already committed £1 million for nutrition and health care projects through international NGOs.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Chris McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library an Organogram of the new structure of responsibilities in her Department. [109951]

  Clare Short
  As requested, I have arranged for a copy of my Department's Organogram to be placed in the Library of both Houses of Parliament.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts are being made to ensure the speedy provision of aid through the World Food Programme to combat the recurrent food crisis in Ethiopia. [110709]

  Clare Short
  Our in-country advisers maintain close liaison with World Food Programme (WFP) staff in Ethiopia. We have contributed £19.3 million of aid for Ethiopia through WFP since January 2002, which includes food aid contributions of £15 million in December 2002 and £2 million in March 2003. We are currently satisfied with the speed at which aid has been delivered. For example, our March contribution will be delivered as food to those in need by mid-May.

  We also have a global partnership with WFP, of which the main objective is to improve their institutional capacity worldwide for timely and effective humanitarian responses.

  Famine (Africa)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to combat the famine in(a) Ethiopia and (b) Eritrea. [110710]

  Clare Short
  Since the beginning of 2002 we have contributed about £21.6 million in food aid and £16 million for other humanitarian support to 576W
  Ethiopia. We are continuing to monitor the situation closely. We have also been promoting co-ordination between Government, UN and donors.

  A DFID team visited Eritrea in late January this year. Following this visit we have approved about £2.8 million of humanitarian support for Eritrea.

  In addition to the above humanitarian support that we have provided to Ethiopia and Eritrea, DFID funds about 19 per cent. of EC programmes.

  Food shortages are a factor of rural poverty. Development assistance that we are now providing to Ethiopia should help to reduce the underlying causes. In Eritrea we are still working with the EU to establish the basis for a development partnership, which should also help to achieve a lasting solution.

  G8 Development Meeting
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on matters discussed, pledges made and decisions taken at the G8 development Ministers meeting in Paris on 24 April 2003; and if she will place copies of documentation for the meeting in the Library. [111234]

  Clare Short
  Matters discussed were: how to increase official development assistance; the need for better co-ordinated action to secure better water provision for poor people; accelerating the achievement of education and health goals; and what donors could do to support the New Partnership for African Development (NePAD). The meeting was a discussion forum to prepare for the G8 meeting in Evian and no pledges were made and no decisions were taken. A copy of the Chairman's Summary will be placed in the Library.

  Illegal Timber Trade
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment the Government have made of legislation under EU directive 97/2001 on money laundering to tackle proceeds from the illegal timber trade; and if he will make a statement; [111035]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the use of existing UK legislation to target illegal timber imports, with particular reference to legislation on stolen goods, fraud and forgery; and if she will make a statement. [111036]

  Clare Short
  The Government have contributed to a study on measures that the EU could take to control illegal logging and trade in illegally sourced timber products. The study indicated that UK's money laundering legislation under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 could be used as a possible measure by which the proceeds of illegal logging entering the UK financial system could be identified and persons involved convicted. However, this would require illegal logging in other countries and associated trade to be defined as criminal offences under UK law.

  The study also indicated that some forms of illegal logging could be targeted under the Theft Act 1968 that applies to goods that have been stolen abroad as well as within the UK. For this to be effective, there must first be a request by a court or prosecuting authority in the country of origin for the suspected stolen goods to be

  577W
  seized and criminal proceedings initiated or a person arrested for the offence. Therefore, using UK legislation in this regard is dependent on the activities of enforcement agencies in the countries of origin of illegal limber. Provided these actions have been taken, sale within the UK of timber known to be illegally sourced may be considered an offence.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the frequency of household waste removal in Baghdad. [110968]

  Clare Short
  Prior to the conflict 2,800 tonnes of refuse were collected in Baghdad each day by a fleet of 480 trucks. We understand that some of these trucks were stolen in the recent looting. Parts of Baghdad remain very insecure and it is unclear at this stage how much of the refuse collection system has been restored. A prolonged absence of waste removal would represent a substantial threat to public health. We are monitoring the situation closely.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what time-frame her Department expects for the restoration of the Oil for Food programme in Iraq at the level of the local distribution centres. [110731]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme (WFP) reports that it has made contact with the Director General at the Iraqi Trade Ministry which was formerly responsible for operating the Oil for Food distribution system. WFP understand that the distribution system is in good shape, though their own assessments have been slowed by security and access issues. Distribution is ongoing in parts of northern Iraq and many food agents elsewhere in the country want to resume work and have been reporting to distribution centres. It is not yet possible to provide an accurate time frame for full restoration of local distribution throughout Iraq. My Department is continuing to monitor the situation closely and is working closely to facilitate contacts between the Coalition Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), the WFP and the Iraqi Ministry of Trade in Iraq.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in restoring clean water supplies to(a) Kirkuk and (b) Mosul in Iraq. [110732]

  Clare Short
  The water supply in Kirkuk has been restored, with the exception of supplies to the Central Hospital. The hospital is being supplied by water tankers. In Mosul water supplies have been restored.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has received about cholera outbreaks in(a) Basra and (b) Hilla. [110969]

  Clare Short
  On 27 April, the UN Office of the Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq (UNOHCI) reported that the health situation in Iraq in general was stable. The number of diarrhoea cases was within normally expected limits and no measles or cholera 578W
  cases had been reported. Latest World Health Organisation (WHO) reports confirm that no cases of cholera have been identified in Iraq to date.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports she has received about the adequacy of equipment and quality control systems for preventing blood contamination in Iraqi hospitals. [110970]

  Clare Short
  Approximately 150 health assessments have been undertaken in Iraq. Results of these are being consolidated by the World Health Organisation (WHO) who are the lead co-ordinator for the health sector. All assessments are available from the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) information centre website at: www.agoodplacetostart.org

  We have not received any reports specifically about the adequacy of equipment and control systems for preventing blood contamination in Iraqi hospitals.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the distribution system set up under the Oil for Food programme in Iraq is operational. [110971]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme (WFP) reports that it has made contact with the Director General at the Iraqi Trade Ministry which was formerly responsible for operating the Oil for Food distribution system. WFP understand that the distribution system is in good shape, though their own assessments have been slowed by security and access issues. Distribution is on-going in parts of northern Iraq and many food agents elsewhere in the country want to resume work and have been reporting to distribution centres. It is not yet possible to provide an accurate time frame for full restoration of local distribution throughout Iraq. My Department is continuing to monitor the situation closely and is working closely to facilitate contacts between the Coalition Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), the WFP and the Iraqi Ministry of Trade in Iraq.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) assessment her Department made of civilian infrastructures and (b) plans were made for the restoration of essential services in Iraq prior to military action; and if she will make future plans publicly available. [110972]

  Clare Short
  Prior to the conflict in Iraq much of the civilian infrastructure was in a state of disrepair. UN agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) were undertaking programmes to restore these services. The Coalition's military strategy drawn up before the start of the conflict sought to minimise damage to civilian infrastructure.

  DFID, UN agencies, the ICRC and others prepared for a wide range of humanitarian scenarios prior to the conflict. DFID has seconded two humanitarian specialists, one of whom is an infrastructure specialist, to work with the armed forces (UK 1 Division) and to advise on relief activities.

  DFID has committed £115 million to date to support the humanitarian response to the crisis through the activities of the UN, ICRC and NGOs. Some most notably the ICRC, were active throughout the conflict

  579W
  in getting water, power and medical services back up and running. A number of agencies have now taken part in initial post-conflict assessment missions to determine the state of essential services and to prioritise the needs for emergency responses.

  Most agency assessments and future plans are available from the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) website at: www.agoodplacetostart.org

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107768]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not have a programme of formal market testing. We ensure value for money by selecting external suppliers through strict competitive tendering processes. Internal services are provided under service level agreements that set out agreed standards of efficiency, informed by benchmarking where relevant.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development(a) how many and (b) what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of the Department. [109466]

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

  St. Helena
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on the provision of an airport on St. Helena. [111253]

  Clare Short
  As a result of talks held last September in St. Helena, an invitation to the private sector seeking innovative proposals for the development of air access was launched by the St. Helena Government on 7 April 2003. Details of this invitation can be found at www.giclimited.com.

  United Nations Development Programme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects undertaken by the Conflict and Recovery Unit of the United Nations Development programme in each year since its inception and the contribution of her Department for this programme in each year. [110354]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) created the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery (BCPR) in November 2001, in order to address the increasing demand for well-co-ordinated assistance on crisis prevention and recovery and the need for a strengthened capacity within the UN system to help bridge the gap between humanitarian response and longer-term development assistance. The main purpose of BCPR is to provide technical support to UNDP Country Offices and their programmes, rather than carrying out directly executed projects. Since its 580W
  establishment, the Bureau's capacity to provide support in conflict prevention, security sector reform, recovery, small arms reduction, mine action and natural disaster reduction has increased considerably.

  At present, approximately 65 out of UNDP's 135 Country Offices implementing crisis prevention or recovery programmes draw on BCPR support. However, to ensure a strategic use of its resources, BCPR focuses the provision of its technical support on Afghanistan, Angola, Central Asia, Colombia, Georgia, Great Lakes, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iraq, Nepal, Somalia, Southern Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and West Africa.

  DFID has worked closely with the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery since its establishment and has made an overall contribution of £13.4 million to date: £6.6 million in 2001–02 and £6.8 million in 2002–03. Our contribution has been utilised across the full range of BCPR's activities.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to deal with the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. [111717]

  Clare Short
  DFID has contributed £51 million to help Zimbabwe since the humanitarian crisis began in mid 2001. We are currently supporting the World Food Programme, which is feeding nearly five million people, while government and non-governmental organisations are also supplying food. DFID is directly funding NGOs that are providing supplementary food to 1.5 million, mostly children, pregnant and nursing women and the elderly. We have supported home care programmes for families affected by HIV/AIDS and have provided seeds and fertilisers to 180,000 households to assist food production.

  The international response has helped avert a crisis and malnutrition rates have increased only marginally. Adequate supplies of food have been secured until June when the harvest will improve the situation. However, it is already evident that the crisis in food production will persist for a third year, as the structural causes of agricultural decline have not been addressed. The economic crisis also means that poverty is rising and many people will remain vulnerable. Detailed assessments and the plans of the Zimbabwe Government are awaited; from there we will develop specific programmes for 2003–04.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU Contact Committee European Economic Interest Group, the number of times and the dates on which it has met since January 2002, the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, the decisions it has made since January 2002 and the means used to communicate these decisions to the House. [110493]
  581W
  Ms Hewitt
  There are no officials of the Department permanently appointed to sit on the Committee; such officials would be selected according to the subject matter under discussion at any meeting of the Committee. There have been no meetings of the Committee since January 2002, and consequently, there have been no agenda items or decisions taken by the Committee to communicate to the House during that period.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to ensure that regional plans for renewable energy generation take account of the impact of new generating facilities on the wider rural economy] [109832]

  Mr. Wilson
  The recent Energy White Paper set out the Government's plans with regard to regional plans for renewable energy developments. It sets out the Government's commitment to ensure that a strategic approach to energy issues is developed in each English region. This includes encouraging regional bodies and local authorities to strategically examine resources and opportunities for renewable energy projects within their areas. When drawing up their development plans, regional bodies and local authorities need to have regard to all relevant planning policy guidance, including those relating to rural development (PPG7) regional planning (PPGII) and renewable energy (PPG22). Any proposed energy development must be considered on its merits on a case by case basis. Among the factors taken into account would be the economic, environmental and any other relevant material planning considerations.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the environmental impact of plans by the South West Regional Development Agency for further onshore wind power generation. [109840]

  Mr. Wilson
  The South West Regional Development Agency has made no plans for further onshore wind power generation. That is not its role. The number and location of onshore wind turbines is a matter for developers and the relevant planning authority. The environmental impact of proposals is considered on a case by case basis.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the environmental impact of plans by the South West Regional Development Agency for further onshore wind power generations. [109841]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since the South West Regional Development Agency has not made plans for further onshore wind power generation (this is not its role), the issue of representations does not arise.

  Adoption Leave
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce a statutory right to adoption leave for parents with a newly adopted child; and if she will make a statement. [110776]
  582W
  Alan Johnson
  New statutory rights to leave and pay for parents adopting a child came into effect on 6 April this year.

  Eligible employees who adopt will be able to take 52 weeks' adoption leave, beginning around the time their child is placed with them for adoption. Eligible adopters will receive Statutory Adoption Pay for up to 26 weeks.

  Eligible employees who adopt, or are the partner of an adopter, can take one or two weeks' (their choice) paternity leave around the time the child is placed for adoption. If they are eligible they will receive Statutory Paternity Pay during that time.

  Where a couple adopts they are able to choose which of them will take adoption leave and which will take paternity leave.

  Statutory Adoption Pay and Statutory Paternity Pay are both paid at £100 per week or 90 per cent. of average weekly earnings if this is less than £100.

  Guidance for employers and employees and further information about these new rights is available from the Department of Trade and Industry's website, www.dti.gov.uk/workingparents.

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) pursuant to her answer of 11 April 2003,Official Report, column 460W, on arms exports, what independent assessments by computer security analysts her Department has sought on the levels of security and encryption required for computers used by those applying for arms licences; [110539]

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 11 April 2003, Official Report, column 460W, on arms exports, whether there will be security protocols for the electronic transfer of information via intranets specifically to guarantee security when companies have global networks which extend to countries for which individual export licences have not been granted. [110540]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Applicants for licences are responsible for the level of security in whatever form they choose to submit it. Appropriate advice will be given.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 11 April 2003,Official Report, column 460W, on arms exports, if she will estimate the cost of establishing a register of arms dealers and brokers to which interested parties would have to sign up before applying for arms licences. [110541]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government have not proposed such a register and therefore have made no estimate of the consequent costs.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on dealing with outstanding UK contracts with countries that face new restrictions on arms trading; and if she will make a statement. [110393]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Where a UK, EU or UK embargo is placed on a country which is being supplied by a UK contractor, there are established mechanisms in place to ensure the embargo is fully complied with.
  583W
  Implementation periods have been proposed relating to the new legislation to enable applicants to consider how to comply with the new legislation.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are used in assessing a country's probability as a conduit for arms supply to banned countries; and if she will make a statement. [110394]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply from my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 199–203W.

  Broadband (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what further steps she proposes to take to ensure that public sector investment in broadband is used to enable wider access for private users in East Yorkshire; [110167]

  (2) what public sector procurement of broadband she expects to take place across the East Riding of Yorkshire during the next 12 months. [110166]

  Mr. Timms
  Through the UK Broadband Task Force, DTI is currently engaged in co-ordinating the aggregation of demand for broadband in the public sector. The aggregation project is aimed at extending broadband availability in the UK, as well as securing value for money, and will thus be of benefit to rural areas such as East Yorkshire.

  Details of public sector procurement plans across the East Riding of Yorkshire are not available.

  Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in her Department. [110518]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI has exceeded disability benchmarks set in 2000 for staff in Bands up to the Senior Civil Service (SCS). The proportion of disabled staff in the SCS as at 31 December 2002 was 3.2 per cent. against a benchmark set of 3.9 per cent. Figures reflect numbers of staff who have formally notified the Department of a disability or a health condition

  DTI is working to a programme of action to improve representation further.

  E-Commerce
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to tackle the use of unsolicited e-mails. [111286]

  Mr. Timms
  There will be new controls on the use of unsolicited commercial e-mail under the UK's implementing regulations for the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC). The new rules, to come into force this year, will require that unsolicited e-mails may only be set for the purposes of 584W
  direct marketing to individuals with their prior consent, except where there is an existing customer relationship between the sender and the addressee.

  Consultation on the draft regulations started on 27 March this year and details of the proposed new rules are available in the Libraries of the House and on the DTI's website at www.dti.gov.uk. Each member state of the European Union is required to implement the directive.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many broadband users there were in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK in each of the last 12 months. [111287]

  Mr. Timms
  The data for Scotland are not available. Oftel estimates the approximate number of broadband customers in the UK for each of the last 12 months is:

  Date (month ending)

  Total broadband customers

  May 2002

  641,000

  June 2002

  747,000

  July 2002

  837,000

  August 2002

  909,000

  September 2002

  1,020,000

  October 2002

  1,135,000

  November 2002

  1,264,000

  December 2002

  1,382,000

  January 2003

  1,524,000

  February 2003

  1,664,000

  March 2003

  1,818,000

  April 2003

  1,915,000

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the total amount of finance received by business in the UK through e-commerce transactions and sales in each year since 1998. [111296]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on e-commerce transactions and sales is published annually in the Office for National Statistics (ONS) e-commerce survey. Figures for 2002 are not yet available; they are due to be published by the ONS in October this year. Prior to 2001 this data was not collected by the ONS. A copy of the ONS e-commerce survey 2001 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate she has made of the percentage of businesses in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK who have enabled customers to buy online in the last two years; [111307]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the percentage of businesses in (a) Scotland and (b) the UK which used the internet to sell their products in each year since 1998; [111328]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the percentage of businesses in (a) Scotland and (b) the UK which (i) were broadband enabled, (ii) had websites and (iii) had access to the internet in each year since 1998. [111295]

  Mr. Timms
  Information of this type is published annually in the DTI's International Benchmarking Study: Business in the Information Age. The Study
  585W
  provides year on year findings from 1997. A copy of the International Benchmarking Study 2002 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the tax charge that would have been incurred in relation to the British Energy rescue and loan facilities, and the monies drawn from these facilities, the payment of which would be obviated by clause 4 of the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. [109525]

  Mr. Wilson
  The tax disregard provisions of Clause 4 only apply to grants made under Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act 1989. The credit facility agreement referred to is not provided under Schedule 12 and so will not benefit from the tax disregard.

  Electronic Communications (Market Analysis) Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received about the Electronic Communications (Market Analysis) Regulations. [110508]

  Mr. Timms
  No representations have been received since the Regulations (S.I. 2003/330) were made in February 2003. The Department had, however, consulted on the subject matter of these Regulations (together with the subject matter of the Electronic Communications (Universal Service) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/33)) in August 2002 and the Regulations that have been made take account of the responses to that consultation.

  Fairtrade Goods
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to promote the sale of Fairtrade goods. [110428]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We provided significant support of £1.3 million over the last three years for the Ethical Trading Initiative and £0.5 million over the last two years to the Fairtrade Foundation's efforts in promoting and supplying marketing of Fairtrade Products in the UK. My hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness held a meeting with business leaders in November 2002 to look at ways of mainstreaming Fairtrade as part of an on-going dialogue on this important issue. We have taken action to ensure that Fairtrade tea and coffee is available throughout the DTI's offices.

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to ensure that working parents with children under six or with disabled children are(a) able to request flexible working hours from employers and (b) that their requests are seriously considered. [110777]

  Alan Johnson
  On 6 April 2003, the Government introduced new employment legislation specifically to provide working parents with more choice in how they balance their work and family responsibilities. This 586W
  included a statutory right for employees with children under six, or disabled children under 18, to request flexible working arrangements, and a statutory duty on employers to consider such requests according to a set procedure.

  The procedure, set out in regulations and based on existing best practice, ensures that all requests are dealt with seriously and consistently, and assists those employers who may not have had experience of handling such requests before. Employers who deliberately ignore the legislation and breach any aspect of the procedure may risk being taken to an Employment Tribunal, who have the power to award compensation or order the application to be reconsidered. In addition, employers may only refuse an application on one or more of eight business grounds, which are specified in the Employment Act 2002. An employee has the right to complain to a Tribunal if the employer bases their refusal on other grounds or incorrect facts.

  To enable employers and employees to use the legislation most effectively, we have produced extensive guidance both on the internet at www.dti.gov.uk/ workingparents and in hard copy. Guidance is also available in an interactive format at www.tiger.gov.uk, and helpline support is being provided by Acas on 08457 47 47 47. To help raise awareness of the new legislation prior to it coming into force, the Government also ran a six-week advertising campaign in the national press.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place with mobile phone companies regarding internet access through mobile phones and exposure of children to inappropriate and illegal material; and what plans she has to address this. [111150]

  Mr. Timms
  It is Government policy to seek to ensure that the law in the UK applies on-line in the same way as it does in the off-line world. We recognise that technology now allows access to the internet via the latest generation of mobile phones. I welcome the decisions of most of the mobile operators to support financially the world of the Internet Watch Foundation.

  Mobile phone operators now have a responsibility as content providers. Therefore the DTI and other Government Departments have had discussions with all the operators to ensure that access by minors to inappropriate or illegal material is as hard as it is via any other medium.

  Government are working with industry to agree a Code of Practice with all the mobile operators. This will include giving parents the ability to block adult services on new mobile phones and a classification of all material offered. We expect to be able to agree and introduce the Code shortly.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the relative costs of(a) reprocessing 50-year cooled PWR spent reactor fuel and (b) reprocessing five-year cooled fuel at Sellafield using THORP. [109077]
  587W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have made no such estimate. It is for the owners of spent fuel to make judgments about the relative merits of reprocessing spent fuel on an early timescale in currently available reprocessing facilities as compared to other spent fuel management options that might be available. It can be noted that, should an owner choose to store spent fuel for an extended period pending future decisions on its final management, the option to reprocess the fuel would be dependent upon the necessary reprocessing facilities then being available. The United Kingdom's only PWR power station is Sizewell B, owned by British Energy, which has been in operation since 1995.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her estimate is of the relative costs of(a) non-reprocessing spent reactor fuel followed by encapsulation and (b) storage at a reactor site with the reprocessing, vitrification and storage as currently practised at Sellafield. [109078]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have made no estimate of the relative costs of different spent fuel management options. It is for the owners of spent fuel to make judgments about the relative merits of reprocessing spent fuel as compared to other spent fuel management options that might in future become available such as direct disposal.

  One NorthEast
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) the involvement of One North East in the decision-making process which preceded Budget 2003 and (b) One North East's role in delivering commitments made in Budget 2003. [111248]

  Alan Johnson
  (a) The Agency was asked, along with Government Office to feed in our Regional priorities for the Budget, in the context of the delivery of the Regional Economic Strategy and the Productivity in the UK report. We did this in January 2002.

  The Agency also responded to Treasury consultations on cross cutting issues, in particular Science and Industry.

  (b) One NorthEast's role in delivering commitments made in Budget 2002.

  The 2002 budget delivered excellent new flexibilities for all RDAs, through the establishment of a single budget for uncommitted resources. The activities funded by the Agency are agreed with Government through the Corporate Plan. One NorthEast's total gross expenditure for 2002–3 was 228 million. The provisional figures for 2002–03 show that the Agency has exceeded all of its targets.

  The RDA is also charged with leading the Region to ensure the delivery of Regional output targets, derived directly from Departmental PSA targets, and therefore directly contributing to the delivery of the Budget.

  The Regional Outcome targets are included in the Corporate Plan a copy of these has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations she has received from members of the public regarding the proposed deregulation of the pharmacy industry; and if she will make a statement. [110706]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have received numerous representations from members of the public and other stakeholders regarding the OFT report on the control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the UK.

  In relation to England, the Government have said that we favour change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that pharmacies play, especially in poorer and rural areas. The Government intend to come forward with a balanced package of proposals for consultation before the summer recess.

  The regulations on pharmacy entry controls are devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the devolved Administrations announced their responses to the OFT's recommendations on 26 March.

  Postal Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have been(a) proposed for closure by the Post Office, (b) referred to Postwatch on appeal, (c) recommended by Postwatch to remain open, (d) recommended by Postwatch to close and (e) subject to a closure decision by the Post Office under the Post Office urban reinvention programme. [110793]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: Data on the numbers of closure proposals put out to public consultation under the urban network reinvention programme and any subsequent Postwatch referrals and recommendations are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the distance criteria governing closure is being adapted under the Post Office urban reinvention programme to take account of(a) gradients of slope facing pedestrians, (b) the number of road crossings and traffic flows, (c) parking availability at remaining post offices and (d) expected waiting times at remaining post offices. [110794]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: The factors taken into account in formulating specific closure proposals put out to public consultation under the urban network reinvention programme are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(a) how many and (b) what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of the Department. [109463]
  589W
  Ms Hewitt
  Monitoring progress towards the Department's PSA targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation, including the Department's Permanent Secretary and Directors General who receive regular updates, as members of the Executive Board, on progress towards the PSA targets.

  Selby Coalfield
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from the National Union of Mineworkers concerning the Selby coalfield. [110216]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met representatives of the NUM on 12 February 2003 and was given a copy of a report commissioned by the NUM from National Economic Research Associates (NERA) entitled "Keeping the Selby Complex Open".

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the reviews of deaths in cases of domestic violence she has undertaken; and what her conclusions were in each case. [110671]

  The Solicitor-General
  I asked Chief Crown Prosecutors outside London to carry out domestic violence murder reviews in six suitable cases as an informal pilot scheme.
  590W
  The Ministerial Group on Domestic Violence has been considering the issue of murder reviews. The issue was included in the White Paper "Justice for All" published in July 2002 and will be picked up as part of the wider Consultation Paper on domestic violence that is to be published soon.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General on what dates files have been forwarded to the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions as a result of the inquiry being conducted by Sir John Stevens; how many files were forwarded in each case; in what proportion of cases the DPP has initiated a prosecution; and how many have been successful. [110865]

  The Solicitor-General
  Sir John Stevens' inquiries began in September 1989. Since then the Stevens' team has forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland a substantial number of reports relating to named individuals.

  During the course of the three inquiries, 9,256 statements have been taken, 10,391 documents recorded (totalling over one million pages) and 16,194 exhibits seized. To date, 94 persons have been convicted and 57 separate reports submitted to the Director for his consideration. The Director has been informed that further reports will be submitted. Further information could be provided only following an individual examination of each report and at a disproportionate cost.

  This information is also available in the Report published by Sir John Stevens on 17 April 2003.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Anti-terrorism Publicity
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many calls have been received by the Metropolitan police anti-terrorism hotline; and how many people are employed in the running of the Metropolitan police anti-terrorism hotline. [109513]

  Mr. Blunkett
  2,597 calls were received on the hotline between 17 March and 14 April 2003. The line is staffed 24hrs a day 7 days a week and has sufficient staff to deal with the volume of calls. All calls received are answered. For operational reasons, the Metropolitan police do not disclose staffing levels in its anti-terrorist branch or how they are deployed.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent by the Metropolitan police on(a) the Life Savers anti-terrorism advertising campaign and (b) the anti-terrorism hotline. [109514]

  Mr. Blunkett
  £410,000 in total was spent on the design, printing and advertising costs for the Life Savers anti-terrorism advertising campaign. Costs for the Anti-terrorism hotline are dependent on the volume of calls received and are covered by existing budgets.

  Asylum Support Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the Asylum Support (Amendment) Regulations. [110512]

  Beverley Hughes
  No representation have been received about the Asylum Support (Amendment) (No2) Regulations 2003.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the law concerning reporting allegations and suspicions of child abuse. [110358]

  Hilary Benn
  "Working Together to Safeguard Children", the Government's child protection guidance, sets out how all agencies and professionals should work together to promote children's welfare and protect them from abuse and neglect. It is intended to provide a national framework within which agencies and professionals at local level—individually and jointly— draw up and agree upon their more detailed ways of working together.

  The Protection of Children Guidance, produced for agencies, voluntary organisations etc. to accompany the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, makes it clear that in any case of suspected child abuse the police must always be contacted immediately.
  592W
  The suggestion that there should be a statutory obligation to report allegations or suspicions of child abuse is being considered in the light of the experience of other countries that have introduced mandatory reporting schemes.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the potential impact of making compulsory the reporting of(a) allegations and (b) suspicions of child abuse by persons in positions of authority. [110993]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government are considering the suggestion that there should be a statutory obligation to report allegations or suspicions of child abuse. In doing so, we will take into account the experience of other countries that have introduced mandatory reporting schemes. It is too early in our consideration to be able to report on our findings.

  Conference Costs
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what total cost was incurred by staff in his Department in attending conferences in 2002. [109572]

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

  Consultation Documents
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list written consultation documents which have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and which of them had consultation periods of(a) less than three weeks, (b) less than six weeks, (c) less than 12 weeks and (d) 12 weeks or more. [109567]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The details requested are listed.

  The way in which Government Departments conduct national written public consultations is governed by a code of conduct issued by Cabinet Office. The code stipulates that sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from interested parties. Twelve weeks is the standard minimum period for consultation unless Ministers conclude that exceptional circumstances require a departure. In order to improve the Department's performance against the code, we have put in place new guidance and arrangements in August 2002. There has since been a significant improvement in the Department's performance.

  However, there must be a balance between the demands of the public for action and the legitimate requirements to give time for feedback on the specific proposals for action.

  Documents with less than a three-week consultation period

  There were no consultations where the consultation period ran for less than three weeks.
  593W

  Documents with less than a six-week consultation period

  Title of consultation exercise

  Launch date

  Deadline for responses

  Number of weeks consultation

  Animal Rights Extremism: Government Strategy: A Consultation

  28 March 2001

  27 April 2001

  4.5

  Consultation of use of X/Gamma Radiation Scanner

  17 July 2001

  27 August 2001

  5.5

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code A

  11 March 2002

  19 April 2002

  5.5

  Criminal Justice White Paper: Proposals on jury exemptions and excusals Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment

  25 September 2002

  24 October 2002

  4

  Juxtaposed controls implementation—Dover-Calais

  25 March 2003

  25 April 2003

  4.5

  Documents with less than a 12-week consultation period

  Title of consultation exercise

  Launch date

  Deadline for responses

  Number of weeks consultation

  Animal Procedures—review of the Ethical Review Process

  11 January 2001

  23 March 2001

  10

  Race relations (Amendment) Act 2000—New Laws for a Successful Multi-Racial Britain

  22 February 2001

  15 May 2001

  11.5

  Guidance for the use of an Intermediary under s.29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

  3 May 2001

  29 June 2001

  8

  Funding Community Groups: a consultation document

  3 May 2001

  23 July 2001

  11.5

  Extension of Civil Penalties to Freight Shuttle Wagons

  18 July 2001

  29 August 2001

  6

  Consultation Paper on the Review of Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997

  30 July 2001

  19 October 2001

  11.5

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code F

  15 September 2001

  31 October 01

  6.5

  Accessing Communications data—Draft code of practice

  13 August 2001

  2 November 2001

  11.5

  Review of Family Visitors Appeals

  29 October 2001

  14 December 2001

  6.5

  Fees for the removal and storage of vehicles, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

  16 November 2001

  28 December 2001

  6

  Improving the planning of Young People Substance Misuse Services

  1 November 2001

  31 December 2001

  8.5

  White Paper 'Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for reform'

  5 December 2001

  21 January 2002

  6.5

  Death in Police Custody—Consultation paper on revising the definition of categories of deaths of members of the public during or following police contact

  14 December 2001

  31 January 2002

  6.5

  Motor Salvage Operators Regulations 2002, made under the Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001

  4 January 2002

  1 March 2002

  8

  Secure Borders Safe Haven—Integration with diversity in modern Britain

  7 February 2002

  21 March 2002

  6

  Extension of controlled drugs licensing

  11 February 2002

  1 May 2002

  11

  Proposed changes to the Misuse of Drugs legislation

  4 March 2002

  17 May 2002

  10.5

  Charging for the consideration of Work Permit applications

  15 April 2002

  5 July 2002

  11.5

  Police and Criminal Evidence Act—Code B—E

  12 June 2002

  16 August 2002

  9

  Review of Seasonal Agricultural Workers' Scheme 2002

  3 June 2002

  23 August 2002

  11.5

  Breaking the Circle—A report of the review of the rehabilitation of offenders act

  17 July 2002

  13 September 2002

  8

  Proceeds of Crime Act Section 377—Code of Practice Investigation Powers

  14 October 2002

  3 January 2003

  11.5

  Implementation of juxtaposed controls at Calais

  20 November 2002

  7 February 2003

  11.5

  Sexual Offences Bill—sex offenders who travel abroad

  28 January 2003

  21 March 2003

  7.5

  Patient Group Directions (PGD)—Proposal to permit the supply of certain controlled drugs by health professionals under the PGD system

  7 February 2003

  7 April 2003 (extended to 17 April 2003)

  9.5

  Criminal Records Bureau—reform of the disclosure process

  27 February 2003

  25 April 2003

  8

  Documents with more than 12-week consultation period

  Title of consultation exercise

  Launch date

  Deadline for responses

  Number of weeks consultation

  The Law on Extradition: a review

  12 March 2001

  8 June 2001

  12.5

  Review of the Victims Charter

  27 February 2001

  15 June 2001

  15.5

  The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: A consultation leaflet

  25 April 2001

  30 July 2001

  13.5

  The Halliday Report—Making punishments work

  5 July 2001

  31 October 2001

  16.5

  Ratification of the Driving Disqualification Convention

  25 September 2001

  18 December 2001

  12

  Review of Crime Reduction Training

  4 March 2002

  27 May 2002

  12

  Review of Work Permit Policy on Recruitment of employment agencies and contractors

  18 March 2002

  14 June 2002

  12.5

  Merger of CDRPs/DATs

  3 May 2002

  26 July 2002

  12

  Working Holidaymaker Scheme: Consultation document

  29 May 2002

  23 August 2002

  12

  Justice for All (Home Office, Attorney General and Lord Chancellor)

  17 July 2002

  9 October 2002

  12

  Connecting communities, race equality grant programme

  31 July 2002

  25 October 2002

  12

  Protocol to the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters

  9 August 2002

  1 November 2002

  12

  594W 595W

  Title of consultation exercise

  Launch date

  Deadline for responses

  Number of weeks consultation

  Proceeds of Crime Act Section 292—Code of Practice for search powers regarding recovery of criminal proceeds

  23 August 2002

  15 November 2002

  12

  Proceeds of Crime Act—Part 7 Section 339 Money Laundering

  23 August 2002

  15 November 2002

  12

  Fundamental review of death certification and the Coroner services in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  9 August 2002

  22 November 2002

  15

  Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud

  3 July 2002

  10 January 2003

  27

  Proposals to make lawful the supply of specific items of drugs paraphernalia to drug users

  18 November 2002

  14 February 2003

  12.5

  IAA 1999 provision of facilities at ports and charging for additional services section 25/26 1999 Act

  25 November 2002

  17 February 2003

  12

  Business Crime Consultation

  2 December 2002

  28 February 2003

  12.5

  Insurance Cover Working Group paper (Voluntary Sector Insurance)

  31 January 2003

  25 April 2003

  12

  Coroner's Review
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report of the Home Office Coroner's Review. [110801]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: The Independent Review of Coroner Services reported to the Home Secretary at the end of April. The Review Group's report will be published once Ministers have had the opportunity to consider it.

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) cost of and (b) number of visitors to each website operated by his Department and each agency and non-departmental public body for which his Department is responsible in each year since its establishment. [107602]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The available information is shown in the table. For 1998 to 2001, it reflects expenditure on the corporate Home Office website only. Figures for 2001 onwards include all known Home Office funded web properties excluding Criminal Justice System (CJS) Online.

  £

  Year

  Cost

  Visitors

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  1999–2000

  40,614

  n/a

  2000–01

  58,170

  484,269

  2001–02

  1,576,214

  3,830,772

  2002–03

  11,643,356

  16,099,197

  1 These figures include the cost of the site volcomgrants.gov.uk but no statistics of use are available.

  As it has evolved, the Home Office website has used the most suitable statistical analysis software available. The figures shown in the table therefore represent the most accurate information available to us at the time of each reported statistic.

  Websites accounted for in these figures for 2001–02 onwards:

  www.apc.gov.uk

  www.ask-the-football-fans.gov.uk

  www.assetsrecovery.gov.uk

  www.bicester-centre.co.uk

  www.communitycohesion.gov.uk

  596W

  www.crimereduction.gov.uk

  www.dpas.gov.uk

  www.drugs.gov.uk

  www.dspdprogramme.gov.uk

  www.fairersentencing.gov.uk

  www.goldenjubileeaward.gov.uk

  www.good2bsecure.co.uk

  www.hmenterprises.gov.uk

  www.hmpenterprises.co.uk

  www.hmpnewgate.co.uk

  www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk

  www.homeoffice.gov.uk

  www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk

  www.ipcc.gov.uk

  www.kebabathon.co.uk

  www.mappaonline.co.uk

  www.policecouldyou.co.uk

  www.policereform.gov.uk

  www.positivefutures.gov.uk

  www.ppo.gov.uk

  www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk

  www.secureyourmotor.gov.uk

  www.sentencing-advisory-panel.gov.uk

  www.specialconstables.gov.uk

  www.surveillancecommissioners.gov.uk

  www.technicaladvisoryboard.org.uk

  www.thinkuknow.co.uk

  www.volcomgrants.gov.uk

  www.wiseuptothenet.co.uk

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee for protection against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom, the number of times and the dates on which it has met since January 2002, the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, the decisions it has made since January 2002 and the means used to communicate these decisions to the House. [110499]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  This committee has not been set up.

  Firearms
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many firearms have been handed in to police over the past five years in(a) Merseyside, (b) St. Helens, (c) England and (d) London; [108893]

  (2) how many deaths by firearms have occurred in each of the last five years in (a) Merseyside, (b) St. Helens, (c) England and (d) London per head of population; [108890]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the number of illegal firearms in circulation in Merseyside; and if he will make a statement; [108891]

  (4) how many crimes involving firearms have occurred in each of the last five years in (a) Merseyside, (b) St. Helens, (c) England and (d) London per head of population. [108889]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Details of the number of illegal firearms in circulation by police force area are not collected centrally.

  Available published data by police area, on the total number of recorded crimes in which firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used are given in the table.

  Information on firearms offences per head of population are not available.

  Number of offences involving firearms

  Year

  Merseyside

  London

  England

  1997

  576

  2,930

  11,816

  1998–99

  856

  3,005

  13,283

  1999–2000

  914

  4,123

  16,234

  2001–01

  1,041

  4,264

  17,083

  Information on the number of firearms that have been handed in to police are not routinely collected centrally.

  Available published data by police force area, on the number of recorded homicide offences in which firearms were reported to have been used are given in the table.

  Number of homicide offences involving firearms

  Year

  Merseyside

  London

  England

  1997

  3

  26

  57

  1998–99

  3

  19

  49

  1999–2000

  3

  24

  62

  2000–01

  3

  28

  72

  Numbers of firearms offences were published on a calendar year basis up to 1997, and on a financial year basis thereafter. The London area refers to the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police.

  There was a change of counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which will have the effect of increasing the number of crimes counted. Numbers of recorded crimes before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.

  As a result of some police forces adopting the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in advance of its official introduction across
  598W
  England and Wales on 1 April 2002, numbers of offences recorded in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 for England may have been inflated. Both Merseyside and the London forces (Metropolitan Police and City of London Police) adopted the Standard on 1 April 2002, therefore their figures for 2001–02 will not be affected.

  Details of firearms offences are not collected at a smaller breakdown than police force area.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what IND will answer the letters of the hon. Member for Southwark North and Bermondsey of 25 July 2002 and 10 December 2002 about the immigration application of Mr. Patrick Sabure, Congolese citizen, of London SE17. [110217]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: I am sorry that the hon. Member has not had an earlier reply. I understand that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have now replied to his letters of 25 July 2002 and 10 December 2002.

  Narrowing the Justice Gap
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets have been set under the Narrowing the Justice Gap programme. [109591]

  Hilary Benn
  The Public Service Agreement target to bring 1.2 million recorded offences to justice by 2005–06, with an improvement in all Criminal Justice System areas, a greater increase in the worst performing areas, and a reduction in the proportion of ineffective trials, is referred to as the 'Narrowing the Justice Gap' target. This target applies to the criminal justice system in England and Wales as a whole. The various criminal justice services have not been set their own 'Narrowing the Justice Gap' targets: rather, the services in each area need to work together to deliver the target. For 2003–04, each Local Criminal Justice Board has been set a 'Narrowing the Justice Gap' target to increase the number of offences brought to justice in its area by 5 per cent., compared with the area's performance in 2001–02. From 2004–05, the worse performing areas will be expected to achieve a greater performance increase than the national average performance improvement required in order to achieve the 2005–06 target. Local Criminal Justice Boards have been asked to set a 2003–04 target for their own area for reduction of ineffective trials.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many certificates he has issued under section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 since it came into force. [109571]

  Beverley Hughes
  Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was partly commenced on 10 February 2003 and fully commenced on 1 April 2003. No certificate has yet been issued under section 72. We will not hesitate to use this power as and when appropriate cases are identified.

  Offending Behaviour Programmes
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the rates were for re-offending by offenders who have completed accredited offending behaviour programmes, broken down by(a) programme and (b) area, in the most recent complete year available. [109516]

  Hilary Benn
  The information sought is not yet available. The reconviction rate is measured over a two-year period from completion of the programme. The first accredited offending behaviour programmes were introduced in 2001 and reconviction data will not be available until spring 2004.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many completions there have been of accredited offending behaviour programmes since each programme's inception, broken down by

  Table A: Accredited Programmes Completions April 2001-March 2002

  Think First

  ETS

  R&R

  Priestley 1 to 1

  ASRO

  PRISM

  ART

  DIDs

  SOGP

  Total per area

  Avon and Somerset

  105

  -

  -

  -

  105

  Bedfordshire

  39

  1

  4

  3

  47

  Cambridgeshire

  30

  -

  -

  30

  Cheshire

  42

  -

  42

  Co. Durham

  102

  102

  Cumbria

  42

  42

  Devon and Cornwall

  72

  72

  Derbyshire

  72

  7

  79

  Dyfed-Powys

  11

  11

  Dorset

  34

  34

  Essex

  88

  -

  88

  Gloucestershire

  29

  1

  33

  2

  65

  Greater Manchester

  238

  -

  238

  Gwent

  23

  23

  Hampshire

  66

  66

  Hertfordshire

  67

  67

  Humberside

  43

  1

  44

  Kent

  44

  4

  -

  -

  48

  Lancashire

  99

  63

  162

  Leicestershire and Rutland

  62

  -

  -

  -

  62

  Lincolnshire

  35

  -

  -

  35

  London

  465

  34

  499

  Merseyside

  109

  109

  Norfolk

  52

  -

  52

  North Wales

  20

  20

  North Yorkshire

  28

  -

  28

  Northamptonshire

  43

  43

  Northumbria

  219

  37

  61

  317

  Nottinghamshire

  31

  -

  -

  -

  31

  South Wales

  33

  33

  South Yorkshire

  18

  12

  30

  Staffordshire

  10

  -

  10

  Suffolk

  31

  2

  33

  Surrey

  26

  48

  -

  -

  74

  Sussex

  40

  -

  40

  Teesside

  99

  2

  1

  102

  Thames Valley

  96

  53

  149

  Warwickshire

  -

  5

  -

  5

  West Mercia

  12

  4

  -

  16

  West Midlands

  168

  168

  West Yorkshire

  130

  130

  Wiltshire

  32

  32

  Totals per programme

  2,374

  464

  190

  116

  96

  6

  -

  15

  122

  3,383

  Full name of programme:

  Think First

  Enhanced Thinking Skills (ETS)

  Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R)

  Priestley One-to-One (1–2-1)

  Addressing Substance-related Offending (ASRO)

  Programme for Reducing Individual Substance Misuse (PRISM)

  Aggression Replacement Training (ART)

  Drink Impaired Drivers (DIDs)

  Sex Offender Groupwork Programmes (SOGP)1

  1 (SOGP includes Thames Valley (TV-SOGP), Northumbria (N-SOGP) and West Midlands (C-SOGP) Programmes
  600W
  (a) programme and (b) area in each full year available; and what efforts are being made to reduce programme attrition. [109517]

  Hilary Benn
  The National Probation Service is making good progress with the implementation of its accredited offending behaviour programmes. There were 3,383 completions in the only full year for which figures are available, April 2001 to March 2002. Table A provides a breakdown by area and programme. Since roll out began in January 2001, 8,613 individuals have completed accredited offending behaviour programmes.

  The National Probation Service is tackling attrition by addressing case management and programme targeting. Each probation area is required to prepare an attrition action plan which will be monitored as part of the National Probation Service's performance management framework.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial penalties have been imposed on private prison contractors in respect of privately operated establishments in each financial year since 1997–98; what the reasons were for each penalty; and whether the imposition of a penalty resulted in each case in the withholding of the corresponding amount from the contractor concerned. [109520]

  Hilary Benn
  The following table shows the financial penalties imposed and the reasons for these penalties. Forest Bank prison and young offender institution has not incurred financial deductions.

  Number of occasions

  Penalty: (£)

  Reasons (PP= Performance Points)

  Dates

  Altcourse Prison

  Operating contractor: Group 4 Falck

  01

  2,368.58

  PPs for Qtr 2 PPs & Doubling

  September 1998

  02

  195,000.00

  Qtrs 2, 3 and 4

  03

  4,144.97

  PPs for Qtr 3

  December 1998

  04

  3,954.04

  PPs for Qtr 4

  March 1999

  05

  3,511.23

  PPs for Qtr 1

  June 1999

  06

  3,304.27

  PPs for Qtr 2

  September 1999

  07

  440.40

  PPs for Qtr 3

  December 1999

  08

  108,039.25

  PPs for Qtr 4

  February 2000

  09

  4.82

  PPs for Qtr 4

  March 2000

  10

  34,061.74

  PPs for Qtr 1

  May 2000

  11

  9.77

  PPs for Qtr 1

  June 2000

  12

  72,644

  PPs for Qtr 4

  November 2000

  Ashfield Young Offender Institution

  Operating contractor: Primier Prison Services

  01

  66,310.41

  PPs for Qtr 4

  January 2002

  02

  111,552.95

  PPs for Qtr 1

  April 2002

  03

  126,026.47

  PPs for Qtr 2

  July 2002

  04

  46,417.99

  PPs for Qtr 3

  October 2002

  Blakenhurst Prison

  Former operating contractor: UKDS. Under Prison Service management since 19 August 2001

  25,000.00

  Escape

  November 1998

  Dovegate Prison

  Operating contractor:

  Premier prison Services

  01

  168,015.24

  PPs for Qtr 1

  January 2002

  02

  116,807.46

  PPs for Qtr 2

  April 2002

  03

  141,774.69

  PPs for Qtr 3

  July 2002

  Doncaster Prison and Young Offender Institution

  Operating contractor: Premier Prison Services

  30,000.00

  Escape

  August 2001

  Lowdham Grange Prison

  Operating contractor: Premier Prison Services

  01

  702.00

  PPs for Qtr 1

  June 1998

  02

  45,080,00

  PPs for Qtr 3

  November 1998

  04

  6,334.00

  PPs for Qtr 4

  February 1999

  05

  11,865.00

  PPs for Qtr 4

  February 2000

  06

  5,703.00

  PPs for Qtr 1

  May 2001

  Parc Prison

  Operating contractor: Securicor

  01

  54,782.00

  PPs for Qtr 4

  March 1998

  02

  1,308.56

  PPs for Qtr 1

  July 1998

  03

  298.09

  Doubling PP's for Qtr 3

  June 1998

  04

  750,000.00

  + doubling PP's for Qtr 1

  November 1998

  05

  7,520.17

  + doubling

  May 1999

  06

  80,390.38

  Doubling Qtr 2

  August 1999

  07

  2,296.94

  Doubling Qtr 2

  September 1999

  08

  109,329.27

  Doubling Qtr 3

  November 1999

  09

  601.77

  Doubling Qtr 4

  January 2000

  10

  7,708.10

  PPs for Qtr 1

  April 2000

  11

  5,401.68

  PPs for Qtr 2

  July 2000

  12

  3,448.07

  PPs for Qtr 3

  October 2000

  13

  59.22

  PPs for Qtr 4

  January 2001

  602W

  Number of occasions

  Penalty: (£)

  Reasons (PP= Performance Points)

  Dates

  Rye Hill Prison

  Operating contractor: Group 4 Falck

  60,000.00

  Escape

  June 2002

  Wolds Prison

  Operating contractor: Group 4 Falck

  01

  3,607.50

  PPs for Qtr 3

  October 1999

  01

  10,432.50

  PPs for Qtr 4

  January 2000

  03

  15,353.00

  PPs for Qtr 2

  July 2000

  04

  9,782.50

  PPs for Qtr 3

  October 2000

  05

  4,680.00

  PPs for Qtr 4

  January 2000

  06

  11,472.50

  PPs for Qtr 1

  April 2001

  07

  3,724.50

  PPs for Qtr 2

  July 2001

  With the exception of the £195,000 and £108,039.25 penalties imposed on Altcourse in November 1998 and February 2000, the £750,000 penalty imposed on Parc in November 1998 and the £11,865 penalty imposed on Lowdham Grange in February 2000, the imposition of a penalty resulted in each case in the withholding of the corresponding amount from the contractor concerned. In the case of Altcourse and Parc, the penalties were reduced to take account of early problems with contract monitoring and in the case of Lowdham Grange the penalty was waived in return for a commitment from the contractor to provide additional services beyond the requirements in the contract.

  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations of HM Inspector of Prisons following the visits to HM Prison Kingston on 12–16 February 2001 and 5–7 November 2002 with particular reference to elderly prisoners. [110334]

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to the prison service on the implementation of recommendations from the visits of HM Inspector to prisons, following the inspection report by HM Inspector of Prisons at HM Prison Kingston on 5–7 November 2002. [110343]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service will, as with all such reports, produce an action plan based on each of the recommendations made by the chief inspector. The action plan will set out the Prison Service's response to each recommendation, the action to be taken to implement recommendations and the person responsible, together with a timescale for implementation. The Prison Service accepts the vast majority of recommendations made by the Chief Inspector in all of her reports, and provides updates to me and to the Chief Inspector.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners(a) started sentences in prisons and (b) completed sentences and left prisons in England and Wales in each month between April 2001 and March 2003. [110356]
  603W
  Hilary Benn
  The number of prisoners who were(a) received under sentence and (b) discharged from sentences in prisons in England and Wales in each month between April 2001 and February 2003 are given in the following table:

  Receptions

  2001

  2002

  2003

  January

  8,260

  7,790

  February

  8,430

  7,590

  March

  8,020

  April

  7,170

  8,060

  May

  7,730

  9,030

  June

  7,820

  6,660

  July

  7,990

  8,600

  August

  7,970

  7,670

  September

  7,200

  7,860

  October

  8,220

  8,440

  November

  8,080

  7,730

  December

  5,890

  5,980

  Discharges

  2001

  2002

  2003

  January

  6,600

  7,000

  February

  6,300

  6,400

  March

  7,500

  April

  6,900

  7,200

  May

  7,100

  8,400

  June

  7,100

  6,200

  July

  7,200

  8,000

  August

  7,800

  7,400

  September

  6,700

  7,100

  October

  7,400

  7,600

  November

  7,700

  7,800

  December

  7,600

  8,700

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners, and in which establishments do prisoners, eat their meals in their cells(a) every day and (b) more than half the week. [110399]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and I shall write to my hon. Friend once it is available. In many cases there will be the option for prisoners to eat meals in cell or while on association. Arrangements will also vary at different mealtimes.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what incentives are given to the operators of private prisons to reduce the rate of recidivism of the inmates they house. [110487]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 588W.

  Probation Services
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average change in(a) management, (b) maintenance of property and (c) hostel facilities costs for probation areas is in England and Wales in 2003–04. [109565]
  604W
  Hilary Benn
  The National Probation Directorate (NPD) does not have reliable data on the cost of management, maintenance of the commercial estate and hostels facilities in 2002–03 and therefore there is no realistic baseline by which any cost increase can be measured. The cost of management, maintenance of the commercial estate and hostels facilities in 2003–04 will not accurately be known until the end of the year when audited accounts are produced. The total revenue budget for 2003–04 is about £60 million for the commercial estate and about £14 million for the approved premises. This includes rents, rates, utility costs, depreciation and capital charges and also management and maintenance costs. The exact split of this budget for 2003–04 is still being determined as the NPD collects more accurate detailed data on costs. This will also depend on a number of factors, which will include the numbers and types of properties that are occupied and disposed of during the year and the extent of the repair and maintenance required.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the change in(a) management, (b) maintenance of property and (c) hostel facilities costs for probation areas is for 2003–04 in (i) Avon and Somerset, (ii) Merseyside, (iii) West Yorkshire, (iv) Staffordshire, (v) Lancashire, (vi) Greater London, (vii) Kent and (viii) Thames Valley. [109566]

  Hilary Benn
  The National Probation Directorate (NPD) does not have reliable data on the cost of management, maintenance of the commercial estate and hostels facilities in 2002–03 by individual probation area and therefore there is no realistic baseline by which any cost increase can be measured. The cost of management, maintenance of the commercial estate and hostels facilities in 2003–04 by individual probation area will not accurately be known until the end of the year when audited accounts are produced. The total revenue budget for 2003–04 is about £60 million for the commercial estate and about £14 million for the approved premises. This includes rents, rates, utility costs, depreciation and capital charges and also management and maintenance costs. The exact split of this budget for 2003–04 between individual probation areas is still being determined as the NPD collects more accurate detailed data on costs. This will also depend on a number of factors, which will include the numbers and types of properties that are occupied and disposed of during the year and the extent of the repair and maintenance required to properties in each area.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the status of the "What Works" programme in the national probation service. [109592]

  Hilary Benn
  An evidence-based approach to probation practice is essential if the National Probation Service's work with offenders is to be effective in reducing re-offending and improving public protection. "What Works" is therefore at the heart of the Director General's on-going change programme for the Service and is vital to its success.
  605W
  The National Probation Service has 13 accredited offending behaviour programmes with others in development. Other important elements of What Works include the introduction this year of Enhanced Community Punishment, the development of community re-integration approaches in relation to employment, training and education, and the development of a national case management framework. What Works is underpinned by the new Offender Assessment System, the implementation of which is well advanced.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of the Department. [109460]

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

  Staff Numbers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in the last six months, broken down by grade. [109573]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have placed the tables showing figures obtained from the centrally managed area of the Home Office, Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Merseyside Personnel Management area, the Prison Service Agency, Forensic Science Service, and the Passport and Records Agency in the Library. Both methods of entry to the Department and leaving methods have been grouped to show the broad methods.

  Vehicle Crime Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the Vehicle Crime (Registration of Registration Plate Suppliers) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations. [110506]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply

  The regulations referred to introduce a minor amendment to correct a drafting error in the Vehicles Crime (Registration Plate Suppliers) (England and Wales) Regulations.

  The register of number plate suppliers has been operational since 1 January and over 30,000 retail outlets have registered. We have received numerous requests for clarification, but all the indications are that businesses are adjusting their procedures to comply with the new regulations.

  Work Permits
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 12 March 2003,Official Report, column 310W, on work permits, how many individuals were granted a discretionary
  606W
  extension of stay for the purpose of work permit employment in the last two years where that individual did not meet the normal criteria. [109605]

  Beverley Hughes
  It is not possible to extract from the information recorded on the management systems used by Work Permits (UK) the figure showing the number of individuals who were granted a discretionary extension of stay for the purpose of work permit employment, where the individual did not meet the normal criteria.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Visually Impaired People
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what factors underlie the decision not to include a requirement for access technology for visually impaired people in the funding for the People's Network and UK online; what plans she has to include it; and if she will make a statement; [110478]

  (2) if she will make it her policy to ensure that when public money is made available to libraries a proportion of it is allocated to library services and to access to books for visually impaired people; and if she will make a statement; [110480]

  (3) what plans she has to ensure that the review of the Public Library Standards of England and Wales will ensure that there are specific requirements for library services to visually impaired people; [110479]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the access to reading of visually impaired people; and what plans she has to assist the charities who work in this field to improve the level of access; [110481]

  Mr. Caborn
  Applications for Capital Modernisation Funding (CMF) to support UK Online centres had to include access provision for those with physical, learning, or sensory disabilities. Successful bidders would have received appropriate equipment. UK Online includes a public libraries element, The People's Network, which is funded by the National Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund, allows each computer to be configured for those with visual impairments.

  In addition, 811 packages, made available to online centres, include large keyboards together with magnification and screen reading software, which incorporates voice output for text.

  The Office of the e-Envoy has also established a Working Group of those in the website design industry to improve accessibility and the Department for Education and Skills is investing significant sums to facilitate the implementation of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA) which will broaden access to education, and educational material. The Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002 removes barriers to obtaining copyright clearance for voluntary bodies and educational establishments working on behalf of the visually impaired. A commencement order is expected to be made shortly.
  607W
  Current Public Library Standards encourage Library Authorities to provide effective, and relevant services reinforced by the creation of local targets which focus on important user groups including those with disabilities. A review of existing Public Library Standards will, of course, include consideration of how the standards should best reflect the needs of the visually impaired and other specialist users.

  Within the local authority Standard Spending Assessment there is block funding for cultural services, including Public Libraries. In accordance with the policy for local government, outlined in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Service", there is no intention to 'ring-fence' funds to the public library service. Each local authority must use its own discretion when allocating funds in this area. No formal assessment of access to reading for the visually impaired has been made. The Government are committed to ensuring that disabled people can participate in every aspect of normal life, although, in considering public expenditure, the Government must also take into account a wide range of competing priorities. A number of different Government Departments have an interest in this policy area, and activity is wide and varied, including improving access to books and publications in alternative formats.

  The Director General of the RNIB has recently written to Government Departments setting out a series of recommendations and actions which he would like to see put in place. A meeting of officials from across Whitehall is planned for mid-May and, it is expected that an announcement of what assistance might be available will follow soon after.

  Archaeology
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what rules are applied to people and organisations seeking to participate in archaeological work alongside major developments. [110838]

  Dr. Howells
  Planning permission for major development works is granted by the relevant local authority, and it is for local authority archaeological officers to ensure that any archaeological conditions attached to planning permission are met, as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 16. A specification is submitted to the local authority before any archaeological work is approved, which would include the competence and experience of those undertaking the work.

  The Government support the introduction of a voluntary code of conduct for archaeological investigations and English Heritage has already begun work to develop a voluntary code of conduct with Historic Scotland and Cadw.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from academic centres of archaeology about the expertise of the people and organisations carrying out archaeological work alongside major developments. [110839]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has received no representations specifically on the expertise of people and organisations carrying out archaeological work 608W
  alongside major developments, but is fully committed to maintaining high standards in the examination and recording of sites. The Government support the introduction of a voluntary code of conduct for archaeological investigations, and English Heritage has already begun work to develop a voluntary code of conduct with Historic Scotland and Cadw, which is being undertaken in consultation with all parts of the archaeological community.

  Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in the Department. [110531]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has set a target to have 5 per cent. of senior posts filled by people with disabilities by March 2005. Data on disability is collected on the basis of voluntary self-classification. There are currently no staff filling senior posts who have declared a disability. Some specialist senior posts are advertised in open competition in order to provide a wider pool of diverse applicants. An initial disability survey resulted in an 80 per cent. response rate and the Department will shortly be carrying out a mop-up survey to further improve on this.

  The Department participates in the Civil Service Bursary Scheme for People with Disabilities by offering senior mentors and by sponsoring those successful in securing a place on the scheme. The Department is also a member of the Cabinet Office Working Group on Disability. This year the Department will be hosting a number of graduate level work placements for people with disabilities, focusing its recruitment activity on attracting a wider pool of diverse applicants and running a number of awareness raising initiatives.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on the export of cultural goods, the number of times and the dates on which it has met since January 2002, the agenda items it has considered since January 2002. the decisions it has made since January 2002 and the means used to communicate these decisions to the House. [110502]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK officials who have attended Advisory Committee on Cultural Goods (ACCG) are Hillary Bauer, Head of the Cultural Property Unit, Grade A (formerly Principal), Department for Culture Media and Sport and Anne-Marie Dryden, Policy Adviser, Band 7, (formerly Higher Executive Officer) HM Customs and Excise. ACCG has met twice since January 2002, on 4 July 2002 and 30 January 2003. The agenda items for both meetings are as below. The ACCG acts as an advisory body to the European Commission and therefore does not of itself make any final decisions.
  609W
  Agenda: 4 July 2002

  1. Adoption of agenda;

  2. Approval of the minutes of the 10th meeting;

  3. Information on the accompanying documents or others used by the member states;

  4. Interpretation of the term "collection";

  5. Possible revision of the financial thresholds applicable to certain categories of cultural goods. Information on the result of the survey carried out with the member states;

  6. Guidelines for administrative co-operation between the competent authorities. Presentation of the document drawn up by the Working Party;

  7. Export authorisation form. Examination and possible approval of the new model adopted by the Working Party;

  8. Explanatory notes of the export authorisation form. Examination and possible approval of the guide developed by the Working Party;

  9. Information on the study undertaken on the traceability of cultural goods;

  10. Any other business.

  Agenda: 30 January 2003

  1. Adoption of the agenda;

  2. Approval of the minutes of the 11th meeting;

  3. Interpretation of the term "collection";

  4. Guidelines for administrative co-operation between the competent authorities;

  5. Export authorisation form. Examination and possible approval of the new model adopted by the Working Party;

  6. Explanatory notes of the export authorisation form. Examination and possible approval of the guide worked out by the Working Party;

  7. Information on questions concerning Directive 93/7 EEC

  8. Any other business.

  Holidays in Britain
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support she is giving to the promotion of British food and drink within her campaign for Britons to holiday in Britain this year. [110748]

  Dr. Howells
  VisitBritain's new domestic marketing campaign 'Enjoy England' was launched on 23 April 2003. The campaign features aspects of England's core products centred on the four key themes of experience, discovery, exploration and relaxation. There are many references in the campaign's promotional material to regional food and drink products and events. The VisitEngland website provides a full listing of annual food and drink events and festivals and provides links to details of Farmers' Markets by county.

  I also recently launched Visit Heart of England's Food and Drink Toolkit to further promote regional food and drink in the tourism sector.

  Market Towns
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to preserve market towns. [110691]

  Dr. Howells
  It is fundamental to the Government's policies for environmental stewardship that there should be effective protection for all aspects of the historic environment, including market towns. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 610W
  provides specific protection for buildings and areas of special architectural or historic interest. The Government is currently undertaking a review of heritage protection legislation to improve the effectiveness of the current designation system, and to approach the designation and management of the historic environment more holistically.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from heritage groups in the United Kingdom regarding the preservation of market towns. [110692]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has received no representations specifically on the preservation of market towns, but is fully committed to ensuring that all aspects of the historic environment are both valued and protected effectively.

  Television Licence (Deaf People)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to introduce a television licence fee for deaf people. [110652]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government recognise the importance of access to television services for deaf people but believe this is best achieved by increasing the proportion of programmes that are subtitled and translated into sign language, rather than by introducing television licence fee concessions. There are already targets for subtitling on analogue and Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) and for signing on DTT. The Communications Bill extends these requirements to digital cable and satellite broadcasters for the first time. Amendments to the BBC Agreement will require the Corporation to observe Ofcom's code relating to provision for deaf and visually impaired people.

TRANSPORT

  Air Safety
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures(a) are in place and (b) are proposed to ensure passenger safety in terms of the efficiency of aircraft cabin air-conditioning and filter systems. [111038]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) requirements for airlines to fit air filtration systems to aircraft air-conditioning systems. However, most modern large airlines are fitted with High Efficiency Particulate Air filters as a matter of airline choice.

  Where filters are fitted, the CAA requires that airlines have in place a maintenance programme that ensures that air conditioning filters are used and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and that, when specified by the aircraft manufacturer, these airlines implement a reliability programme that monitors system performance to ensure that it does not fall below the manufacturer's limits.

  Aircraft Noise
  Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the health risks
  611W
  associated with the impact of aircraft noise on people; and how many people he estimates have had their health affected by aircraft noise in the South East of England region. [111138]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Available evidence suggests that aircraft noise, either at current levels or at the far higher levels experienced in the 1970s around Heathrow, has no detectable direct effect on the physical health of communities near airports. However, health may be interpreted more widely to encompass impacts upon quality of life, including sleep disturbance and serious annoyance otherwise caused. Some indication of the scale of annoyance is available from noise contours, which have substantially contracted at Heathrow and Gatwick over the past two decades or so (but have expanded at Stansted).

  Daytime contours for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports in 2001 are available on the DfT website at www.aviation.dft.gov.iik/nec01/index.htm. Further information for these and other airports in the South East is available in the relevant consultation documents on the Future Development of Air Transport and supporting technical material.

  The Government are signatory to the WHO Charter on Transport, the Environment and Health, and have regard to the guidelines referred to therein.

  Bull Bars
  Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action she intends to take on bull bars following the consultation exercise carried out during the last Parliament; and if she will bring forward legislation for aggressive bull bars to be made illegal. [111151]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The most effective way of controlling aggressive bull bars is via technical standards in European legislation.

  We have submitted a technical proposal, following UK research, to the Commission setting out how this could be achieved. We expect the Commission to bring forward its proposals on controlling bull bars later this year.

  In the meantime we welcome the commitment by the European Motor Industry to stop fitting rigid bull bars to new cars from 2002.

  Bus Crime
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Home Office, (b) the Metropolitan Police and (c) Transport for London regarding crime on buses in the London Borough of Havering; and if he will make a statement. [110548]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State meets with other Ministers and the Mayor of London from time to time to discuss a variety of transport issues, including those relating to safety and security on buses. Issues relating to crime on buses in London are primarily a matter for the Mayor of London and the Metropolitan Police Authority.

  Goods Vehicle Operators Licences
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the application for a Goods Vehicle Operators licence in the Caerwent area of Monmouthshire; what representations can be submitted by parish or community councils with respect to such applications; and what representations have been received by Caerwent Community Council. [111284]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The administration of the goods vehicle operator licensing system is the responsibility of statutorily independent Traffic Commissioners. A person may make representations against the grant of the licence application if they own or occupy land or buildings in the vicinity of a proposed operating centre. This can include parish or community councils.

  Highways Agency (Illegal Encampments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what guidance is given to Highways Agency staff on illegal camping on agency property; [111006]

  (2) when the Highways Agency was informed of the illegal occupation of their land at Foston, Derbyshire; and when the agency sought a notice to quit the site. [111007]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 6 May 2003:

  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what guidance is given to Highways Agency staff on illegal camping on Agency property, when the Agency was made aware of the illegal occupation of its land at Foston, Derbyshire, and when it sought a notice to quit the site.

  Highways Agency staff are guided by the advice contained in Department of the Environment Circular 18/94 "Gypsy Sites Policy and Unauthorised Camping". That states that Gypsies should not be moved unnecessarily from unauthorised encampments when they are causing no nuisance.

  The Agency was first notified on 24 March that Gypsies had occupied the land adjacent to the A50/A511 in Foston. An assessment of the situation was carried out on 25 March, which concluded the Gypsies were creating a nuisance. Notices requiring them to vacate the site within 48 hours were served on 9 April. Treasury Solicitor was instructed to commence legal proceedings on 15 April and we anticipate the required papers will be lodged with the Court by 9 May.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107759]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department did not use market testing in 2002–03.

  Motor Insurers Bureau
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mechanisms exist(a) for the regulation and (b) for the supervision of the Motor Insurers Bureau. [110897]
  613W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) is a Company Limited by guarantee which was set up and is managed by the Insurance Industry.

  There are long standing legally binding agreements between the Department for Transport and the MIB which provide compensation for the victims of accidents in which the other party is either an uninsured driver or an untraced driver (hit and run).

  The MIB administers those schemes according to those agreements. Officials in my Department have regular meetings with the management of the MIB to consider any issues arising from the agreements.

  The Board of Directors of the MIB supervise the affairs of the company in accordance with all applicable law.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) recommendations and (b) advice are issued by his Department to local authorities wishing to introduce 20 mph speed restrictions in certain areas. [111080]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Guidance and advice on the introduction of 20 mph speed limits and 20mph zones is contained in Circular Roads 05/99 and Traffic Advisory Leaflet 9/99. Responsibility for implementation rests solely with each local authority.

  Traffic Commissioner for Wales
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to re-locate the Traffic Commissioner for Wales from Birmingham to Wales. [111285]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans to re-locate the Traffic Commissioner for Wales from Birmingham to a location in Wales. However the Vehicle & Operator Services Agency business plan for 2003–04 makes it clear that there are plans to provide a Traffic Area presence at Llantrisant and Wrexham HGV test stations.

TREASURY

  Employment
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which local authority areas have(a) less than 50 per cent., (b) 50 to 55 per cent., (c) 56 to 60 per cent., (d) 61 to 65 per cent., (e) 66 to 70 per cent., (f) 71 to 75 per cent., (g) 76 to 80 per cent., (h) 81 to 85 per cent. and (i) 86 to 90 per cent. employment rates. [110687]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Frank Field dated 6 May 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment rates. (110687)

  I am placing in the House of Commons Library tables listing local authorities in the United Kingdom according to the specified ranges of employment rates for persons of working age.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many sniffer dogs are trained to find illegally imported meat at(a) ports and (b) airports [111268]

  John Healey
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made clear in her written ministerial statement of 25 March 2003,Official Report, column 6WS, responsibility for anti-smuggling controls on the import of illegal meat and meat products has been transferred to HM Customs and Excise, with effect from 11 April 2003. This includes responsibility for the two fully trained dogs from the detector dog pilot based at Heathrow. Customs now plan to train four further dogs for this purpose. All of these dogs can be deployed at any port or airport in the UK.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of containers arriving at British ports are scanned for illegally imported meat. [111186]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not available.

  Customs use a risk-based intelligence approach in selecting freight traffic for anti-smuggling checks. Because many of the risk factors are not commodity-specific, it is not practical to record these checks on a commodity basis.

  Imperial Defence
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to investigate Imperial Defence for possible breaches of UK sanctions against Iraq. [111265]

  John Healey
  HM Customs & Excise are responsible for enforcing UK sanctions against Iraq. Customs are aware of a recent press report concerning Imperial Defence, in which there has been no suggestion of illegal acts.

  It is not Customs' general practice to comment publicly about the existence or nature of any investigations of individuals or companies not yet accused of criminal offences, as to do so could risk prejudicing any investigations (whether actual or likely) or future legal proceedings; Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Open Government Code applies.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on offering lowered rate of air passenger duty to European countries; and on what basis(a) Switzerland is included and (b) Belarus is excluded. [111545]

  John Healey
  Since 1 November 2002, the lower rates of air passenger duty (£5 for the lowest class of travel and £10 for all other classes) apply not only to flights to European Economic Area (EEA) countries and certain European Union Member States' dependent territories, but also, as part of our policy of supporting EU enlargement, to all EU applicant countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, the Slovak
  615W
  Republic, Slovenia, and Turkey). The lower rates were also extended to flights to all airports in Switzerland. This corrected the anomaly that two Swiss airports—Basel and Geneva—qualified for the lower rates of duty (because passengers can exit from them directly to EEA territory), while other Swiss airports did not.

  Flights to Belarus do not qualify for the lower rates of air passenger duty because Belarus is not part of the EEA nor is it an EU applicant country, nor is there any anomaly such as existed in Switzerland prior to the November 2002 changes.

  Annuities
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 10th March, Official Report, column 17W, on annuities, if he will establish an independent charitable trust charged with offering consumers non-compulsory free advice on the purchase of annuities. [111266]

  Ruth Kelly
  Help is already available to those buying an annuity in a variety of forms, and from a variety of sources. For example, many annuity providers and intermediaries offer information and advice to those buying annuities.

  As the Pensions Green Paper "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement" (Cm 5677) explained, action has already been taken to encourage consumers to shop around for the best annuity. As part of that process the Financial Services Authority has produced a fact sheet designed to supplement other guidance, and to help consumers assess what type of annuity would best suit their circumstances, or whether they need to seek further advice.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what adjustment for asylum seekers has been made to the International Passenger Survey Data in each of the years 1995 and 2002 to arrive at the net immigration estimates. [111274]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Nicholas Soames dated 6 May 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the adjustment forAsylum Seekers made to International Passenger Survey data in the years 1995 to 2002 to arrive at the net immigration estimates. I am replying in his absence. (111274)

  The adjustments made to the Intern In November 2002 ONS published interim revised net international migration estimates for the UK for 1992–2001. These superseded the previously published international migration estimates. The results of the 2001 Census showed that net migration to the UK had been overestimated between 1991 and 2001. The interim estimates include an adjustment equivalent to the average annual overestimation of net migration since 1991 indicated by the Census results, approximately 76,000 each year. The adjustment has been made to the overall net migration figures, so there is no separate adjustment for asylum seekers currently available.
  616W
  Revised international migration estimates for the years 1992 to 2001 will be published shortly. The methodology used to derive the number of Asylum Seekers, and other types of migrants not covered by the IPS, in the revised estimates will be made available at the same time. International migration estimates for 2002 will be published in late Autumn 2003.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advertisements the Inland Revenue have placed on(a) local commercial radio broadcasting in Worcestershire and (b) local newspapers circulating in Worcestershire to promote the take-up of child tax credit and working tax credit. [110155]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's national campaign to encourage take-up of child tax credit and working tax credit has used a variety of media including television, radio, online and national newspapers and magazines. There has also been some targeted local publicity to encourage claims for the child and working tax credits, although there has been no advertising on local commercial radio or in local newspapers specifically in the Worcestershire area.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families have made a successful application for the children's tax credit for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03. [110900]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 14 April 2003,Official Report, columns 547–548W.

  An estimate of the total number of families benefiting from the Children's Tax Credit in 2001–02 will be available from the Survey of Personal Incomes. This will be compiled towards the end of this year.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on the Construction Industry Scheme of the introduction of the CIS 4/5/6 scheme in August 1999. [110911]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The introduction of the Construction Industry Scheme in August 1999 was successful in bringing in at least 75,000 previously unknown subcontractors and around £280 million additional Exchequer yield in 1999–2000. None the less complaints persist about the cumbersome processes and the costs to business of complying with the rules and requirements.

  As a direct consequence of these representations the Inland Revenue consulted on alternative proposals in November 2002 ("The Inland Revenue and the Construction Industry: Working together for a new scheme"). Following this consultation the Government announced in this year's Budget that a new scheme based on these proposals will be introduced from April 2005.

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department plans to replace the Construction Industry Scheme's Registration Card (CIS4), Construction Tax Certificate (CIS5) or Subcontractor's Tax Certificate (CIS6) with a simplified and single certificate. [110916]
  617W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government announced in this year's Budget that the Construction Industry Tax Scheme will be replaced in April 2005 in order to reduce the regulatory burden on the Industry. The key features are:To replace the Registration Cards (CIS4) and Gross Payment Certificates (CIS5 and CIS6) with an Inland Revenue verification service to tell contractors whether to pay net or gross of tax. This will mean that there will no longer be cards or certificates and therefore subcontractors will not have to spend time in travelling to present them.
  To replace vouchers with periodic returns to the Revenue of payments to subcontractors thus reducing the amount of paperwork required by the scheme.
  To introduce an employment status declaration to encourage the Industry to get the employment status of its workers right.

  I have asked the Inland Revenue to work closely with the Construction Industry on developing the detail.

  Customs Officers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many customs officers were permanently based at each of the UK's airports on 1 January 2003. [111120]

  John Healey
  Customs' law enforcement staff are deployed on the basis of risk assessment and intelligence, and regularly move between ports and airports and inland locations. No details can be given of the number of officers deployed in individual locations at particular times; Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Earnings
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what analysis he has made of whether the assessment of earnings levels for(a) Worcestershire, (b) Dudley, (c) Walsall and (d) Sandwell in the New Earnings Survey are reliable and stable. [109363]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The criteria used by the Office for National Statistics to establish whether estimates of gross weekly pay from the New Earnings Survey are sufficiently reliable to publish are that the sample response should be at least 30 and the relative standard error of the mean should be less than 5 per cent. The published estimates for Worcestershire, Dudley, Walsall and Sandwell fully meet these criteria, as indicated in the following table.

  Sample sizes and relative standard errors for New Earnings Survey estimates of mean gross weekly pay1 in April 2002

  Sample response

  Relative standard error of the mean (Percentage)

  Worcestershire

  890

  1.9

  Dudley

  559

  2.4

  Walsall

  394

  2.8

  Sandwell

  601

  3.1

  1 For full-time adults whose pay was unaffected by absence during the pay period.

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, ONS
  618W
  In terms of the stability of New Earnings Survey estimates over time, the survey is based on a 1 per cent. sample of employees comprising all those whose National Insurance numbers end with a specified pair of numbers (the same pair of numbers has been used since 1975). Those individuals for whom completed questionnaires are received in successive surveys constitute about 80 per cent. of the total. As such, the estimate of the change in average weekly pay between successive years is based largely on the changes in pay for individuals who were in the sample in both years.

  However, for small areas, the stability of estimates of mean pay over time can be more volatile, reflecting in part the underlying volatility of earnings, but also the variability associated with sampling.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106256]

  Ruth Kelly
  All entertainment by the Treasury is carried out fully in accordance with Paragraph 65 of the Ministerial code.

  Equity Release
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many households have taken out equity release products in each of the last 10 years; [111066]

  (2) how many complaints regarding equity release products have been received in each of the last 10 years. [111065]

  Ruth Kelly
  We do not collect information on numbers of equity release products or complaints.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether the Financial Services Authority intends to conduct surveys to assess how consumer confidence in financial services products would be affected by the options put forward in the FSA's discussion paper 19; [111458]

  (2) if the Financial Services Authority will provide a cost/benefit analysis for the three options discussed in the FSA's discussion paper 19; [111446]

  (3) whether the Financial Services Authority will be publishing detailed estimates of the reductions in unit costs that would be offered by the options for pension regulation put forward in the FSA's discussion paper 19; [111442]

  (4) what indication the Financial Services Authority has received from the financial services industry of the number of new savers with low incomes that would be likely to start saving as a result of the proposals laid out in the FSA's discussion paper 19; [111438]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the response received from the Consumer Association to the Financial Services Authority Discussion Paper 19 on simplified investment products. [111434]
  619W
  Ruth Kelly
  The design of the sales process for the proposed new range of Sandier products is a matter for the Financial Services Authority. They will be taking forward the options set out in their Discussion Paper 19 in the light of responses received and in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

  Fuel Levy
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates will be raised by the extra 1p levy on red diesel; and how much it will cost to provide the reduced tractor duty levy in a full year. [111267]

  John Healey
  The estimated yield from the increase in duty on rebated fuels of 1p above revalorisation is given in Table A.1 of this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 500), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Budget 2001 abolished VED on tractors, similar agricultural vehicles and all other vehicles that previously qualified for a special concessionary VED rate; the cost of that exemption was estimated in Table A.11 of that year's Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 279), a copy of which is also available in the Library of the House.

  Home Reversion Schemes
  Mr. Barry Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if his Department has consulted(a) industry and (b) consumer bodies about whether home reversion schemes should be regulated; [111063]

  (2) what his policy is on whether home reversion schemes should be regulated. [111064]

  Ruth Kelly
  As announced in the Government's Green Paper on Pensions, the Government are looking at the options to create a level playing field for the regulation of equity release and home reversion plans to protect consumers and make the market work better. Treasury officials have since had informal discussions with a range of stakeholders. No decisions have yet been taken and an announcement will be made in due course.

  Inactivity Rates
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the working age inactivity rate was by(a) region and (b) gender, in the last quarter of (i) 1992, (ii) 1997, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002; and how many people were inactive but looking for a job in each case. [107920]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 9 April 2003]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 6 May 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about economically inactive people of working age. (107920)

  The attached tables give the information requested for the three month periods ending February 1998, February 2002 and February 2003. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) for which the winter quarter covers the months from
  620W
  December to February. Regional estimates for the three month period ending February 1993 are not currently available on a consistent basis. These will be available from 12 November 2003.

  Table 1: Working age1 economic inactivity rates2 by region and sex

  Percentage, not seasonally adjusted

  December to February

  Government Office Regions

  1992–033

  1997–98

  2001–02

  2002–03

  All

  United Kingdom

  21.5

  22.1

  21.9

  21.7

  North East

  —

  26.5

  26.3

  27.4

  North West

  —

  25.2

  24.1

  23.2

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  —

  23.4

  23.2

  22.9

  East Midlands

  —

  20.4

  20.4

  20.9

  West Midlands

  —

  21.6

  21.7

  21.3

  East of England

  —

  18.6

  17.6

  18.6

  London

  —

  24.0

  24.5

  25.2

  South East

  —

  18.1

  17.3

  17.6

  South West

  —

  18.3

  18.6

  18.3

  Wales

  —

  27.1

  27.5

  25.0

  Scotland

  —

  22.7

  22.5

  21.1

  Northern Ireland

  —

  26.7

  29.2

  26.4

  Men

  United Kingdom

  14.2

  16.0

  16.5

  16.4

  North East

  —

  20.2

  22.3

  22.9

  North West

  —

  19.7

  19.6

  18.1

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  —

  18.0

  17.4

  17.2

  East Midlands

  —

  14.4

  15.5

  15.8

  West Midlands

  —

  14.4

  15.7

  16.0

  East of England

  —

  12.2

  11.7

  13.2

  London

  —

  16.8

  16.9

  17.5

  South East

  —

  11.5

  11.8

  12.6

  South West

  —

  13.1

  14.7

  14.4

  Wales

  —

  22.9

  22.2

  21.3

  Scotland

  —

  18.0

  18.5

  17.2

  Northern Ireland

  —

  18.1

  22.1

  18.0

  Women

  United Kingdom

  29.4

  28.5

  27.7

  27.3

  North East

  —

  33.2

  30.4

  32.2

  North West

  —

  31.1

  28.8

  28.5

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  —

  29.1

  29.5

  28.9

  East Midlands

  —

  27.0

  25.8

  26.4

  West Midlands

  —

  29.3

  28.2

  27.0

  East of England

  —

  25.6

  23.9

  24.3

  London

  —

  31.0

  32.1

  32.9

  South East

  —

  25.1

  23.2

  23.1

  South West

  —

  23.9

  22.8

  22.5

  Wales

  —

  31.5

  33.0

  28.8

  Scotland

  —

  27.6

  26.6

  25.2

  Northern Ireland

  —

  35.8

  36.6

  35.2

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  2 Economically inactive as a percentage of the working age population.

  3 Regional data not available.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Table 2: Economically inactive people of working age1 who are seeking work2 by region and sex

  Thousand, not seasonally adjusted

  December to February

  Government Office Regions

  1997–98

  2001–02

  2002–03

  All

  United Kingdom

  186

  181

  175

  North East

  3—

  3—

  3—

  North West

  23

  21

  19

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  18

  15

  14

  East Midlands

  15

  10

  3—

  West Midlands

  18

  11

  13

  East of England

  15

  16

  17

  London

  27

  28

  32

  South East

  23

  27

  21

  South West

  13

  14

  14

  Wales

  3—

  12

  10

  Scotland

  13

  15

  16

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  621W

  Table 2: Economically inactive people of working age1 who are seeking work2 by region and sex

  Thousand, not seasonally adjusted

  December to February

  Government Office Regions

  1997–98

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Men

  United Kingdom

  81

  86

  81

  North East

  3—

  3—

  3—

  North West

  12

  13

  3—

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  3—

  3—

  3—

  East Midlands

  3—

  3—

  3—

  West Midlands

  3—

  3—

  3—

  East of England

  3—

  3—

  3—

  London

  12

  11

  19

  South East

  3—

  10

  3—

  South West

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Wales

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Scotland

  3—

  10

  10

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Women

  United Kingdom

  105

  94

  94

  North East

  3—

  3—

  3—

  North West

  11

  3—

  14

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  10

  3—

  3—

  East Midlands

  10

  3—

  3—

  West Midlands

  10

  3—

  3—

  East of England

  11

  3—

  10

  London

  15

  17

  13

  South East

  14

  16

  13

  South West

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Wales

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Scotland

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Northern Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2 Economically inactive people seeking work in the last 4 weeks but not available to start work in the next 2 weeks

  3 Sample size too small for reliable estimate n/a—Data not available

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Income Tax Rebate (Armed Forces)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received to give members of HM armed forces serving in the Gulf an income tax rebate; and if he will make a statement; [110188]

  (2) if he plans to give an income tax rebate to members of HM armed forces serving in the Gulf; and if he will make a statement. [110189]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The longstanding rule—recognised by successive Governments—is that Crown Servants, wherever they are serving, are chargeable to income tax on their Government salaries. We have no plans to change it.

  Israel
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 10 April,Official Report, column 399W, on imported goods, for each year since the implementation of the EU/Israel Association Agreement, what was the sum value to importers of goods from Israel of the differential between the preferential duty rates applied under the Agreement and the average full duty rate for goods under verification; and if he will list the preferential duty rates on goods imported from Israel in the EU/Israel Association Agreement. [110477]
  622W
  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise have no information on the amount of duty saved as a result of EU/Israel Association Agreement.

  The HM Customs and Excise Tariff lists both full and preferential rates of duty. As indicated in my answer on 10 April, a copy of the Tariff has been laid in the Library of the House. While the EU/Israel Association Agreement does specify duty rates, these are set out in terms of exemptions and percentage reductions rather than a list of rates.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will qualify to pay the reduced rate of national insurance; and whether they will qualify for the basic retirement pension. [110770]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reduced rate contributions are paid by married women who, prior 11 May 1977, made an election to pay at the reduced rate, and whose election is still valid. Payment of married womens reduced rate contributions do not count towards basic state pension. However, these women will get a basic pension based on their husband's contributions when both have reached state pension age and made claims.

  Red Diesel
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual sales have been in gallons of red diesel in each year since 1990; and what the annual tax take has been. [111129]

  John Healey
  Data for inland consumption (in litres) and duty receipts for red diesel can be found in HM customs and Excise Hydrocarbon oils Bulletin under the heading 'Gas Oil', which is published on the Statistical Bulletins page of HM Customs and Excise website at www.uktradeinfo.com.

  Quantities released for inland consumption (in gallons) and duty receipts for red diesel are shown in the following table.

  Years

  Quantities (Millions of Gallons)

  Duty Receipts (£ millions)

  1990

  1,791

  86

  1991

  1,839

  103

  1992

  1,674

  102

  1993

  1,673

  114

  1994

  1,666

  118

  1995

  1,584

  155

  1996

  1,729

  180

  1997

  1,552

  178

  1998

  1,545

  194

  1999

  1,543

  209

  2000

  1,538

  217

  2001

  1,514

  215

  2002

  1,446

  206

  Resource Accounts
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when each of the resource accounts for
  623W
  2001–02 were published; what the (a) greatest, (b) median and (c) least number of days that elapsed was between each of the resource accounts being laid formally upon the table and made generally available to the public; what the median number of days that elapsed was between each of the resource accounts for (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01 being laid formally upon the table and made generally available to the public; and if he will make a statement. [110360]

  2001–02 HC No.

  Departments

  Laid

  Published

  Working days between laying and publishing

  1198

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme—MOD

  30 October 2002

  30 October 2002

  0

  295

  British Trade International

  29 January 2003

  29 January 2003

  0

  356

  Cabinet Office

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  355

  Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  294

  Central Office of Information

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  360

  Charity Commission

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  181

  Crown Estate

  18 December 2002

  18 December 2002

  0

  1239

  Crown Prosecution Service

  30 October 2002

  30 October 2002

  0

  56711

  Customs and Excise

  11 December 2002

  11 December 2002

  0

  9

  DCMS

  20 November 2002

  20 November 2002

  0

  47

  Defence—MOD

  21 November 2002

  21 November 2002

  0

  253

  Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  29 January 2003

  28 February 2003

  22

  363

  Department of Health

  30 January 2003

  17 February 2003

  12

  1200

  Department of National Savings and Investments

  23 October 2002

  23 October 2002

  0

  316

  Department for Education and Skills

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  341

  Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions

  30 January 2003

  18 February 2003

  13

  48

  DfID

  27 November 2002

  27 November 2002

  0

  272

  DfID—Superannuation Pensions

  22 January 2003

  22 January 2003

  0

  146

  Department for Work and Pensions

  30 January 2003

  07 February 2003

  6

  280

  Department for Trade and Industry

  29 January 2003

  29 January 2003

  0

  1061

  ECGD

  23 July 2002

  23 July 2002

  0

  324

  FCO

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  163

  Food Standards Agency

  29 January 2003

  29 January 2003

  0

  284

  Forestry Commission

  29 January 2003

  29 January 2003

  0

  285

  Forestry Commission Pension Scheme

  29 January 2003

  29 January 2003

  0

  1087

  GAD

  10 July 2002

  11 July 2002

  1

  168

  HM Treasury

  29 January 2003

  29 January 2003

  0

  364

  Home Office

  31 January 2003

  28 March 2003

  40

  71

  Inland Revenue

  09 December 2002

  09 December 2002

  0

  365

  Intervention Board Executive Agency

  30 January 2003

  Not yet published

  —

  314

  Lord Chancellors Department

  29 January 2003

  31 January 2003

  2

  70

  National Investment and Loans Office

  27 November 2002

  27 November 2002

  0

  319

  NHS Pension Scheme (England and Wales)

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  358

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  30 January 2003

  Not yet published

  —

  279

  Northern Ireland Office

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  1110

  Office for National Statistics

  22 July 2002

  22 July 2002

  0

  986

  Ofgem

  26 June 2002

  26 June 2002

  0

  35

  Ofsted

  27 November 2002

  27 November 2002

  0

  301

  Oft

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  46

  Oftel

  27 November 2002

  27 November 2002

  0

  1182

  Ofwat

  16 October 2002

  16 October 2002

  0

  1201

  Orr

  31 October 2002

  31 October 2002

  0

  354

  Postal Services Commission

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  325

  Privy Council Office

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  11

  Public Records Office

  18 November 2002

  18 November 2002

  0

  282

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  30 January 2002

  30 January 2002

  0

  52

  Scotland Office

  17 December 2002

  17 December 2002

  0

  368

  Security and Intelligence Agencies

  30 January 2003

  05 February 2002

  4

  366

  Royal Mint

  30 January 2003

  05 February 2003

  4

  367

  Serious Fraud Office

  30 January 2003

  31 March 2003

  42

  315

  Teachers Pension Scheme

  30 January 2003

  30 January 2003

  0

  237

  Treasury Solicitors

  08 January 2003

  08 January 2003

  0

  292

  UK Atomic Energy Authority—DTI

  29 January 2003

  29 January 2003

  0

  318

  Wales Office

  29 January 2003

  29 January 2003

  0

  1 The accounts for HM Customs and Excise were presented to Parliament in Command 5671—as recorded in HOC 530.

  As at 25 April 2003, that is excluding those Departments which had not published their resource accounts by that date, the greatest, median and least number of working days elapsing between departmental resource accounts for 2001–02 being laid formally upon the table and made generally available to the public are
  624W
  Mr. Boateng
  Under the Government Resource Accounts Act 2000, the Treasury has the statutory responsibility to lay departmental resource accounts before the House of Commons. All accounts for 2001–02 were laid before Parliament by the statutory deadline of 31 January 2002. Departments are responsible for publishing resource accounts. The dates on which Departments' resource accounts for 2001–02 were laid and published are shown in the following table:

  42, 0 and 0 respectively. There are two accounts for 2001–02 still to be published and the Treasury is following these up with the Departments concerned.

  The median number of days which elapsed between each of the departmental resource accounts for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 being laid formally upon the

  625W
  table and made generally available to the public are 21 and 2 respectively (this compares to the median of 1 day for 2000–01 accounts quoted in my predecessor's answer of 30 April 2002, Official Report, column 722W, as a result of further Departments' resource accounts being published after that date).

  Savings Gateway
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the savings gateway is open to anyone living in the pilot areas who is entitled to the new child tax credit; and if he will make a statement on eligibility, with particular reference to how the measure of income used in determining the level of a tax credit is defined. [110898]

  Ruth Kelly
  Eligibility to participate in the Saving Gateway pilots is not determined by entitlement to the new child tax credit and is therefore unaffected by the measurement of income used in determining the level of child tax credit. Eligibility for a pilot Saving Gateway account is dependent on individuals of working age satisfying one of the following conditions:Household earnings of less than £15,000 if an individual has children or a disability.
  Individual earnings of less than £11,000 if an individual does not have children or a disability.
  Individual is out of work and receiving benefits.

  Further development of the Saving Gateway will be made in light of evaluation evidence.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Savings Gateway accounts have been opened in each of the five pilot areas. [110901]

  Ruth Kelly
  At the end of April 2003, 835 Savings Gateway accounts had been opened with savings of almost £60,000. The following table shows how many accounts have been opened in each pilot area.

  Pilot Area

  Number of accounts

  Cambridgeshire

  115

  Cumbria

  148

  Gorton

  97

  Hull

  231

  Tower Hamlets

  244

  Smuggling
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of a 40 per cent. reduction in anti-smuggling staff in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [110718]

  John Healey
  Modern smuggling is carried out by well-organised, well-financed and highly adaptable criminal groups who use ever more sophisticated methods. To tackle them, Customs are building more intelligence-led, flexible and mobile teams capable of far greater impact than the smaller, static, predictable and less productive teams that, in some locations, they will replace.

  The changes are designed to improve the effectiveness of Customs Law Enforcement in Wales. Customs' impact on smuggling—rather than the number of
  626W
  officers maintained in fixed locations—is the most important factor in these changes. The actual numbers to be deployed in Wales will match the assessed risk.

  Sustainable Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 64W, on sustainable timber products, what efforts are made to check that companies listed on the OGC buying solutions website as supplying sustainable furniture and timber products are in fact supplying sustainable furniture and timber products; and if he will make a statement. [111013]

  Mr. Boateng
  Any supplier claiming to supply sustainable furniture and timber products is expected to provide relevant evidence of this, including for example details of independent third party certification. Should evidence become available that any company included on an OGCbuying.solutions framework agreement has knowingly obtained timber products from an unsustainable source they would be removed from the published list.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 64W, on sustainable timber products, on the basis of what information the list of companies supplying sustainable furniture and timber products is supplied; and if he will make a statement. [111014]

  Mr. Boateng
  Suppliers on the list have successfully tendered on a value for money basis for inclusion in OGCbuying.solutions framework agreements and offer sustainable furniture and timber products. Where possible, third party independent evidence from organisations such as the Forestry Stewardship Council and the Timber Research and Development Association is provided.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for tax credits were outstanding on 6 April 2003 which were submitted(a) online using the internet and (b) on paper, and received by the Inland Revenue on or before 31 January 2003. [109240]

  Dawn Primarolo
  About 2.7 million claims for child tax credit and working tax credit were received by the end of January 2003, including 255,000 online.

  Awards are already being paid except in the small proportion of cases where further information is needed to make a decision on the claim. In these cases the Inland Revenue should already have been in touch with claimants to ask for that further information.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Putney constituency he estimates will benefit from the new family tax credit over the coming financial year. [110463]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Andrew Dismore) on 14 April,Official Report, column 539W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many advertisements the Inland Revenue have placed on(a) local commercial radio broadcasting in

  627W
  Buckinghamshire and (b) local newspapers circulating in Buckinghamshire to promote the take up of (i) child tax credit and (ii) working tax credit. [110471]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's national campaign to encourage take-up of Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit has used a variety of media including television, radio, online and national newspapers and magazines. There has been some targeted local publicity to encourage claims for the Child and Working Tax Credits, although there has been no advertising on local commercial radio or in local newspapers specifically in Buckinghamshire.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people he estimates in the Buckingham constituency are eligible for(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit; and how many people he estimates will take up these credits. [110472]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the South East of England, 670,000 families are expected to receive the Child Tax Credit and 140,000 families are expected to receive the Working Tax Credit (including some who also get the Child Tax Credit).

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the first figures from the Inland Revenue will be released to show the percentage take up of tax credits by constituency. [110857]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of take up rates are not available below the national level. Statistics on the number of Child and Working Tax Credits awards will be published quarterly, beginning in August 2003.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families he expects will be eligible for the(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit in 2003–04. [110937]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: A total of 6 million families are expected to receive the new tax credits. This total is made up of around 5.75 million families with children and 250,000 families without children.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households' entitlements to(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit will be reassessed in the current financial year. [111387]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 28 April,Official Report, column 162W.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many households have applied for(a) child tax credit, (b) working tax credit and (c) both; and how many of these households are eligible for (i) child tax credit, (ii) working tax credit and (iii) both. [111391]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is a single form for these tax credits. By 28 April 2003, over 4 million families had claimed. In addition, 1.3 million families with children on Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance are already benefiting from the increased level of support and will be transferred to Child Tax Credit by October 2004.
  628W
  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.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in the London Borough of Redbridge are eligible for child tax credits. [111747]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In London 700,000 families are expected to receive the Child Tax Credit.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people living in the London Borough of Wandsworth are eligible to claim the working families tax credit; and how many award notices have been issued to families in the borough. [111192]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In London 700,000 families are expected to receive the Child Tax Credit. 130,000 families are expected to receive the Working Tax Credit (including some who also are also expected to receive the Child Tax Credit). Statistics on the number of Child and Working Tax Credit awards will be published quarterly, beginning in August 2003. The first set of statistics will cover awards at early July 2003.

  Taxation
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on which taxes have risen since 1997. [111476]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All changes to taxation since 1997 are set out in the relevant Financial Statement and Budget Reports, which are available in the library of the House.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Connexions
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff were employed in the Connexions Service National Unit at the time of its establishment; and what the number is now [110196]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Connexions Service National Unit was set up between July 2000, when the Chief Executive took up post, and April 2001, when the first Connexions Partnerships went live. There were 168 staff in post on 01 April 2001.

  As well as supporting the delivery of Connexions, CSNU also has responsibility for other Youth Support Services such as Millennium Volunteers, Neighbourhood Support Fund, the Voluntary and Statutory Youth Service. More recently, the Unit has also assumed responsibility for implementation of the DfES volunteering strategy; the DfES strategy on involving children and young people (Listening to Learn); the department's relationship with the voluntary and community sector (including the cross cutting review of the voluntary sector with HMT and Home Office) and the Summer/Diversionary Activities Programme. There are currently 187 staff in post.

  Overseas Pupils
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children of Parents from overseas with permission to study in the UK are being educated in maintained schools. [109726]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  From the most recent statistics available, in the academic year 2001/02, there were 193,849 full-time and 37,796 part-time undergraduate and post graduate overseas students at UK universities and colleges. It is not possible to determine how many of these students have children because there is no requirement on local education authorities to provide the Department with this information.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people enrolled in programmes of advanced and foundation modern apprenticeships in the three months prior to 1 January 2003; and how many people were in programmes on that date. [111282]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The latest information on starts is for the period from August 2002 to October 2002. This information, along with the number of learners on modern apprenticeship programmes on 1 November 2002 is given in the following table:

  FMA

  AMA

  Total

  Starts from August to October 2002

  45,900

  22,600

  68,500

  In Learning on 1 November 2002

  120,800

  113,300

  234,100

  Beacon Schools
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have(a) become Beacon schools and (b) lost Beacon status in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [110141]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Beacon programme was introduced in September 1998. The programme started with 75 schools, increasing to almost 1,150 schools in six subsequent expansion phases by September 2002. 34 schools have since left the programme for various reasons. A detailed breakdown is contained in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Bullying
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had with representatives of teachers and lecturers about teachers and lecturers being bullied by colleagues or Parents of students; and what action he intends to take. [110549]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets representatives of the teacher unions regularly and various issues are discussed in the meetings.

  We are very concerned to help schools and colleges prevent all bullying. Teachers, lecturers and students all have a right to work in an atmosphere free from intimidation and harassment. We have made available
  630W
  "A Legal Toolkit for Schools" which gives advice on remedies available when teachers are facing threatening or abusive behaviour from other adults. The Government also have a commitment to continue to work with managers and employees to address problems caused by bullying in the workplace, from employers or fellow employees, on which my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry lead.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average infant class size in Buckinghamshire was in each year since 1997. [110321]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The available figures are shown in the table.

  Maintained primary schools: infant class sizes taught by one teacher—Position in September each year

  Average infant class size

  Buckinghamshire local education authority

  1998

  27.3

  19991

  23.6

  2000

  23.2

  2001

  23.4

  2002

  23.8

  1 Less than 95 per cent. of expected returns were received in this year.

  Source:

  September Class Size Count

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the annual report of her Department will be published. [107882]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The spring 2003 departmental reports are to be published between 28 April and 16 May 2003. We will publish our departmental report within this window, and are aiming for 14 May 2003.

  Education Settlement
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills from which schools he has received representations about this year's education settlement, broken down by education authority. [111275]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills has received a large amount of correspondence concerning education budgets for the current financial year from both schools and local education authorities, as it does each year. It is not possible to collate this information without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Further and Higher Education
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds in the Hemsworth constituency in education have gone on to(a) further education and (b) higher education in each of the last five years; what percentage these figures represent of the total number in the area; and what the national average was for such persons. [109866]
  631W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: The information is as follows:

  Data on the percentage of students participating in post-compulsory education is not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs as reliable estimates cannot be made. Participation rates at sub-national level are only available for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Hemsworth constituency is part of Wakefield LEA. The percentage of 16 and 17-year-olds participating in full-time further education for Wakefield LEA and England in each of the last five years for which data are available, is set out in the table.

  Participation in full-time further education

  Percentage of age group

  Year end

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  16-year-olds

  Wakefield LEA

  64

  70

  64

  69

  67

  England

  70

  70

  70

  71

  71

  17-year-olds

  Wakefield LEA

  53

  50

  51

  51

  54

  England

  57

  57

  57

  58

  58

  Note:

  Population data do not include any revisions following the 2001 census.

  Source:

  DfES Statistical Bulletin, published 16 December 2002

  Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in an annual statistical bulletin, "Participation in Education and Training by 16 and 17-Year-Olds in Each Local Area in England". This bulletin is available on the departmental website www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics.

  Figures for the number of students who enter higher education are not collated centrally on a constituency basis. Hemsworth constituency is part of Wakefield LEA. The proportion of students domiciled in Wakefield LEA and England, aged 18 and accepted through UCAS to full-time undergraduate courses in the UK is given in the table.

  17-year-old population

  18-year-olds accepted to HE

  Proportion entering higher education (percentage)

  Wakefield LEA

  Autumn 1997 entry

  3,800

  656

  17.1

  Autumn 1998 entry

  4,000

  682

  17.2

  Autumn 1999 entry

  3,800

  595

  15.5

  Autumn 2000 entry

  3,900

  610

  15.8

  Autumn 2001 entry

  4,000

  749

  18.8

  England

  Autumn 1997 entry

  601,100

  123,070

  20.5

  Autumn 1998 entry

  619,700

  124,087

  20.0

  Autumn 1999 entry

  612,100

  122,640

  20.0

  Autumn 2000 entry

  601,000

  123,618

  20.6

  Autumn 2001 entry

  610,900

  131,254

  21.5

  Note:

  Participation rates have been calculated using the 17-year-old population from the previous year to reduce the distortion caused to LEA populations by the migration of students to their place of study. Accepted applicants with unknown English domiciles are excluded from the figures. Population figures relate to persons aged 17 at 31 August in the year prior to entry, counts taken at the following 1 January; accepted applicants are aged 18 at 30 September in the year of entry.
  632W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 16 to 18-year-olds in Shrewsbury and Atcham are in further education. [109686]

  Margaret Hodge
  Data on the percentage of students staying on in full-time education are not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs, as reliable estimates cannot be made. Participation rates at sub-national level are only available for 16 and 17-year-olds.

  Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency is part of Shropshire LEA. The percentage of 16 and 17-year-olds participating in further education and training for Shropshire LEA in 2000, the latest year for which figures are available, is set out in the table. Separate figures are shown for those in full-time further education, and those in further education or Government Supported Training.

  Participation in education and training in 2000 for Shropshire LEA

  Percentage of age group

  Full-time education

  Total education and training1

  16-year-olds

  72

  87

  17-year-olds

  62

  79

  16 and 17-year-olds combined

  67

  83

  1 Includes participation in full and part-time further education qualifications, and in Government Supported Training, counting those in both education and Government Supported Training only once.

  Note:

  Population data do not include any revisions following the 2001 census.

  Source:

  DfES Statistical Bulletin, published 16 December 2002.

  Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in an annual statistical bulletin, "Participation in Education and Training by 16 and 17 Year Olds in Each Local Area in England".

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of students in college in Shrewsbury and Atcham successfully completed their further education courses in the last year for which figures are available. [109687]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in exactly the format asked for, but retention and achievement rates are available. Figures on retention and achievement for further education institutions are published by the Learning and Skills Council. Figures in the following table show further education institutions in Shrewsbury and Atcham. Additionally, the table also covers other further education institutions in the Shropshire Learning and Skills Council area. The table covers 2000/01, the latest year for which data are available.

  In-year retention rates measure the percentage of those students who, having enrolled on a learning programme of at least 12 weeks duration, continue to attend at the end of the qualification or the end of the

  633W
  teaching year (31 July), whichever is sooner. Separate information is shown for full-time full-year (described as full-time), and full-time part-year and part-time students (jointly described as part-time).

  Percentage

  In-year retention rates

  2000/01

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Achievement rate

  Further education institutions in Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology

  87

  88

  81

  Shrewsbury Sixth Form College

  97

  92

  91

  Other FE institutions in Shropshire Learning and Skills Council

  Ludlow College

  97

  86

  81

  New College, Telford

  92

  88

  81

  Telford College of Arts and Technology

  89

  87

  87

  Walford and North Shropshire College

  89

  84

  92

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average level of funding was for each student in each college in Shrewsbury and Atcham in each year since 1997. [109688]

  Margaret Hodge
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. I have therefore asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and to place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average annual repayment of debt(a) to the Student Loans Company and (b) to others was of a higher education student graduating in each year since 1997. [105944]

  Margaret Hodge
  Borrowers become liable to repay their loans from the April after they finish or leave their course, depending on their earnings. Students who started their course before academic year 1998/99 repay their loans on a mortgage style basis. The table shows the average repayment of mortgage style student loans in financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (the latest year available) for borrowers who became liable to repay their loans in the financial years 1998–99 to 2001–02 and who are making repayments; the table excludes any voluntary repayments made by borrowers before becoming liable to repay their loans.

  Students who started their course from the 1998/99 academic year will repay income contingent loans. Repayments of income contingent loans, apart from voluntary repayments and repayments from overseas borrowers, are made through the tax system. The scheme started in April 2000 and details of repayments are notified to the Student Loans Company by the Inland Revenue from the end of the relevant financial year. Therefore complete data on the average repayment of income contingent loans are not yet available.

  £

  Financial year entered repayment status6,7

  Mortgage style student loans1,2—Average repayments made during financial year3,4,5

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1998–99

  530

  580

  610

  1999–2000

  490

  600

  650

  2000–01

  8—

  570

  680

  2001–02

  8—

  8—

  640

  634W
  Achievement rates measure the total number of qualification aims achieved, expressed as a percentage of the total number of qualification aims for which students have completed the learning programmes.

  1 Loans available to borrowers who entered higher education before academic year 1998/99, and those who entered in 1998/99 to whom the existing arrangements applied. These loans are repayable on a fixed term basis, over 5 or 7 years depending on length of course, if the borrower's income exceeds the repayment threshold.

  2 Includes repayments on debts sold in the two portfolios of student loans which are administered by the Student Loans Company.

  3 Data are not available on repayments by cohort made in financial year 1998–99.

  4 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  5 Excludes those who have made no repayment because of deferment.

  6 The table excludes any repayments made by borrowers before entering repayment status.

  7 Borrowers are liable to repay their loans from the April following their graduation or otherwise leaving their course.

  8 Not applicable.

  Source:

  Student Loans Company

  Data on repayments of other debt for which there is no private subsidy, such as overdrafts, credit cards and informal debt to family and friends are not available centrally.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 571–72W, on student fees, when the chief executive of HEFCE will supply the information about franchising arrangements. [109312]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 April 2003]: The Department has now received the most up-to-date information about students franchised from higher education institutions from HEFCE. The information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the review of the possibility of post A-level entry to higher education will be completed. [110924]

  Margaret Hodge
  In response to the Tomlinson report into A-level standards, we said in the Higher Education White Paper that the Department for Education and Skills would work with higher education institutions, schools, colleges and awarding bodies to explore the way forward on this issue. Discussions are now taking place and are due to be completed later this year.
  635W
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the study by Professor Schwartz on assessment of the merit of applicants to higher education will be available. [110965]

  Margaret Hodge
  I will make an announcement shortly.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria will apply to fees review within the quinquennial access agreement term, with particular reference to the position of existing students. [110928]

  Margaret Hodge
  The access agreement will set out how the institution plans to evolve its variable fee

  1£

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  22003–04

  Publicly planned funding per FTE real terms 2001 prices

  4,980

  5,020

  5,050

  5,200

  Publicly planned funding per FTE cash terms

  4,860

  5,020

  5,170

  5,450

  1 Rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 Plans

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he plans to substitute the harmonised European inflation index for the retail prices index in the calculation of liabilities for student loans. [110883]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no change proposed in our calculation of liabilities for student loans.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he plans to offer the raised income threshold for student loans available from April 2005 to existing income-contingent loans. [110930]

  Margaret Hodge
  The proposed change in the income threshold for repaying income-contingent loans from £10,000 to £15,000 in April 2005 will benefit existing borrowers and new students. It will benefit existing graduates because those earning below £15,000, will no longer be liable to make repayments, and those earning above £15,000 will have a reduction in their repayments.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what guidance the new Office for Fair Access will issue on admissions procedures for universities; [110106]

  (2) what measures the Office for Fair Access will use to enforce guidance it issues on admissions. [110090]

  Margaret Hodge
  Individual universities' admissions policies and procedures will be outside the remit of the access agreement and the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). We have asked Professor Schwartz, Vice-Chancellor of Brunel University, to lead a team to identify good practice in admissions. We expect one of the results of this work to be a statement of principles about admissions which we hope all universities will adopt. Those wishing to charge a higher tuition fee will wish to demonstrate to OFFA that they subscribe to these principles.
  636W
  policies over the duration of the agreement. If an institution wants to make changes beyond those already noted in the access agreement, it will notify the Office for Fair Access OFFA—which, depending on the scale or extent of the change proposed, will decide whether to call in the proposal for reconsideration.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the unit of funding was for each student in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and what the planned figure is for 2003–04 at 2001–02 prices. [107995]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 9 April 2003]: The figures for publicly planned funding per full time equivalent student in higher education at 2001 prices and in cash terms are shown in the table.

  Graduate Entrepreneurship
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his Department's plans to establish a National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship, and the level of funding to be made available for the scheme. [110617]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government seek to ensure their undergraduates and new graduates are aware of the opportunities available to them to back their ideas and participate in business.

  The Small Business Service, in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills, will shortly be undertaking a feasibility study on this.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in what circumstances compensation will be payable from public funds to training providers in the light of the withdrawal of individual learning accounts; and what the estimated cost of such payments is. [110886]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As a result of a recent report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman on a complaint from a learning provider, the Department has decided, in line with Government Accounting guidance, to offer compensation to registered Individual Learning Account (ILA) learning providers in respect of those learners who properly applied to open accounts before 24 October 2001; were committed to purchase ILA eligible learning with a specific learning provider; and who had not been issued with account numbers by the time the system closed down at 6.30 pm on 23 November 2001, subject to the provision of appropriate evidence.
  637W
  It is very difficult to estimate the likely cost as it is uncertain how many of these learners would have been committed to learn with a specific learning provider. The cost is estimated to be in the range of £2 million to £7 million with expectations being at the lower end.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received about the School Organisation Proposals by the Learning and Skills Council for England Regulations. [110505]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department consulted widely for three months last September on the School Organisation Proposals by the Learning and Skills Council for England Regulations together with associated guidance. The response to the consultation was generally supportive of the new regulations. We made available a summary of the responses to the consultation on the Department's website on 12 February 2003.

  The following is a list of the names and organisations of those who responded to our consultation.

  List of respondents to the consultation on the school organisation proposals by the learning and skills council for England

  Anonymous 1

  Anonymous 2

  Archdiocese of Westminster

  Association of Colleges

  Association of Greenwich Governors

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Boswells College, The

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  Bracknell Forest Borough Council

  Brighton and Hove City Council

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  Catholic Diocese of Nottingham

  Catholic Education Service

  Cheshire County Council

  Clarendon School

  De Montfort University

  Devon County Council

  Diocesan Board of Education (Blackburn)

  Diocesan Board of Education (Durham)

  Diocesan Board of Education (Leicester)

  Diocesan Board of Education (Oxford)

  Diocesan Board of Education (Rochester)

  Diocesan Board of Education (Southwark)

  Diocesan Board of Education (Truro)

  Diocesan Board of Education (Winchester)

  Diocesan Schools Commission

  Diocese of Lancaster Education Service

  Dixon, Christine

  Dorset LEA

  Foundation and Aided Schools National Association

  638W

  Hammersmith and Fulham LEA

  Hampshire County Council

  Hartlepool LEA

  Hessle High School

  John Jamieson School

  Lancashire LEA

  Learning and Skills Council

  Lincolnshire County Council

  Liverpool City Council

  Local Government Association

  London Borough of Haringey

  London Borough of Hounslow

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Medway Council

  Merton LEA

  Middlesbrough College

  National Association of Governors and Managers

  National Association of Headteachers

  National Association of Independent Schools and Non-Maintained Special Schools

  National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers

  National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations

  National Union of Teachers

  North East Lincolnshire LEA

  North Yorkshire LEA

  Northumbria University

  Nottinghamshire LEA

  Oxford Governors' Association

  Oxfordshire County Council

  Rochdale LEA

  Rotherham MBC

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  School Organisation Committee (Bedfordshire)

  School Organisation Committee (Bradford)

  School Organisation Committee (Cambridge)

  School Organisation Committee (Camden)

  School Organisation Committee (Dorset)

  School Organisation Committee (Hampshire)

  School Organisation Committee (Kent)

  School Organisation Committee (Leeds)

  School Organisation Committee (Liverpool)

  School Organisation Committee (Northumberland)

  School Organisation Committee (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead)

  School Organisation Committee (Sandwell)

  School Organisation Committee (Stockton-on-Tees)

  School Organisation Committee (Warrington)

  School Organisation Committee (West Berkshire)

  School Organisation Committee (Wigan)

  Scope

  Secondary Heads Association

  Slough Borough Council

  South Gloucestershire LEA

  Southampton LEA

  St Bernard's Convent School

  Staffordshire University

  Stockton Borough Council

  Surrey County Council

  Surrey Institute of Art and Design

  639W

  Telford & Wrekin LEA

  Torbay LEA

  Tower Hamlets LEA

  Trinity School

  University of Salford

  Wolverhampton LEA

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on recent changes in the senior management team at the Learning and Skills Council. [110879]

  Margaret Hodge
  John Harwood is retiring after three successful years as chief executive of the LSC. He has been a key figure in building a new learning system which will support a prosperous economy and an inclusive society. He has performed an immense service to this country and leaves a considerable legacy behind him for which we are very grateful. John will continue to drive forward LSC business until a successor has been appointed, and the LSC will be advertising for this post shortly.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to align the financial year of the Learning and Skills Council with(a) the standard financial year and (b) the academic year. [110069]

  Margaret Hodge
  All public sector bodies have 31 March as their financial year end, and in the case of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), this is specified by statute. Public funding is allocated to the LSC by financial years, but it plans and funds the bulk of its provision on an academic year basis, as this best meets the needs of the key providers involved. There are no plans to re-align the LSC's financial year.

  Mr. Graham Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what percentage of(a) the applicants to serve on the National Learning and Skills Council and (b) the successful applicants declared political activity for the Labour Party; [109427]

  (2) what percentage of the membership of the National Learning and Skills Council has declared political activity for the (a) Labour, (b) Conservative and (c) Liberal Democrat Party. [109428]

  Margaret Hodge
  In the first and subsequent appointments rounds, there have been 969 applications for National Council positions. This included applications for the Chair, the Chief Executive and Council Member positions. 102 of these applicants have declared political activity (as defined by the Office for the Commissioner of Public Appointments—OCPA) for the Labour party. This represents 10 per cent. of the total applicants. Of these, 39 applicants declared that they have, or have had, experience as an elected councillor.

  There are up to 16 positions available on the Council at any one time (including Chair and Chief Executive). Because of turnover of Council Members, a total of 21 positions have been available since the outset, and of these, six have declared Labour Party activity.

  None declared political activity for either the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties.
  640W
  Appointments to the LSC are made through fair and open competition, in accordance with guidance issued by OCPA. Working with the LSC we have sought to attract applications from individuals with a wide range of appropriate experience, regardless of any declared political activity.

  Literacy
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the number of adults unable to read and write to an adequate level; what plans he has to improve literacy; and if he will make a statement. [111147]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Moser Report (1999) indicated that around 7 million adults in England have poor literacy skills, and that even more have a problem with numbers. The Department has commissioned a new representative sample survey of working age adults in England to provide an up-to-date assessment of the scale of literacy and numeracy need. These estimates will be mapped to the new national basic skills standards and will be published in summer 2003.
  In March 2001, the Government launched Skills for Life, the national strategy for improving adult's literacy and numeracy skills. The strategy aims to improve the basic skills of 1.5 million adults by 2007 by boosting demand for learning, ensuring the capacity of basic skills training, raising standards in teaching and learning, and increasing learner achievement. Between April 2001 and July 2002, 300,000 adults improved their literacy, language or numeracy skills.

  Mature Students
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of higher education students entitled to receive the proposed new maintenance grant are estimated to come under the category of mature students. [110462]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is currently not available. I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 357W.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial support is available for mature students undertaking a full-time degree course at university with no earnings from any source. [110758]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have greatly increased the financial support available to mature students. Nearly £250 million is being spent in 2002/03 on support for students with particular financial needs, including mature students, compared to £124 million five years ago.

  Under the Education (Student Support) Regulations eligible full-time mature students without earnings have all of their tuition fees paid from public funds. In the academic year 2003/04, they may also receive a student loan of £4,000, or £4,930 if studying in London, to assist with their living costs.
  641W
  Statutory provision also includes additional grants for students with dependent children. The childcare grant pays 85 per cent. of actual child care costs covering the whole year. In the academic year 2003/04, a student Parent with one child may receive a child care grant of up to £5,967 whilst students with two or more children may receive up to £8,840. A new Parents' learning allowance of up to £1,300 a year is also available to students with dependent children to assist with course-related costs.

  Access and hardship funds and hardship loans are discretionary support available through institutions of higher education for students who may need extra financial support for their course. Mature students are a priority group for this support and are assessed according to their individual needs.

  Our White Paper "The future of higher education" proposes a number of new measures to provide more up-front support for students from less well-off backgrounds and to ensure that all students have sufficient support throughout their courses.

  Modern Languages Courses
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what efforts his Department is making, through reform of the 14–19 curriculum, to increase the number of entrants aged under 21 years to modern languages courses at higher education institutions in the UK. [110874]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are committed through our National Languages Strategy to increasing the number of higher education students taking modern foreign languages as all or part of their degree, by increasing the opportunities available to them to do so. Students who continue to study languages post 14 are more motivated and more likely to continue studying a modern foreign language into higher education. So we are requiring all [maintained] secondary schools to ensure that modern foreign languages remain available to any 14–16 year old pupil who wishes to study them. Our goal is to move to a position where young people are motivated to study modern foreign languages, rather than being forced to do so.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with(a) the Home Office, (b) the Local Government Association and (c) representatives of local education authorities on the implementation provisions contained in sections 36 and 37 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and if he will make a statement. [111082]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Discussions with the Home Office continue on a regular basis. Representatives from local education authorities for the areas where accommodation centres have been proposed and from the Local Government Association attended meetings with officials from the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office on 20 August 2002, 20 September 2002, 14 October 2002 and 15 January 2003.

  NUT Conference
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received following the recent National Union of Teachers Conference. [110698]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the recent National Union of Teachers Conference. [110699]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon Friend set out publicly on 18 February 2003 his reasons for not attending the National Union of Teachers' conference. Beyond this, the annual conference and other internal affairs of the National Union of Teachers are a matter for its membership.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the expected saving to public funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105719]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 10 April 2003,Official report, column 400W.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who will cover PFI repayments on schools closed before the end of the repayment period. [110682]

  Mr. Miliband
  Closure of a school which is part of a PFI contract would represent partial or full termination of the contract, depending on whether it was a grouped or single schools project. Termination of a contract would not lead the Government to reassess the level of revenue support due to a local authority, other than in exceptional circumstances.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of working age people in the constituency of Buckingham hold a qualification at degree level or equivalent; and what the national average is. [105711]

  Margaret Hodge
  The latest available figures from the Local Area Labour Force Survey 2001 show that the proportion of people of working age resident in the constituency of Buckingham who hold a qualification at NVQ level 4 or above is 29.9 per cent., with a 95 per cent. confidence interval of 26.6 per cent. to 33.2 per cent. This compares to a figure of 23.7 per cent. for Great Britain. NVQ level 4 covers degrees, HMDs and other undergraduate qualifications.

  SATs
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what advice he will be issuing to teachers regarding SATs for the under 12s. [110696]
  643W
  Mr. Miliband
  The National Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Arrangements booklets for Key Stage 1 and 2 are issued to schools in October of each year. The booklets contain important information about the administration of the National Curriculum tasks, tests and teacher assessments.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he will be taking regarding teachers who boycott SATs for under 12s. [110697]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend opposes any form of action that will harm children's education. Any action taken against such teachers would be an internal disciplinary matter for their employer.

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on provisions to deal with excluded pupils(a) under 11 and (b) aged 11 to 16 in North Shropshire. [110046]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Shropshire Local Education Authority offers all permanently excluded pupils of compulsory school age in North Shropshire full-time educational provision, where appropriate, after 15 school days. The provision would typically involve either an alternative school, the tuition service or, for older pupils, a shared placement arrangement with the further education sector and other providers. Schools set and mark work for pupils they exclude for short fixed period, and also during the early stages of a longer exclusion. For longer fixed period exclusions, schools will involve the LEA as necessary in planning for the child's return. The nature, management and organisation of provision for excluded pupils is a matter for the LEA having regard to pupils' individual circumstances.

  School Standards
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent on projects and initiatives to(a) improve behaviour in schools and (b) increase standards in rural schools since 1997. [110095]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Funding for both behaviour improvement and to increase standards in rural schools comes from a wide variety of sources and to varying degrees of aggregation with funding to support other areas of activity. It is not therefore possible in either case to give discrete total figures. Key contributions on behaviour-related initiatives have been the around £560 million (including Government grant and LEA contributions) allocated through the Standards Fund between 1997–2003 and the £50 million provided to targeted LEAs since September 2002 to improve behaviour and attendance. Specific contributions on rural schools have included some £56 million of funding for rural Excellence Clusters and rural EAZs. Many rural schools are also small schools and benefit from the Small Schools Fund, which was set up in 2001 by the merging of two previous grants (the Administrative Support Fund for Small Schools and the Small School Support Fund). The Small Schools Fund is worth a total of £80 million a year.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [108082]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his policy towards the inclusion in mainstream schools of children with Down's syndrome. [110328]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There is a clear Government commitment to the inclusion of children and young people with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream education. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 was a major milestone in promoting inclusion for children with disabilities or SEN, including those pupils with Down's syndrome.

  There is a general duty to educate children with special educational needs in mainstream schools unless this is against their Parent's wishes or incompatible with the efficient education of other children and there are no reasonable steps that can be taken by the LEA or the school to prevent that incompatibility. However, for some children a mainstream placement may not be right, or not right just yet and therefore provision in special schools will continue to play a vital role.

  Education Law does not distinguish between different types of SEN. Children with Down's syndrome will vary as widely in their development and progress as typically developing children and each will have their own talents and aptitudes. The degree of an individual child's SEN will be the determining factor of the type of provision required to meet their needs.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff in his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106734]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  During 2002, 18 staff received a total of 495 days leave to undertake union duties at a total cost to public funds of £44,000.

  These figures represent the maximum leave allowance which may be granted in each year of 25 days or 40 days for members of Trade Union National Executive Committees and Councils for individuals engaged in trade union business in DfES.

  There are no members of National Executive Committees or Councils in NDPBs for which DfES is responsible.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Contact
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made in implementing the commitments given to both Houses on the issue of child contact during the Adoption and Children Bill proceedings. [110672]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Adoption and Children Bill received Royal Assent on 7 November 2002. The Adoption and Children Act was published on 9 December 2002 with explanatory notes following in early January 2003.

  My Department with colleagues from the Department of Health are considering plans for the implementation of the main provisions of the Act. However, some elements are considered priority commitments such as the definition of 'harm' in relation to domestic violence: we have begun consultation on amendments to the Family Proceedings Rules 1991 (Domestic Violence).

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list(a) the

  Number of projects

  Amount

  66 projects (as a result of calls for proposals)

  47,264,594 euros

  Four areas: support for the abolition of the death penalty, fighting impunity and promoting international justice combating racism and discrimination against ethnic minorities and the prevention of torture and rehabilitation of torture victims

  51 projects (joint programmes with partners such as international organisations or national authorities)

  41,379,224 euros

  Projects funded included election observation and assistance, support for International Penal Tribunals and establishment of the International Criminal Court and the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law.

  15 projects (with local NGOs and civil society groups)

  7,850,000 euros

  Democratisation activities 15 targeted countries to deepen support for local civil society initiatives.

  As the Human Rights and Democracy Committee is a management committee and no legislative decisions are taken, final funding decisions are not communicated to the House. However information about all the activities of the Committee and the operation of the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights is on the Europe Aid website. (http//europa.eu.int/comm/ europeaid/projects/ddh/ddh_en.htm)

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimates the Lord Chancellor's Department has made of departmental expenditure on legal aid in asylum and immigration cases for(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and what the originally budgeted expenditure was for those years. [110161]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Expenditure on legal help in asylum matters was £76.4 million in 2000–01; £124 million in 2001–02; and is estimated to be £168 million in 2002–03. This excludes expenditure on judicial reviews.
  646W
  names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and on the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, (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. [110309]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply. The EU Committee on Human Rights and Democracy meets four times a year and is composed of representatives of member states. Delegates from the 10 EU accession states have been invited to attend as observers from the next meeting in June. Officials from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office represent the UK Government on the Committee. The main task of the Committee is to allocate EU budget resources to human rights and democracy projects in third countries and subsequently to evaluate the activities funded. In 2002, a total of 96,493,818 euros (£62,254,076) was allocated for projects worldwide. Funding overed three main areas, as follows:

  There has not historically been a separate budget for immigration and asylum matters. The Lord Chancellor directs what may be spent on legal help as a whole. However, it was anticipated prior to the beginning of each financial year that £65.7 million would be spent in 2000–01; £84.3 million in 2001–02; and £160 million in 2002–03.

  Actual expenditure exceeded anticipated expenditure, particularly in 2001–02 because of changes introduced to speed up the process of dealing with applications.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimates the Lord Chancellor's Department has made for departmental expenditure on all legal aid in the magistrates courts for(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and what the originally budgeted expenditure was for those years. [110162]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There is no separate budget for legal aid in the magistrates courts as it forms part of the overall legal aid budget. However in 2000–01, legal aid in the magistrates courts was expected to be £259 million. Actual expenditure was £232.9 million.
  647W
  Since 2001–02, legal aid in the magistrates courts has become part of the General Criminal Contract which also includes advice and assistance and the duty solicitor schemes. Under the Contract it is not possible to separately identify expenditure in the magistrates courts.

  In 2001–02 Expenditure under the General Criminal Contract was expected to be £461 million. Actual expenditure was £508.3 million. In 2002–03 it was expected to be £460.2 million. Actual expenditure is provisionally estimated to be £526.6 million*.
  * This figure may be subject to adjustments.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the budgeted departmental expenditure is on(a) legal aid in asylum and immigration cases for 2003–04 and (b) all legal aid in the magistrates courts for 2003–04. [110163]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Budgeted expenditure for asylum and immigration cases for 2003–04 is yet to be agreed by Ministers. All expenditure for asylum and immigration cases (including legal aid), will now for the first time fall under a single asylum fund, to be agreed between my Department, the Home Office and the Treasury.

  There is no separate budget for legal aid in the magistrates courts as it forms part of the overall legal aid budget. However, magistrates courts legal aid expenditure falls within that for the General Criminal Contract, which covers all levels of service up to and including representation in the magistrates courts. Currently we expect to spend around £525 million in 2003–04.

HEALTH

  Child Protection
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have disappeared from care in each year since 1997; what measures are in place to ensure children remain in care; what assessment has been made of where children go when they disappear from care; what measures are in place to try to keep track of their whereabouts; and if he will make a statement about the safety of children who disappear from care. [110784]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of children who were listed as being missing from care in England since 1997 is shown in the table. Excluding children looked after under a series of short-term placements, it is estimated that in 2001–02 some 82,200 children were looked after in public care at some time during the year.

  Estimated number of looked after children who went missing from their usual place of residence at any time during the years ending 31 March 1998 to 20021

  England

  Number

  1997–98

  560

  1998–99

  550

  1999–2000

  540

  2000–012

  940

  2001–022

  960

  1 Data describes the number of children who went missing not the number of missing person's incidents by any one child.
  648W
  2 With effect from 1 April 2000, the definition of missing was changed from being absent for more than seven days to being absent for 24 hours or more.

  Notes:

  This table excludes all children looked after under a series of short-term placements.

  "Children Missing from Care and Home—a guide to good practice" was issued to every English local authority in November 2002, under section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970, which means that, except in exceptional circumstances, councils must follow its advice. The guidance requires that where a child in care is assessed to be missing, the authority responsible for their care must ensure that all is being done to locate them and return them to a place of safety. Where there is reason for an authority to be concerned that a child may go missing at the time that a care placement is made, then the guidance recommends that the authority should ensure that there is a proper "risk assessment" as to the likelihood of that child going missing. This assessment should lead to action being taken to minimise any potential risk. Each local authority must appoint a senior manager to be responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of its missing from care protocols and procedures.

  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what part his Department has played in respect of child protection issues in the Home Office taskforce on child protection and the internet. [110669]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health has, at official level, been represented on the Home Office task force on child protection on the internet since its establishment in 2001.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specialist assistance is available for child victims of trafficking for exploitation; what plans he has to ensure that social services staff have training on child trafficking; and if he will make a statement. [110787]

  Jacqui Smith
  The provision of assistance and support to child victims of trafficking should be secured by local statutory services in response to identified needs, whether provided directly or through specialist agencies. The relevant statutory agencies include the immigration service, the police, social services and health, which, collectively, have the responsibility to safeguard and protect the health and welfare of vulnerable children and to prevent and detect crimes against them.

  The National Occupational Standards for Social Work were published by the training organisation for personal social services in 2002. The occupational standards describe the skills and knowledge social workers need in the area of child protection. It is for employers to ensure that their staff have these skills.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to the NHS about the involvement of reception staff in triage. [110817]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has not issued any specific guidance to the national health service about the involvement of reception staff in triage.
  649W
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments have only one resident doctor specialising in A and E on duty at night; and to which grade in each case the doctor is trained. [110816]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not collect the information requested.

  The number of staff, including medical staff in accident and emergency departments, is a matter for local determination and may vary in the light of anticipated demand and the skills and experience of all professionals working in, or on call to, the emergency team.

  Acute Care (East Kent)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the terms of reference are for the Independent Review Panel examination of the future of acute health care in East Kent. [110658]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 April 2003,Official Report, columns 427–28W.

  Adoption Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the Voluntary Adoption Agencies and Adoption Agencies (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations. [110510]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Voluntary Adoption Agencies and Adoption Agencies (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2003 were finalised after taking into account the 39 responses to the public consultation held between 25 September and 19 November 2002.

  A summary of the consultation responses will be published on the Department's website.

  No formal representations have been received since the Regulations were made on 25 February 2003. However, departmental officials have received a small number of inquiries from voluntary adoption agencies concerning the transfer of their registration to the National Care Standards Commission.

  Asthma
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to reduce the cost of asthma treatment to asthma sufferers in England; and if he will make a statement. [106910]

  Jacqui Smith
  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 national health service tax credit exemption certificate. They may also claim help under the NHS low income scheme. Subsequently, over 85 per cent. of all NHS prescription items are dispensed free of charge on the grounds of age or income level. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Patients who pay NHS prescription charges may benefit from using a prescription prepayment certificate. This may be particularly helpful if a patient
  650W
  requires a lot of or regular prescriptions. A four-monthly certificate costs £32.90 and an annual certificate costs £90.40. Prescription payment certificate holders pay no further charge at the point of dispensing and there is no limit to the number of items the holder may obtain with the certificate.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of people with asthma had at least an annual review of their condition in the last year for which figures are available. [110660]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the treatment an individual patient receives is not collected centrally.

  Under the terms of the chronic disease management programme for asthma, general practitioners are required to prepare with the patient an individual management plan. The question of the frequency of review is a purely clinical one and will depend on the circumstances of the individual patient.

  Audiology (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra money has been made available to Wandsworth Primary Care Trust for audiological services in each of the past three years. [110460]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not yet made extra money available to Wandsworth Primary Care Trust (PCT) as part of the modernising hearing aid services project. St. George's Hospital, Tooting, is expected to join the modernisation programme this financial year and funding will be made available to cover all capital costs and 75 per cent. of revenue costs involved in that modernisation. St. George's already has access to the national health service contract for digital hearing aids and has been providing digital hearing aids with funding from Wandsworth PCT's general allocation.

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust regarding the appointment of a new Trust chairman. [110582]

  Mr. Lammy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions about this. The appointment of chairs and non-executives to the boards of national health service trusts is a matter for the NHS Appointments Commission. Other than setting the standard criteria against which all candidates are judged, Ministers have no part in this process.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with Barking, Havering and Redbridge NHS Trust regarding the changes in management of the trust. [110583]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have had no discussions with Barking, Havering and Redbridge National Health Service Trust regarding the changes in management of the trust.

  The appointment of a new chief executive is a local matter and the North East London Strategic Health Authority is working with the trust to ensure a smooth transition to the new management.

  Care Funding
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have contacted the Health Service Ombudsman regarding their failure to receive continuing care funding for a relative. [111128]

  Jacqui Smith
  According to the Ombudsman's office, since the publication of the Health Service Ombudsman's report on NHS Funding for Long Term Care on the 20 February, 3,849 people had contacted them by the end of April, either asking for a continuing care complaints form or with inquiries about the report.

  Health Services (Hemsworth)
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of chiropody services in the Hemsworth constituency. [109980]

  Jacqui Smith
  Primary care trusts now have the responsibility for 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.

  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the availability of digital hearing aids in(a) Hemsworth constituency and (b) West Yorkshire. [109876]

  Jacqui Smith
  Audiology services in the Hemsworth constituency are provided through the Mid Yorkshire National Health Service Trust, which is not yet providing digital hearing aids through the modernising hearing aid services (MHAS) project. Following the announcement, on 7 February, of an additional £94 million to ensure that all NHS hearing aid services are providing digital hearing aids by April 2005, all trusts not yet involved were invited to indicate the preferred timing for modernisation. Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust has applied for modernisation in 2003–04. A firm timetable for modernisation will be agreed between the trust and the MHAS project management team shortly.

  Of the other audiology services in West Yorkshire, Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust have been fitting digital hearing aids, as part of MHAS, since 2001. Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust has applied for modernisation in 2003–04 and the audiology department in Airedale has yet to indicate a preferred date. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf has now written to all trusts who have not given a preference for full modernisation and will be pursuing them.

  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is a teenage cancer unit which serves young people in the Hemsworth constituency. [109868]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: Children's cancer services are provided at the St. James's University Hospital, which is part of the Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service
  652W
  Trust. The hospital also houses a specific teenage and adolescent cancer unit, which serves the Hemsworth area.

  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients waited more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months, and (d) 12 months for (i) heart operations, (ii) cancer treatment and (iii) hip replacements in each NHS hospital trust in the Hemsworth constituency in each year since 1997. [109874]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: Information relating to waiting list and booked admissions where patients waited more than three months, six months, nine months and 12 months for selected diagnoses and operations in the Hemsworth area is shown in the table.

  Number of elective admissions

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Cancer

  > 3 months

  3,986

  4,728

  3,845

  3,365

  3,661

  > 6 months

  1,890

  2,382

  1,632

  1,393

  1,624

  > 9 months

  1,115

  1,345

  788

  719

  864

  > 12 months

  608

  635

  336

  310

  383

  Total

  33,595

  37,531

  39,277

  35,865

  37,291

  Heart diseases

  > 3 months

  4,530

  5,306

  5,121

  5,401

  5,330

  > 6 months

  2,792

  3,267

  2,844

  2,998

  2,774

  > 9 months

  1,764

  2,293

  1,747

  1,782

  1,672

  > 12 months

  1,065

  1,153

  915

  825

  671

  Total

  11,521

  12,010

  12,664

  12,660

  12,818

  Heart operations

  > 3 months

  1,777

  2,180

  2,398

  2,700

  2,860

  > 6 months

  1,052

  1,156

  1,163

  1,471

  1,388

  > 9 months

  577

  849

  741

  949

  861

  > 12 months

  354

  339

  441

  467

  311

  Total

  4,035

  4,667

  5,601

  5,845

  6,628

  Hip replacement

  > 3 months

  756

  889

  929

  924

  983

  > 6 months

  492

  572

  628

  647

  656

  > 9 months

  288

  372

  364

  379

  404

  > 12 months

  152

  198

  171

  171

  167

  Total

  1,123

  1,227

  1,278

  1,282

  1,378

  Notes:

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  Cancer COO-D48 (ICD 10)

  Heart Diseases 100–199 (ICD 10)

  Heart Operations K01-K71 (OPCS 4R)

  Hip Replacement W37-W39 (OPCS4R)

  The Hemsworth area is defined by HA areas QDD Bradford, QDH Leeds, QDQ Wakefield and QDT Calderdale and Kirklees.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in the Department. [110530]
  653W
  Mr. Lammy
  The current number of senior staff in the Department of Health who have declared disabilities is nine. This represents 2.38 per cent. of the staff in senior posts.

  Our target for the year 2004–05 is 3 per cent.

  The Department is taking a number of steps to increase the number of people with disabilities in senior posts in the Department:
  The use of open competition to provide a wider pool of diverse applicants for senior posts.
  Operating the guaranteed interviews under the two ticks scheme for disabled applicants.
  Support for a disabled staff network, which reports to the Chief Executive on a regular basis. This group is currently considering potential initiatives for the European Year of Disabled People.
  Access to specialist software and other adjustments tailored to the needs of individual members of staff who are disabled.

  The Department recently re-surveyed its work force to identify the numbers of disabled staff and is currently represented on a Cabinet Office working group, which is considering disability data collection issues, including non-declaration.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will waive prescription charges for those with cystic fibrosis; and if he will make a statement. [110675]

  Mr. Lammy
  Our policy is to give priority to helping people who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements to people with other medical conditions including cystic fibrosis. We have no plans to change the current charging arrangements.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to screen new born babies for cystic fibrosis; and if he will make a statement. [110676]

  Jacqui Smith
  In April 2001, the Government announced their intention to implement a new national programme for neonatal cystic fibrosis screening. Work commissioned by the Department of Health to plan for the national provision of cystic fibrosis screening using the Guthrie Bloodspot card will be considered by the UK National Screening Committee who will look at costs, feasibility, timetables and links to antenatal programmes.

  Dental Care (Prisoners)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each prison the average waiting time to see a dentist for prisoners(a) experiencing dental pain and (b) requiring a routine appointment. [111107]

  Jacqui Smith
  Those prisoners experiencing dental pain receive treatment without delay, where necessary accessing outside services. Information about routine dental treatment is not comprehensively available. For specific treatments, prisons report waiting times of between one and 55 days.

  Disabled Children
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance his Department gives to local authorities about charging for domiciliary care services to disabled children; [111125]

  (2) how many local authorities are charging for services to disabled children; and what criteria they are using for doing so. [111049]

  Jacqui Smith
  The legal position, as set out at section 29 of the Children Act 1989, is that where a local authority provides services, with the exception of advice, guidance or counselling, they may make such charges for that service as they consider reasonable.

  The Government recognise that this may put undue pressure on low income families and this is why the Act provides that no one receiving income support, any element of child tax credit other than the family element, working tax credit or an income-based jobseeker's allowance is liable to pay a charge. The local authority will take into account the means of the family in each case. Local authorities may not require Parents to pay more than is reasonable.

  It is a matter for local authorities as to whether or not a charge is made and, if so, how much any charge might be. We have not issued new guidance to local authorities since 1991 (paragraph 238 of the Children Act Guidance, Volume 2). This guidance covers services provided under Part III of the Children Act 1989 which includes domiciliary care.

  The Department of Health does not collect data about the number of local authorities charging for these services and therefore has no central information about the criteria used by local authorities to make such charges.

  Eligibility Criteria
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many authorities have(a) reviewed their eligibility criteria and (b) altered their eligibility criteria following the Health Service Ombudsman report HC399; and what assessment he has made of the number of people who are entitled to receive compensation following local authority reviews of continuing care criteria; [111127]

  (2) what estimates his Department has made of the amount owed to individuals following continuing care eligibility criteria reviews. [111048]

  Jacqui Smith
  All Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) have considered whether continuing care criteria in use in their area since 1996 were consistent with the Coughlan Judgment. Since August 2002 they have also been aligning criteria across each SHA, a process which should be complete by this summer.

  It is not as yet possible to give an estimate of the number of people entitled to receive compensation or the estimated cost.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106390]
  655W
  Mr. Lammy
  No meetings have taken place at public expense.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of(a) setting up and (b) maintaining the ethnic monitoring programme required by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000; [108845]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the percentage of those registered with general practitioners who have (a) not responded to questionnaires for ethnic monitoring and (b) responded to ethnic monitoring questionnaires but declined to give details of ethnic or religious groups. [108843]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not collect this information centrally.

  The collection of ethnic monitoring information is incorporated as an additional data item in existing national health service information systems, hence the cost of collecting this information cannot be disaggregated out from the total cost of NHS information.

  The Department does not currently require general practitioners to collect ethnic monitoring information.

  GP Contracts
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average change in income received by a GP's surgery as a result of the proposed GP contract; and if he will make a statement. [109962]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]: The new contract for general medical services negotiated between the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association and the NHS Confederation provides for an unprecedented level of additional investment in primary care services. If the contract is accepted, overall investment in England would rise by 33 per cent. The proposed Minimum Practice Income Guarantee will also mean that no practice loses out, provided it is achieving 100 quality points in 2004–05 and 150 in 2005–06. Most practices will see a substantial rise in gross income. The average increase will depend on what services general practitioner practices provide and the level of quality they achieve.

  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the impact the Carr Hill Resource Allocation formula will have on the budgets of GP practices; [110001]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress made with the implementation of the new contract for GPs; [109999]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the use of nominal lists rather than actual lists for the determination of resources allocated to GP practices. [110000]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 28 April 2003]: The new contract for general medical services, negotiated between the NHS Confederation and the general practitioners committee (GPC) of the British Medical Association, was published on 26 February. Following
  656W
  the distribution, by the BMA in mid-March, of details of individual practice weighted populations, the GPC announced that it was postponing the ballot of its members on the contract so that concerns being raised about funding arrangements could be addressed.

  The new allocation formula, adopted by the negotiators, will distribute resources according to patient needs. It takes account of six determinants of practice workload and circumstances:
  Patient gender and age for frequency and length of surgery and home visit contacts
  Patient gender and age for nursing and residential home consultations
  Morbidity and mortality
  Newly registered patients
  Unavoidable costs of rurality, to take account of population density and dispersion
  Unavoidable higher costs of living through a market forces factor applied to all practice staff.

  The negotiators have confirmed, in a letter issued on 17 April, that they remain committed to the principle of redistributing resources according to patient needs as will happen with the new formula. They have also reconsidered how income protection can best be delivered, through a minimum practice income guarantee.

  The negotiators have also considered using census-based lists rather than registered lists. They have concluded that an immediate move to registered lists would relatively disadvantage those with accurate patient lists but that a move to using registered lists is their ultimate aim.

  A copy of the letter of 17 April has been placed in the Library. The negotiators are committed to sending clear guidance to all general practitioners on calculating potential income under the new contract. Implementation of the contract would follow the results of a ballot of the profession.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase health visitor numbers; what role the primary care trusts will have in this; and if they will receive extra funding to assist them. [109123]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have been successful in increasing the number of nurses working in the national health service with 39,500 more than in 1997, increasing the pool from which health visitors can be drawn.

  Figures from workforce development confederations (WDCs) show they are planning to increase the number of health visitor training places they commission over the next two years.
  657W
  A number of initiatives are being taken forward to support primary care trusts with the recruitment, retention and return to practice of health visitors and other primary care practitioners. These include:
  Establishment of a primary care nursing recruitment, retention and return practice project to support PCTs who have difficulties with the recruitment and retention of primary care nurses and health visitors.
  Launch of a dedicated primary care recruitment advert and flyer to promote return to health visiting practice.
  Commissioning of a primary care nursing workforce planning toolkit to support PCTs and WDCs.
  Funding of a project to support PCTs in developing more flexible entry routes into primary care for nurses.

  It is for PCTs and WDCs to determine the health visiting workforce required to tackle local and national health priorities and inequalities. 75 per cent. of the total NHS budget has now been allocated to PCTs and there will be sustained growth with an average 28 per cent. growth per PCT over the next three years.

  Hospital Wards (Definition)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 626W, on Ward (Definition), if he will place a copy of the data dictionary in the Library. [110891]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service data dictionary is maintained by the NHS Information Authority. To facilitate its updating and use, the dictionary is now available in an electronic form only. It is no longer produced in the form of a document which could be placed in the Library.

  Access to the NHS data dictionary can now be made instead through the NHS Information Authority website at www.nhsia.nhs.uk/datastandards/pages/ddm/index.htm

  Intercountry Adoption
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) Regulations. [109954]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) Regulations 2003 were finalised after taking into account:The 39 responses to the public consultation held between November 2001 and February 2002 on the draft Regulations and guidance, and
  The comments made by key interest groups at a meeting with officials arranged to discuss the draft Regulations after they had been revised in the light of the consultation responses.

  A summary of the consultation responses will be published together with the final version of the guidance in May.

  No formal representations have been received since the Regulations were made on 26 January 2003. However, departmental officials have received one email from a social services adoption manager, who wished to clarify a number of drafting points.

  Mr. Mark Heyes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further action he has taken in response to the Prime Minister's letter of 23 October 2002 concerning Mr. Mark Heyes of Ormskirk. [106425]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health has received several pieces of correspondence concerning Mr. Mark Heyes. However there is no record of receiving correspondence from him dated 23 October 2002.

  The latest correspondence concerning Mr. Mark Heyes was dated 24 February 2003. A response to this correspondence has been recently posted.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost is in 2003–04 to his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible of the increase in the national minimum wage from £4.20 per hour to £4.50 per hour. [110443]

  Mr. Lammy
  There will be no cost to the Department, its agencies and the non-departmental bodies.

  Neonatal Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures he is taking to replace old equipment in neonatal intensive care units; [108222]

  (2) how many neonatal intensive care units there are; where they are based; how many beds are in each unit; and what the (a) average and (b) greatest distance is that a baby has been transported for treatment in the last five years; [108223]

  (3) when his Department's review into neonatal intensive care services is due to be published. [108225]

  Jacqui Smith
  There were 128 national health service trusts which reported neonatal intensive care cots at 31 March 2002. Information on the units, cot numbers and location have been placed in the Library. Information on distances travelled in transferring babies for treatment is not collected centrally.

  The review of neonatal intensive care services, by an expert group convened by the Department, was published on 10 April. This marks the start of a consultation period on the future direction of this service. The report and background papers to the review are available on www.doh.gov.uk/nsf/neonatal.htm.

  The consultation will take into account the group's recommendations for a more structured, collaborative approach to care, with hospitals working closely together in formal, managed networks, to provide the safest and most effective service for mothers and babies. This would provide for a three tier system with the designation of some hospitals that are specially equipped to care for the sickest and smallest babies, with other hospitals providing high dependency care and shorter periods of special care as close to home as possible. The numbers of hospitals in each network will

  659W
  be for local decision but must reflect local need and-geography with the aim of providing local services for all babies, except those who need the most intensive care in designated units. The results of consultation may effect the location of designated intensive care cots, the number of which we intend to increase. As the numbers of babies requiring this sort of care are small, we would not expect that any proposed changes to the neonatal care services would have an impact on local maternity service provision.

  In order to assist implementation of recommendations arising from this review, we are making £20 million additional capital funding available this year, which may be used for equipment replacement as required. We are also providing an additional £12 million for running costs in 2003–04 increasing to £19,857,000 in 2004–05 and to £20 million in 2005–06.

  Neuro-psychology Services (South Manchester)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of neuro- psychology services for patients suffering severe head injury who are resident in the South Manchester area. [110198]

  Jacqui Smith
  Tertiary neuro-psychology services for people living in South Manchester are provided at the Greater Manchester Neurosciences Centre, which is based at the Hope Hospital in Salford.

  NHS Direct
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to publish the review into NHS Direct, referred to in the strategy document, Developing NHS Direct. [110819]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are no plans to publish the review into NHS Direct. The key recommendations and rationale of the review into NHS Direct were published in the strategy document, "Developing NHS Direct".

  NHS Estates and Administration Staff
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) gardening staff, (b) electricians, (c) plumbers and (d) hospital secretaries are employed in the NHS as part of the latest figures for Estates and Administration staff, by (i) headcount and (ii) whole time equivalents; and how many there were in 1997. [109931]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on numbers of gardening staff, electricians, plumbers and hospital secretaries is not separately available, the first three are included within the 'maintenance and works' category, and medical secretaries are included in 'clerical and administrative staff in clinical support'. The information available is shown in the table.660W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Service (HCHS): Maintenance and works staff and clerical and administrative staff within clinical support in England as at 30 September each year

  1997

  2001

  Whole-time equivalent

  Maintenance and works staff1

  13,295

  11,758

  Clerical and administrative staff—clinical support2

  49,729

  60,346

  Headcount

  Maintenance and works staff1

  13,614

  12,109

  Clerical and administrative staff—clinical support2

  63,971

  77,861

  1 Maintenance and works staff includes gardeners, electricians, plumbers, caretakers and engineers who look after physical buildings.

  2 Clerical and administrative staff in clinical support includes medical secretaries, blood transfusion service, family planning, etc.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  NHS Work Force Statistics
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 7 March 2003,Official Report, column 1275W, on NHS work force statistics, if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in publishing the annual NHS workforce statistics. [109111]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service work force census will be published shortly.

  Non-clinical Posts
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many practising NHS clinicians have been recruited to management, administrative and other non-clinical posts in the NHS in the past 12 months. [110943]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority were first informed of financial problems at North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust; and what action they took to address this; [110654]

  (2) how many people were approached by Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority to assist with financial problems of North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust; who they were; and on what basis they were selected. [110656]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answers 1 May 2003]: Since April 2002, the board of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA) has been concerned about the financial position of the North Cheshire Health community. A recovery plan was agreed in June, which, with brokerage from other communities, would have achieved financial balance in 2003–03.

  Despite intensive monitoring by the SHA, it remained concerned and in February asked the Audit Commission to retrospectively and prospectively review the plan's viability and assess the effectiveness of the corporate governance arrangements in the organisations within the North Cheshire Health Community.
  661W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority have had about the finances of North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust with(a) chairs of other NHS trusts and (b) others; and when the discussions took place. [110655]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]: All national health service trusts have statutory obligations for meeting specific financial duties, including the requirement to achieve financial balance. The Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority has a range of arrangements in place for monitoring the financial position of local NHS organisations. It has held three formal performance accountability review meetings with senior representatives of the North Cheshire Health Community, which includes the North Cheshire Hospitals Trust.

  Nurse Prescribers
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his target is for the number of nurse prescribers; when the target was published; when the target is due to be met; what the baseline was for the target; and what progress has been made towards meeting the target. [109997]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have already met the target set out in the NHS Plan, by enabling over 23,000 nurses with a district nurse or health visitor qualification to prescribe for their patients.

  The majority of nurses are able to supply medicines.

  Overseas Nurse Advice Line
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 207–08W, regarding the overseas nurse advice line, which of the organisations listed attended the meeting to decide the continuing funding of the overseas nurse advice line. [110252]

  Mr. Hutton
  The following organisations have attended the quarterly meeting on the international nurses advice line: Unison, Royal College of Nursing, Trent Workforce Development Confederation, Work Permits (UK), Filipino Community Support Group, Independent Healthcare Association, Registered Nursing Home Association, Department of Trade and Industry and the Philippine Embassy.

  Paediatric Pathology
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on staff shortages in paediatric pathology; and if he will make a statement. [109545]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health is aware of the challenges facing National Health Service paediatric pathology services, highlighted in the recent report by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health on 'The Future of Paediatric Pathology Services'. Department of Health officials recently met the Presidents of Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Pathologists and the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology to discuss strategies for improving long-term staffing levels in this 662W
  specialty. The children's care group workforce team is also considering this issue. The Department is also funding conversion fellowships to support experienced histopathologists to specialise in paediatric pathology. This will help improve staffing levels.

  Radiographers
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers have been employed in the NHS in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each NHS trust in each of the last six years. [110384]

  Mr. Hutton
  Between 1997 and 2001, the number of diagnostic radiographers employed in the national health service have increased by 800 or 8 per cent. and therapeutic radiographers have increased by 140 or 10 per cent.

  Information on the number of diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers employed in the NHS from 1997–2001, broken down by NHS trust has been placed in the Library. Information from the September 2002 census will be available shortly.

  Security Incidents
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of security incidents in the NHS in England in each year since 1997. [110822]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information relating to security incidents in healthcare premises has been collected centrally since 1999. The number of security incidents reported since this date is shown in the table.

  Number of incidents

  2001–02

  166,667

  2000–01

  112,095

  1999–2000

  106,935

  The increase in the number of incidents reported to 2002 is due, in part, to healthcare organisations initiating better reporting procedures. Historically, there has been significant under reporting of violence towards staff in the national health service. A key objective of the NHS zero tolerance campaign has been to improve levels of reporting among staff. It was acknowledged that the level of recorded incidents was likely to rise in the short term.

  Serious Road Accidents
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is available within his Department for helping the victims of serious road accidents; and if he will make a statement. [109534]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not allocate specific funding for serious road accident victims.

  It is our policy, within the framework set out in the NHS Plan and the 'Shifting the Balance of Power' initiative, to devolve funding decisions to the front line. It is now for primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet

  663W
  national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services, based on the specialised knowledge they have of the local community.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the salary bill was for special advisers in his Department in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in 2003–04. [108502]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 45W.

  Telemedicine
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether money allocated to local authorities and primary care trusts and the additional extra funding announced as part of the package for the introduction of cross charging from next January will include funding for telecare and telehealthcare devices which promote independent living. [111175]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no ring-fenced funding for telecare and telehealthcare devices within the allocations to local authorities and primary care trusts. The use of, and expenditure on, telecare and telehealthcare units in specific instances is a matter for local healthcare providers depending on local working practice and priorities.

  There will be no conditions linked to the additional funding for the introdution of cross-charging.

  The Carers' Resource, Harrogate
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance his Department is giving to primary care trusts so that they can support voluntary organisations, with particular reference to The Carers' Resource in Harrogate. [109712]

  Jacqui Smith
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) can, at their discretion, provide funding to voluntary organisations from their general funding allocation. On 3 April, the Department of Health reminded PCTs and other health providers of Government policy regarding the critical role carers play.

  The Carers' Resource is receiving funding of £42,985 from Craven, Harrogate and Rural District PCT in the current financial year.

  Working Time Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are being taken on by the NHS to manage the transition to the European Working Time Directive. [110944]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service is substantially expanding its staffing to deliver more and improved care for patients including compliance with the Working Time Directive (WTD).
  664W
  These additional staff will help the NHS to comply with the WTD. It is equally important to change working practices, so that the additional staff are used in a way which not only delivers WTD compliance but also the extra service activity to meet NHS Plan targets.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bullying and Harassment
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent investigations he has made into allegations of bullying and harassment of(a) male and (b) female council chief executives for political partisan motives; and if he will make a statement. [110986]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Standards Board for England has responsibility for investigating allegations that members may have breached the code of conduct, including by seeking to bully employees or otherwise compromise the impartiality of those who work for the authority.

  Cheltenham Borough Council
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will ask the Standards Board for England to look into allegations of unlawful practice by members of the Cheltenham Borough Council Cabinet. [110984]

  Mr. Leslie
  Any person—including hon. Members— may make a written allegation to the Standards Board that a member of a local authority has breached the code of conduct; the Board is statutorily required to consider all such allegations.

  Civil Service (People with Disabilities)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in meeting targets for the proportion of people with disabilities in senior posts in the Department. [110525]

  Mr. Leslie
  Along with other Government Departments, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is taking steps to increase the number of people with disabilities in its senior posts by making greater use of open competition to provide a wider pool of diverse applicants from which to recruit to senior posts. The latest Office of the Deputy Prime Minister disability survey showed that 1.9 per cent. of its Senior Civil Service (SCS) have a declared disability (against the corporate SCS target of 3 per cent. by 2005).

  Two the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister participants are currently participating in the two year Cabinet Office Bursary Scheme for Talented Civil Servants with Disabilities and one other will begin in the next round.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Equality and Diversity Unit have commissioned an internal project to develop a statistical model to assist in the setting of employment targets for people currently under-represented in the organisation (both SCS and below). It does this by taking account both of internal manpower planning and the profile of the wider population.
  665W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also participates in the Cabinet Office Disability Working Group which is looking at issues around data collection and culture change.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he will introduce to ensure that his Department's objective to ensure all contaminated land is returned to beneficial use by 2030 is achieved. [109000]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Measures are already in place to address the legacy of contaminated land. From April 2000, Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has placed local authorities in England under a duty to inspect their areas to identify contaminated land, as defined in the Act, and secure its remediation on the "suitable for use" principle. Further environmental measures include developing proposals to provide a more streamlined system for regulating the carrying out of remediation, and further technical guidance. Planning and building controls help ensure land is remediated as part of the development process, and new guidance in this field is in preparation.

  There is no objective of dealing with all contaminated land by 2030. There are Government targets relating to reclamation and re-use of brownfield land, which include cases where the land is affected by contamination. These targets are that 60 per cent. of new housing should by 2008 be provided on previously developed land and through conversion of existing buildings; and that brownfield land will be reclaimed at a rate of over 1,100 hectares per annum by 2004 (reclaiming 5 per cent. of current brownfield land by 2004 and 17 per cent. by 2010).

  Council Chief Executives
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many council chief executives have left their positions since the introduction of the Local Government Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [110985]

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

  Council Tax
  Mr. Barry Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 7 March 2003,Official Report, column 1263W, on council tax, if he will commission a report to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the different tax bands in Scotland, England and Wales, and whether a similar system might be of benefit in London. [111074]

  Mr. Leslie
  Work will commence in due course on a council tax revaluation in April 2005 coming into effect in April 2007 and the banding structure will be decided nearer to the revaluation. Ahead of revaluation, we will listen to views of taxpayers and local authorities and commission any necessary research.

  Councillors (Surcharging)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to re-introduce surcharging of councillors in instances where unlawful practice has taken place; and if he will make a statement. [110987]

  Mr. Leslie
  There are no plans to re-introduce surcharging. Instances of unlawful or unethical conduct can now be effectively dealt with through the regime established by the Local Government Act 2000, centred on the Standards Board for England and the Adjudication Panel.

  E-Voting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps are being taken to minimise fraud in the conduct of e-voting. [110316]

  Mr. Leslie
  There is a range of electronic, operational and administrative measures in place to guard against fraud in the e-voting pilots in the May 2003 local elections, including all e-voting pilots being subject to pre-election independent security checks. The Electoral Commission's post-election evaluation exercise includes consideration of fraud and security issues, and all pilot authorities are under a legal obligation to report instances of fraud to the police and the Commission.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by his Department since 17 April 2002. [106829]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister plays a leading role in the UK's EU Policy on planning, housing and local government issues. The Office is currently leading on the implementation of the energy performance of buildings directive as it has responsibility for most of the legislation that can be used to transpose the directive into law.

  EC regulations are, in general, directly applicable in the Member States, without the need for further incorporation into national law. Some regulations require UK measures to make them workable and enforceable. Some regulations enact small or technical amendments. Since its creation in May 2002, The Office has transposed Directive 2001/19/EC (the "SLIM Directive" which affects, as far as the Office's policy responsibilities are concerned, the registration of architects) into UK law.

  Food Law Enforcement
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much his Department and its predecessors has spent on food law enforcement for local authorities, by region, in each of the last 10 years. [111101]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Food law enforcement by local authorities in England is funded through formula grant, distributed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its predecessor Departments. Formula grant is not ring-fenced or hypothecated so it is not possible to identify a separate sum for a particular purpose.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 14 April 2003, ref 106392, how many hon. Members he has entertained for any purpose at the public expense in the last 12 months; how many of these were(a) Labour and (b) Conservative; and what the cost was in each case. [110260]

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

  Local Elections
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish a report, following elections to parish and town councils in May 2003, on the number of uncontested elections; and if he will make a statement on the implications of an uncontested election upon an application to become a quality parish council. [R] [108115]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information about parish council elections is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Whether a parish council election is or is not contested does not affect any application for quality parish council status. Criteria for such status include requirements about the proportion of council members who stood for election whether or not it was contested.

  Local Government Performance Order
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received about the Local Government (Best Value) Performance Indicators and Performance Standards Order. [110514]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Local Government (Best Value) Performance Indicators and Performance Standards Order 2003 specifies the Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) which apply to Best Value authorities in 2003–04. The Order was made following extensive consultation last Autumn with local government and a wide range of other interested organisations on changes to the 2002–03 suite of BVPIs to be implemented from 1 April 2003. The detailed guidance on the 2003–04 BVPIs to support this Order was published in January this year. There have not been any representations specifically about the Order.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the extra costs imposed on local authorities in Buckinghamshire in the provision of(a) social services and (b) residential long-term care as a result of the increase in the national minimum wage. [110314]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The independent Low Pay Commission has examined the impact of the national minimum wage in successive reports to the Government. In their third report they estimated that the introduction of the minimum wage had increased the wage bill in residential care by between 1 and 2 per cent. In their fourth and most recent report they estimated that their recommended increase in the minimum wage rate for 1 October 2003 would
  668W
  increase the wage bill in the social care sector by up to 0.5 per cent. No breakdown of these figures is available by area or by public/private sector.

  Resources for the social care sector are now set to increase by an average of 6 per cent. per annum in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Richard Spring
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many responses he received from Suffolk to the public consultation on regional assemblies. [111081]

  Mr. Raynsford
  By 1 May, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister had received 60 replies from individuals and organisations in Suffolk to the Soundings Exercise on the level of interest in a referendum on establishing an elected regional assembly. In the light of changes to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, we have asked for any further responses by 16 May.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to review the rent re-structuring formula for residents in sheltered housing. [111123]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Lord Rooker, the Minister for Housing and Planning, announced the launch of the first three-year progress review of the 10-year social rent restructuring in England on 9 April. The review will gather evidence about the effects of rent restructuring and examine whether fine-tuning adjustments to the approach would make sense for tenants and landlords.

  The steering group, comprising the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Housing Corporation, Local Government Association, Association of London Government, National Housing Federation, Council of Mortgage Lenders, Department for Work and Pensions and a tenant representative are currently considering the priorities for the review. The aim is to complete the review by April 2004, and following consultation, to implement any changes justified by the evidence from April 2005.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Alzheimer's
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Northern Ireland Office is taking to highlight Alzheimer's Awareness week in Northern Ireland. [110907]

  Mr. Browne
  The Alzheimer's Awareness Week, which will run in Northern Ireland from 15–22 June 2003 under the title of "Mind your head", is a joint venture between the Alzheimer's Society and a leading bank. The aim of the week is to focus attention on what can be done to reduce the risk of dementia in the future. The Society is arranging various events to highlight the links between a healthy heart and a healthy brain and information and promotional material will be available throughout the week in the bank's branch offices.
  669W
  Although not directly involved in activities during Alzheimer's Awareness Week, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety actively supports the Alzheimer's Society and has for many years provided the Society with grant aid towards its central administrative costs.

  Civil Service (Newry and Mourne)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Civil Service jobs have been relocated to the Newry and Mourne district council area over the last two years; and what steps have been taken to encourage the redeployment of such jobs to this region. [110210]

  Mr. Pearson
  No NICS jobs in the 11 devolved departments were relocated to Newry and Mourne district council area over the last two years. My officials are currently examining the report on the Strategic Review of Civil Service Office Accommodation, which includes an examination of the scope for decentralisation of Civil Service jobs. Until this exercise is complete, it would be wrong to attempt to pre-judge decisions on any subsequent dispersal of jobs or to speculate as to the locations that might be involved.

  Education
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost is, per pupil, of providing education in each Northern Ireland education and library board area for primary and post-primary schools in the(a) controlled sector, (b) maintained sector and (c) integrated sector. [110569]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following figures set out the net expenditure per primary and post-primary school pupil for 2001–02 and have been taken from the latest available out-turn statements.

  Board

  Sector

  Primary

  Post-primary

  BELB

  Controlled

  2,576

  4,008

  Maintained

  2,301

  3,701

  Integrated

  2,155

  3,260

  NEELB

  Controlled

  2,175

  3,310

  Maintained

  2,341

  3,506

  Integrated

  2,512

  3,813

  SEELB

  Controlled

  2,601

  3,667

  Maintained

  2,518

  3,560

  Integrated

  2,861

  3,434

  SELB

  Controlled

  2,357

  3,364

  Maintained

  2,377

  3,270

  Integrated

  2,242

  3,595

  WELB

  Controlled

  2,559

  3,477

  Maintained

  2,374

  3,531

  Integrated

  2,297

  3,549

  The figures include:

  Amounts made available under LMS Formulae;

  Centre funds held by Boards and the Department and distributed to schools in the course of the year to meet certain costs arising from items of expenditure such as teacher substitution;

  Contingency funds and initiatives funded by both the ELBs and the Department;

  Integrated figures include both controlled integrated and grant maintained integrated schools; and

  Post Primary figures exclude controlled and voluntary grammar schools.
  670W
  The figures exclude centrally held resources, such as Home to School Transport, CASS, School Meals and Central Administration, as these are not costed to individual schools.

  Force Research Unit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to assess compensation entitlements for those victims injured or killed as a result of actions or omissions of the Force Research Unit, its predecessor and successor units. [110862]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  When compensation claims are made against the Ministry of Defence, they are assessed individually on the basis of the Department's legal liability in the particular circumstances of each case.

  Health and Social Board
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) notice and (b) discussion occurs between hospitals outside the Northern Health and Social Board and the local community health trust within the Board area prior to discharging a patient into the community. [110561]

  Mr. Browne
  There are standing arrangements for the discharge of people from hospital that have been established between all hospital and community trusts. These arrangements have been drawn up in consultation with the appropriate Health and Social Personal Services personnel and are integrated within the assessment and care management process. Health and social services staff in both hospital and community settings should be aware of these arrangements which are based on good practice guidelines issued by the Department.

  Health Trusts
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many Northern Ireland health trust senior managers and managers sit on more than two public sector boards, authorities or non-governmental organisations; [110563]

  (2) how many new senior managers' and managers' posts have been created in each of the last five years in each Northern Ireland health trust. [110564]

  Mr. Browne
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) senior managers and (b) managers are employed in each Northern Ireland health trust. [110566]

  Mr. Browne
  Figures showing the number of administration and clerical staff working in the 18 health trusts and other agencies are shown in the table. It was not possible to provide specific figures for the subsets of managers and senior managers. This was due
  671W
  to the complex nature of the administration and clerical grades and more specifically the lack of an agreed definition for manager and senior manager posts.

  Administration and Clerical Staff in HPSS organisations as at 31 March 2003

  HPSS Organisation

  Headcount

  WTE

  Altnagelvin Group ESS Trust

  403

  354.5

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  347

  301.6

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  778

  691.3

  Causeway HSS Trust

  524

  456.3

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  291

  259.1

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  410

  357.5

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  636

  560.6

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  373

  327.4

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  268

  237.0

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  856

  727.4

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  201

  176.0

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  415

  358.4

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  565

  481.5

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  1,045

  937.6

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  485

  442.2

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  624

  535.1

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  877

  727.6

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  661

  551.5

  Other Agencies

  1,823

  17,16.4

  TOTAL

  11,582

  101,99.0

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the salary costs for(a) senior managers and (b) managers in each Northern Ireland health trust are for 2003–04. [110565]

  Mr. Browne
  As the pay awards for 2003–04 have yet to be determined it is not possible to identify what the salary costs for(a) senior managers and (b) managers in Health and Personal Social Services Trusts will be.

  Neurosurgery
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients in Northern Ireland have been waiting for neurosurgery admission to hospital for longer than(a) three years, (b) five years and (c) seven years. [111412]

  Mr. Browne
  Information from the Royal Group of Hospitals showing the number of persons waiting for neurosurgery admission to hospital at the end of April 2003 is presented in the table.

  Number

  Years waiting

  3–4

  5–6

  1 +

  Number of persons waiting

  132

  29

  12

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients in Northern Ireland have been awaiting initial neurosurgery outpatient assessment for longer than(a) 12 and (b) 18 months. [111413]

  Mr. Browne
  At the 31 December 2002, 14 people had been waiting between 12 and 17 months and four people had been waiting 18 months or more, for a first outpatient appointment in the neurosurgery specialty.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken to increase the recruitment and training of nurses to work in neurosurgery in Northern Ireland. [111414]
  672W
  Mr. Browne
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman for Belfast, South on 11 March 2003,Official Report, column 194W (Question ref. 102036).

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of those awaiting neurosurgery hospital admission, how many patients are considered(a) emergency and (b) clinically urgent cases. [111415]

  Mr. Browne
  Information from the Royal Group of Hospitals indicates that at the end of April 2003 there were(a) 57 patients considered as emergency and (b) 84 patients considered as clinically urgent.

  Newry Social Security Office
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure a balance in the religious breakdown of staff at Newry Social Security Office. [110209]

  Mr. Pearson
  Assessments of fair participation by community background in the Northern Ireland civil service are made on a service-wide basis, not at particular branch or office level.

  NHS (Treatment Delays)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and the Northern Ireland Assembly concerning a definition for an unreasonable period of delay for treatment within the NHS, as phrased in the European Court of Justice ruling on treatment of patients abroad for patients from Wales. [109880]

  Mr. Browne
  The European Court ruling regarding the authorisation to receive medical treatment in another member state of the European Economic Area, the E112 system, did not define what was meant by "undue delay" by implication leaving that a matter for determination by each member state. If "undue delay" is considered when dealing with applications for E112s the yardstick used is waiting time. The Department's definition of excess waiting times is similar to the national UK targets for waiting times as published in the NHS Plan.

  Population Projections
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the population projections for(a) primary and (b) post-primary schools in each Northern Ireland education and library board area are for each of the next 10 years. [110574]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education does not produce projections of pupil numbers at any geographical level lower than Northern Ireland as a whole.

  Primary Schools (Ards)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce Key Stage 1 SEN units on site in mainstream primary schools in the Ards Peninsula. [110397]
  673W
  Jane Kennedy
  The South-Eastern Education and Library Board continually monitors the demand for places at all its special units. At present the Board advises that there are insufficient numbers of pupils in Key Stage 1 with a statement of special educational needs for moderate learning difficulties living in the Ards peninsula to warrant the opening of a new special unit.

  The Board will, however, continue to monitor the demand for such a unit.

  Programme Funds
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding was allocated by the Voluntary and Community Unit of the Department of Social Development to the(a) Support for Regional Infrastructure of the Voluntary and Community Sector programme, (b) District Councils Community Support programme and (c) the EU Programme: Building Sustainable Prosperity, Measure 3.2 and 3.3. [111220]

  Mr. Browne
  The Voluntary and Community Unit, within the Department for Social Development, allocated the following amounts in 2002–03:

  (a) Support for Regional Infrastructure—£1,879,404

  (b) District Councils Community Support Programme— £3,360,207

  (c) EU Building Sustainable Prosperity

  Measure 3.2—£1,144,780

  Measure 3.3—£4,653,434

  Pupil/Teacher Ratio (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the pupil/teacher ratio is in Northern Ireland's primary and post-primary schools; and what it is projected to be in each of the next five years. [110568]

  Jane Kennedy
  The pupil/teacher ratios for 2002–03 are not yet available. The most recent information available is as follows:

  2001–02

  Primary schools

  19.9

  Preparatory departments

  16.9

  Post primary schools

  14.4

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  (a) Primary Schools

  Belfast

  30,304

  29,378

  28,717

  27,995

  26,984

  Western

  34,028

  33,293

  33,246

  32,860

  32,643

  North Eastern

  39,244

  38,926

  38,743

  38,758

  38,713

  South Eastern

  36,902

  36,565

  36,487

  36,628

  36,344

  Southern

  41,236

  40,794

  40,436

  40,099

  39,467

  All Boards

  181,714

  178,956

  177,629

  176,340

  174,151

  Preparatory Departments

  Belfast

  1,652

  1,593

  1,490

  1,415

  1,355

  Western

  50

  36

  28

  20

  9

  North Eastern

  289

  244

  159

  145

  160

  South Eastern

  1,049

  1,019

  1,015

  990

  997

  Southern

  149

  131

  126

  129

  130

  All Boards

  3,189

  3,023

  2,818

  2,699

  2,651

  674W
  The Department does not calculate projected pupil/teacher ratios.

  Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has introduced to prevent the spread of SARS to Northern Ireland. [110905]

  Mr. Browne
  I am happy to confirm that there have not been any probable cases of SARS so far in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has been working in close liaison with the Department of Health (DOH)(L) and arising from that we have provided early, accurate information to both the public and the health service.

  The Chief Medical Officer contacted all doctors on 14 March, 18 March and subsequently on 8 April with detailed information on the symptoms and signs of SARS, and what to do if they encountered a possible case. The Department has also put in place high quality public health surveillance to enable the disease to be tracked closely. The Chief Medical Officer has also issued advice, on 2 April and on 24 April, to people travelling abroad, in line with WHO recommendations. Up to date information is available to the public on the Department's website and on those of the World Health Organisation, the new Health Protection Agency and the DOH(L).

  Finally, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has provided and made arrangements for posters to be displayed at appropriate points in air and sea ports advising incoming passengers, from those areas affected by SARS, about the symptoms of the disease and the importance of seeking medical attention, if they become ill, showing any of the symptoms.

  School Enrolment
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the enrolment figures at(a) primary and (b) post-primary schools were in each Northern Ireland education and library board area in each of the last five years. [110575]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is as follows:
  675W

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  (b) Post-Primary Schools

  Belfast

  31,774

  32,052

  32,071

  32,083

  32,121

  Western

  29,104

  29,258

  29,185

  28,901

  28,793

  North Eastern

  32,957

  33,155

  33,566

  33,732

  33,822

  South Eastern

  26,207

  26,478

  26,649

  26,743

  26,907

  Southern

  33,902

  34,021

  34,082

  34,044

  34,104

  All Boards

  153,944

  154,964

  155,553

  155,503

  155,747

  Student Finance
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to introduce university top-up fees in Northern Ireland. [111374]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is my intention to consider carefully the implications for Northern Ireland of the DfES White Paper on the future of higher education in England, including the fee issue, over the next few months; to take into consideration the outcome of the consultation process in England and discussions with local stakeholders including the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council; and to bring forward recommendations for the way forward in Northern Ireland in due course.

  Teachers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the projected number of teachers employed in primary and post-primary schools in each Northern Ireland education and library board area is for the next 10 years. [110572]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education does not produce projections of the number of teachers employed in primary and post-primary schools in each Northern Ireland education and library board area.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland teachers have(a) retired and (b) left the profession within their first three years, in each of the last five years. [110571]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is as follows:

  a) The numbers of teachers who have retired in each of the last five academic years are as follows:

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/00

  2000/01

  2001/02

  870

  778

  748

  873

  782

  (b) The numbers of teachers leaving the teaching profession within three years of their first appointment in a permanent teaching post are as follows:

  1997/98

  1995/99

  1999/00

  2000/01

  2001/02

  8

  15

  6

  9

  13

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many teachers were employed in(a) primary and (b) post-primary schools in each Northern Ireland education and library board area in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [110573]
  676W
  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested (expressed as full time equivalents) is as follows:

  Primary schools

  Belfast

  Western

  North Eastern

  South Eastern

  Southern

  1992–93

  1,384

  1,614

  1,769

  1,586

  1,894

  1993–94

  1,474

  1,673

  1,838

  1,663

  2,001

  1994–95

  1,517

  1,688

  1,852

  1,695

  2,046

  1995–96

  1,613

  1,717

  1,871

  1,741

  2,066

  1996–97

  1,611

  1,737

  1,897

  1,758

  2,085

  1997–98

  1,560

  1,728

  1,906

  1,715

  2,102

  1998–99

  1,532

  1,628

  1,863

  1,725

  2,062

  1999–2000

  1,479

  1,607

  1,836

  1,744

  2,085

  2000–01

  1,466

  1,601

  1,822

  1,777

  2,075

  2001–02

  1,427

  1,618

  1,873

  1,814

  2,047

  Preparatory departments1

  Belfast

  Western

  North Eastern

  South Eastern

  Southern

  1992–93

  71

  4

  15

  38

  10

  1993–94

  61

  3

  16

  38

  9

  1994–95

  102

  3

  20

  45

  11

  1995–96

  110

  3

  20

  46

  9

  1996–97

  110

  3

  19

  46

  10

  1997–98

  101

  3

  19

  48

  10

  1998–99

  103

  3

  17

  49

  13

  1999–2000

  98

  2

  15

  50

  7

  2000–01

  96

  2

  9

  56

  7

  2001–02

  92

  2

  8

  49

  9

  1 The count of teachers is on a different basis from 1994–95 onwards.

  Post-primary schools

  Belfast

  Western

  North Eastern

  South Eastern

  Southern

  1992–93

  2,022

  1,754

  2,159

  1,673

  2,046

  1993–94

  2,107

  1,818

  2,213

  1,724

  2,104

  1994–95

  2,048

  1,883

  2,212

  1,704

  2,160

  1995–96

  2,086

  1,931

  2,236

  1,743

  2,214

  1996–97

  2,118

  1,987

  2,244

  1,739

  2,262

  1997–98

  2,121

  2,003

  2,255

  1,714

  2,242

  1998–99

  2,136

  1,985

  2,230

  1,732

  2,275

  1999–2000

  2,199

  2,005

  2,252

  1,776

  2,316

  2000–01

  2,236

  2,059

  2,286

  1,827

  2,338

  2001–02

  2,269

  2,038

  2,324

  1,857

  2,321

  Hospitals
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the future of psychiatric services at the Tyrone and Fermanagh Hospital in Omagh. [110208]

  Mr. Browne
  The predominant factor in determination of service provision will be the needs of clients and patients and, while the board is placing greater emphasis on more effective alternative provision within the community, there will continue to be a need to commission psychiatric in-patient services at Tyrone and Fermanagh Hospital.
  677W
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for maintaining and developing acute services and sub-regional services at the Tyrone county hospital pending the putting in place of the proposed new hospital north of Enniskillen. [110207]
  678W
  Mr. Browne
  I do not envisage any change in the status of Tyrone county hospital, pending the development of the new acute hospital in the south-west. During the transition phase I expect every effort to be made to sustain acute services at Tyrone county hospital.

TREASURY

  Lorry Road-user Charge
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  In the Budget, we said that we would publish the second progress report on the lorry road-user charge. The Minister for Transport and I have today published that progress report, which sets out further details of the administrative arrangements for the charge and explains that there will be reductions in duty on fuel used in lorries for which the road-user charge is paid. A copy of the report is available in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Oversight Commissioner's Report
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy)
  As it is being published today, in accordance with Section 68(4)(a) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, I have today laid a copy of the Oversight Commissioner's first statutory report for the year 2003 before this House.

  Public Bodies
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  Copies of the Business Development Service (BDS) published Strategic Plan 2003–06 and Business Plan 2003–04 were deposited in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 1 May 2003. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  The Ministerial Targets for BDS for the period 1 April 2003–31 March 2004 are as follows:
  95 per cent. of customers to be satisfied with the services they receive;
  95 per cent. of customers to be satisfied with the way in which services are provided;
  People development to be consistent with the principles of Investors in People Standard (IIP);
  Secure on a notional basis and within the context of service level agreements (where they apply) full recovery of the cost of its operations within a tolerance level of 10 per cent.; and
  Deliver an efficiency saving of 2 per cent.

  Copies of the Land Registers of Northern Ireland (LRNI) and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) Corporate Plans 2003–06 and Business Plans 2003–04 will be deposited in the Northern Ireland Assembly during the week commencing 12 May 2003. Copies will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  24WS
  The Ministerial Targets for LRNI for the period 1 April 2003–31 March 2004 are as follows:
  To achieve a 75 per cent. customer satisfaction rate, based on customer surveys;
  To achieve a registration accuracy rate of at least 98.5 per cent.;
  To process regular Land Registry dealings in an average of 20 days;
  To process regular Registry of Deeds dealings in an average of 6 days;
  To process regular Statutory Charges Registry dealings in an average of 15 days;
  To process pre-completion land information applications in an average of 4 days;
  To achieve a weighted unit cost target (inclusive of PFI costs) of £29.00;
  To process 150 application units per member of staff per month;
  To cover agency costs out of fee income.

  The Ministerial targets for NISRA for the period 1 April 2003–31 March 2004 are as follows:
  Have at least 95 per cent. of customers who responded to the customer satisfaction survey say they are satisfied with the service and products;
  Improve the quality of service to customers by releasing through electronic media in at least five areas of work;
  Produce no fewer than 72 statistical and 16 research publications;
  Ensure that the National Statistics (NS) Code of Practice is implemented and that the processes outlined in the NS protocols are put in place and enforced, in order to promote high quality statistical output and facilitate access to those outputs;
  Process 98 per cent. of postal and personal applications for GRO certificates within eight and three working days respectively;
  Introduce the Marriage Regulations (NI) 2003 efficiently and effectively;
  Produce 2001 Census Area Statistics by summer 2003;
  Deliver an efficiency saving of 2 per cent;
  Maintain expenditure within approved budgetary plans.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  School Budgets 2003–04
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  On Friday 2 May I published a detailed analysis of the school budgets of local education authorities for 2003–04, based on authorities' own statements. I have placed in the Library copies of the table of analysis, an explanatory note on the analysis, and a table showing cash increases in funding by LEA since 1997–98.

  The analysis reveals the following eight issues:
  Nineteen LEAs appear not to be passporting the full increase in education resources they received from Government into their Schools Budget. Eight of these authorities said they would passport in full in January. In total this means that schools in these authorities will not have the benefit of £23 million which the Government intended for schools;

  25WS
  One hundred and twenty-five LEAs are increasing the funding for the pupil services they pay for centrally faster than they are increasing the funding for individual schools. In total schools are getting £235 million less than a proportionate share of the increased resources;
  There are big variations in the increases that LEAs are making in their funding of Special Educational Needs. Forty-five LEAs have increased funding in this area by more than 30 per cent. while 33 LEAs have only increased their spending by 5 per cent. or less;
  Half of authorities have increased their spending on educating pupils outside school, for example in Pupil Referral Units, by 30 per cent. or more. Increases may be justified by local circumstances, but will have an impact on individual schools' budgets;
  Forty per cent. of authorities are diverting more than £1 million from revenue budgets into capital spending, at a time when dedicated capital funding from central Government for schools continues to rise significantly, year-on-year;
  Over two thirds of LEAs are holding over £100,000 for contingency purposes. This will have an impact on schools' financial planning, if they do not know this money is there. The amount being held in contingency funds across the country amounts to £64 million;
  Five hundred and thirty-three million pounds which LEAs have specifically ear-marked for individual schools' budgets had not been allocated to schools at the point that their statutory statements were made to DfES. A fifth of authorities still had more than £5 million to allocate to schools, and some much more than this. There may be good reasons for this and we know that some authorities are now in the process of allocating these funds;
  Within many LEAs, there are big variations between the budget increases of individual schools. This means that some schools are getting funding increases 10 percentage points more than other schools in the same authority.

  My Department has written to all LEAs to ask questions about their spending decisions: the questions asked of each LEA reflect the extent to which it is affected by the eight issues above. We are also asking LEAs to set out the steps they are intending to take to avoid any needless redundancies of teaching staff because of funding issues. LEAs have been asked to reply by 12 May.

  In the light of the information that LEAs provide I shall consider what changes to make regarding funding arrangements for 2004–05.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  "Waste Not, Want Not" (Government Response)
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher)
  The strategy unit published its report"Waste not, Want not" in November last year. It looked at how England can tackle its growing waste problem and how to meet EU Landfill Directive targets, which require big cuts in the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. Waste in the UK continues to rise at 3 per cent. per year—faster than GDP and faster than in most other nations. If we carry on as we are the waste mountain will double by 2020, adding £1.6 billion per year to waste disposal costs.
  26WS
  The strategy unit has made a wide range of recommendations to address waste, ranging from how we can generate less waste, through to the safest, most sustainable way to manage it if we cannot avoid producing it. They have been very clear that we urgently need to take further steps to tackle the waste challenge and the Government fully endorse that message.

  The Government welcome the strategy unit report and today I am publishing our response to it. We accept the majority of the recommendations and support the direction or intent of many of the others.

  We have already acted in the following key areas:
  Landfill Tax will be increased by £3 per tonne in 2005–06 and by at least £3 per tonne in the years thereafter, on the way to a medium to long term rate of £35 per tonne. This will be the foundation for the economic framework the strategy unit recommended;
  the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme has been reformed and a proportion of the funding—£84/92/92m—will be redirected to a new sustainable waste management programme in England in 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06;
  the Sustainable Waste Management Programme will concentrate on improving waste minimisation, recycling and composting, and researching new technologies for dealing with those wastes which are not readily reduced, reused or recycled. The programme will assist local authorities to increase doorstep collection of recyclable materials such as paper, garden waste, glass and cans, and encourage increased home composting and the use of reusable nappies;
  a new Delivery Team and Steering Group is being established in Defra to drive forward implementation of the Government's response to the strategy unit report and new programmes of work in Defra, WRAP and the Environment Agency;
  Local authority funding of £90m each year for 2004–05 and 2005–06 has been provided for the waste minimisation and recycling fund or its successor performance reward fund.

  The paper published today sets out the Government's detailed response to each of the strategy unit's recommendations. It also includes a table which indicates follow-up action, who has lead responsibility and the timetable.

  The Government recognise the need to work closely and collaboratively with the range of bodies engaged in waste management. In particular, the Environment Agency—as Government's key regulator of waste and with its extensive network of operators on the ground—will have a major contribution to make to some of the new programmes of work, and the Local Government Association will have a vital role to play in advising on the programmes aimed at driving up local government performance on waste. The waste industry and the voluntary sector also have an important role to play in our changing approach.

  We have challenging recycling and composting targets to meet in the near future. I believe our response today to this strategy unit report takes us closer to a more sustainable future for waste management. But achieving this requires us all, as householders, to play our part in reducing waste and increasing reuse, recycling and composting.
  27WS
  The Government recognise that long term progress in sustainable waste management will require a refocus in thinking from seeing waste as a problem to the good management of resources so that waste is avoided altogether. There are strong links between the work recommended by the strategy unit and that being carried out in the development of the sustainable Consumption and Production Strategy which I am planning to publish later this year.

  Copies of the Government response have been lodged in both Libraries of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  UNESCO
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)
  The United Kingdom rejoined UNESCO in 1997, with the goal of helping UNESCO become a more effective organisation with clear, focused objectives and strategies. DFID's key objective is the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, of which the education goals are particularly relevant to UNESCO.

  The Constitution of UNESCO states that
  "each Member State shall make such arrangements as suit its particular conditions for the purpose of associating its principal bodies interested in educational, scientific and cultural matters with the work of the Organisation, preferably by the formation of a National Commission broadly representative of the government and such bodies".

  We re-established a National Commission three years ago. It soon became clear that it was not working effectively. Most of the resources were being drained by a bureaucratic committee structure at the expense of engaging effectively with UNESCO, particularly with regard to DFID's focus on education and the reduction of poverty. A review group established by the National Commission submitted a report which made recommendations for a reconfiguration of the National Commission. This report was made available to the public and I made clear I was ready to implement these recommendations, but after much contentious debate it was not possible to achieve agreement on how to move ahead.

  I therefore decided that for DFID it would be best for us to consult and account to parliament and civil society on UNESCO in the same way that we do for all the UN and other multilateral agencies for which we are responsible. DFID has since its inception consulted closely with civil society on the formulation of international development policy and we shall continue to do so. Other Departments will make their own arrangements for consultation with UNESCO about matters which fall within their respective mandates.

  My Department remains committed to working with UNESCO to fulfil its mandate within a well-defined poverty and sustainable development strategy, giving top priority to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. We seek to achieve this through the governing bodies of which we are a member, and by providing appropriate technical co-operation and financial assistance.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Home Improvement Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a consultation paper, "Home Improvement Agencies—Development and Reform", jointly with the Department of Health, last September. The paper set out proposals for reforming the Home Improvement Agency (HIA) sector in order to equip it for future challenges.

  The Supporting People programme, through which the sector will receive a substantial proportion of its funding from 2003–04, will bring new responsibilities and ways of working. In addition, there is a need to make HIA services available more widely if the sector's potential to make significant contributions to the delivery of health and regeneration objectives is to be realised. The Government's aim in publishing the consultation paper was to invite views on the best way of improving the capacity of the sector to meet these challenges.

  The paper sought endorsement of the Government's view that the sector should settle local commissioning models and structures during 2003–04, and work towards national coverage by the end of 2004–05. Recognising that additional resources would be needed in order to support the development and reform agenda, I announced last October that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would be providing an additional £5.2 million over the next three years to support HIAs' running costs, and that the Department of Health would be providing £9.5 million over the same period, earmarked for agencies, so that they can become key players in the provision of services to older people on discharge from hospital.

  In parallel with the consultation exercise, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister appointed Foundations, the national co-ordinating body for home improvement agencies, to investigate and recommend optimum structures for the sector, and also to recommend optimum commissioning models for HIA services within the Supporting People arrangements. Foundations has recommended that the goal in restructuring should be a network of area-resourced HIAs based upon the territories of the Supporting People commissioning bodies, combining a central management function and local delivery points. Foundations has also made a number of recommendations designed to secure the role of HIAs within the decision-making procedures of the commissioning bodies.

  The majority of consultation responses supported the Government's overall approach to the future of the sector. Of those who expressed a view on the Government's proposed timetable for restructuring and expanding geographical coverage, about 80 per cent. were supportive. On the future of the national coordinating body, 88 per cent. of those who expressed a view believed that the Government should continue to fund such a body after the expiry of the current contract with Foundations on 31 March 2004.
  29WS
  The Government are grateful for the consultation responses. We note the view of a number of respondents that full national coverage of HIA services may not be achievable, and we recognise that the provision of such services is a matter for local decision in the light of need and other factors. Nonetheless, we believe that there is considerable scope to expand the sector's current geographical coverage with the co-operation of local authorities and other agencies.

  In accordance with EU competition rules and Government procurement policy, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will shortly begin the tendering process for a new contract with a national co-ordinating body to be funded centrally.

  We accept the recommendations of Foundations on future structural and commissioning models, whilst recognising the value of existing centres of excellence and taking care to avoid losing the essentially local character of the services that agencies provide We will fund a Structure Support Team to work with agencies and their partners to agree and implement organisational changes where these are shown to be necessary. This team will be established by Foundations, in collaboration with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, under an extension of its existing contract. HIAs and their partners will be notified when the Team is ready to start work.

  Elections (2004)
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a summary of the responses which the Government received to their consultation paper "Combining English Local Authority, Greater London Authority and European Parliament Elections in 2004".

  A total of 364 responses were received to the consultation exercise. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor's Department have analysed these responses very carefully.

  The consultation document sought views on five issues.
  30WS
  The first issue was whether respondents agreed with the proposal to combine the local and GLA elections with the European Parliamentary Elections in 2004. Of those expressing a view, 172 of those responses agreed with this proposal, while 138 disagreed.

  The consultation document secondly asked what practical issues respondents foresaw in combining most effectively the local (and, where applicable, parish) elections with the European Parliamentary Elections, and thirdly what practical issues they foresaw in combining most effectively the GLA elections with the European Parliamentary Elections. Respondents raised a range of different practical issues, relating to the operation of the elections themselves and council business more widely, such as the terms of office of members and the date of annual meetings.

  The consultation document asked fourthly what action should be taken to address any practical issues raised. Respondents, including electoral administrators, have put forward a number of suggestions. Having considered the nature of the practical issues raised and the range of solutions available, the Government believe that there is no practical impediment to the combination of local, GLA and European Parliamentary Elections in 2004.

  In the light of the responses to these four issues and the Government's analysis of the issues raised, our current intent ion remains to exercise the order-making provisions we are seeking in the Local Government Bill, if these are enacted by Parliament, to allow the combination of local elections in 2004 with the next elections to the European Parliament, which are due to take place on 10 June 2004.

  The fifth issue on which the consultation document sought views was on whether to move elections to a weekend. Of those expressing a view, 74 were in favour of this proposal, 66 respondents supported further pilots or testing of weekend voting and 91 were against.

  In the light of this response, the Government intend to take forward further pilots of weekend voting in view of potential benefits to electors, and taking into account the costs involved. A series of practical difficulties were raised about proceeding with nation-wide weekend voting in 2004. In particular, the Electoral Commission did not support wholesale mandatory weekend voting in 2004. Therefore the Government remain of the view that in 2004 local, GLA and European Parliamentary elections should take place on Thursday 10 June.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

New Partnership for Africa's Development
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of the progress made by the New Partnership for Africa's Development.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, NePAD has made good progress since its inception. It has established a broad base of support from African governments. We and others are committed in our support for NePAD, in particular through the G8 Africa Action Plan. NePAD needs time to make further progress and it needs the active support of the international community.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords agree with the Government in their support of NePAD. However, on 31st March in Pretoria, did not the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, say that because of the situation in Zimbabwe,
"foreign investors … think NePAD is a lost cause"?
If the current visit by three African presidents to Zimbabwe is not successful in resolving the problems of that country, would it not be right to put Zimbabwe on to the agenda of the meeting of G8 leaders to be held in France in a month's time? Is it not astonishing that, at last year's meeting of the G8 in Canada, Zimbabwe was hardly mentioned, if at all? Should not the G8 leaders now be considering how they can persuade the leaders of other African nations to ensure, in their own interests, that human rights, good governance and the rule of law are observed in all African countries, as they are required to do by a number of treaties? Would not that be a great help to NePAD?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, feels strongly about the situation in Zimbabwe, as do all noble Lords. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and my noble friend Lady Amos in this House, have made clear on many occasions the Government's firm views on the dire situation in that country. We support the new sanctions now in place against Zimbabwe, which add to the Commonwealth sanctions already established. However, in regard to the noble Lord's questions about NePAD and its deficiencies, as he sees them, along with the threat posed to the partnership as a result of the circumstances quoted by the noble Lord, I would say that NePAD is a new way, an innovative way, of redeveloping Africa. It is much bigger than any one country. We must support the fact that the most
940
important element of NePAD is that it is African countries themselves which have signed up to it. It is an African-led innovation and therefore we have to support it. So this is not a question of one thing or another; it is a question of supporting NePAD and also ensuring that we support any moves to help the people of Zimbabwe.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, as my noble friend remarked, it is early days for NePAD, but it is still the most hopeful development to have come out of Africa since the release of Nelson Mandela. Is it not the case that, however it is expressed, the principle of mutual accountability—I think that is the new buzzword leading up to the Evian summit—means that, both in the context of north/south and between African governments themselves, we shall see the development of peer group review which will be able to address precisely the kind of situation referred to by the noble Lord opposite?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. Through his robust leadership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Africa, he will know that the NePAD initiative has been brought into being by African leaders themselves. The goals and vision of the partnership are much more important than any one controversy. I would say to noble Lords that, in Africa, controversies and supreme difficulties have to be faced on any day of the week, but we have to look at NePAD's overarching goals, which seek to meet those difficulties not only now, but also in the future. As my noble friend knows, those overarching goals are to promote accelerated growth, to eradicate widespread severe poverty and to halt the marginalisation of Africa in the global process.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, further to the questions put by my noble friend Lord Blaker, does the noble Baroness agree that NePAD's failure is not surprising, given that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, chaired by Libya, recently failed to pass a motion condemning Zimbabwe's human rights record? What are the Government doing to make the international response to the disaster in Zimbabwe more effective?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I disagree completely with the noble Lord in one respect; the NePAD process has not failed. It has been going for under two years. As I said in my earlier remarks, NePAD marks a new way of thinking about Africa's problems. It signals a commitment made by African leaders themselves to ensure that they do not look at aid as just a distributive mechanism and that they do not look at just short-term solutions to conflict, but that they consider what is happening in each country as regards good governance, transparency in dealing with international companies and so forth. All those issues bring hope to NePAD and, for that reason, we should all support it. It is precisely because of problems like those posed by Zimbabwe that we should continue to support NePAD.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Baroness that NePAD is much larger than any individual controversy in Africa, does she acknowledge that her noble friend not only made the remarks attributed to her by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, but went on to say that the developed nations might lose their collective vigour for plans to revive Africa if the issue of Zimbabwe is not addressed? Can the Minister say whether the visit of the three presidents to Harare was part of the African peer review mechanism agreed in March? Where will it lead if Mugabe does not take the hint and step down? Will there be further moves by the African peer review mechanism to sort things out in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Government welcome the troika's visit to Zimbabwe this weekend and we look forward to hearing the outcome of those private discussions. We welcome the involvement of the African leaders and we hope that there will soon be unconditional inter-party dialogue in Zimbabwe.

Asthma
2.44 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What initiatives they are planning to help people with asthma.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are currently developing a national service framework for children. Although it will not look at specific conditions, it has been agreed that asthma should be used as one of the exemplars that will accompany the main report. Delivering effective services for children will lead to better services for adults.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. She will know that today is World Asthma Day and that the National Asthma Campaign has launched its charter—entitled A Charter for Fresh Air—today. First, does my noble friend endorse that campaign? Secondly, can she give the 5 million or so asthma sufferers in this country some hope that the Government will make all workplaces—including those in the hospitality industry—smoke free in the way in which Ireland, New Zealand and Norway are currently doing and most parts of North America have already done? Has my noble friend seen the latest evidence from the TUC which shows that if a ban on smoking in licensed premises were introduced the lives of 165 bar staff would be saved and, at the same time, the turnover in pubs would be increased as more people would be encouraged to eat and drink there because of the smoke-free environment?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am pleased to play a small part in World Asthma Day. The Government have been working extremely hard over the past 10 years to reduce the incidence of asthma. We welcome
942
the charter, much of which matches what we are trying to do. We are always open to new ways of doing better with asthma and we listen to the National Asthma Campaign. As to smoke-free workplaces, we deplore the effect that secondary smoking has on people. That is one of the reasons why we are assessing the public places charter and considering an advisory code of practice to meet the needs of small and medium enterprises as well. We are doing a great deal to raise awareness of asthma and its links with smoking.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her answers in regard to an approved code of practice are distressingly similar to those given six months ago, a year ago. 18 months ago? Is it not high time that the Government recognised that the rate of death from passive smoking is three times that from ordinary industrial injuries? Is it not high time that the Department of Health and the DTI got their act together and approved a code of practice?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are aware of the need to ensure that the code of practice meets the needs of the workplace. But, in addition to an advisory code of practice, we are doing a great deal to raise the profile of the dangers of passive smoking. For example, the new warnings on cigarette packets inform people that passive smoking affects and harms children and so on. The tobacco alliances are now prioritising passive smoking in order to drive better practice at a local level. So we are certainly doing a great deal.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, will the Government use their influence to persuade the authorities in the Palace of Westminster to help noble Lords who suffer from asthma by making this workplace smoke free?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I know that a hotbed of contention surrounds this issue. As a very new stand-in Minister I fear to tread in that direction. However, I have witnessed the fact that sonic Members of the House have been directly affected not only by tobacco smoke but by accidental association with it. We have to be extremely careful. We should certainly consider referring the issue to the House authorities.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I suffer from asthma. Does the Minister agree that education about asthma and its treatment should be delivered at a primary care level, thus reducing pressure on our hospitals?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Most of our care and treatment for asthma is delivered at the primary care level. The chronically sick management programme has been in place for 10 years and has been assisted hugely by the guidelines issued by the British Thoracic Society. These excellent guidelines were updated this year and are absolutely

943
first rate. But it is in doctors' surgeries, with asthma nurses, where asthma patients are best identified and followed up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, do the Government have plans to free those with severe asthma from the costs of their prescriptions?
Baroness Andrews: No, my Lords. Eighty-five per cent of prescriptions are now free. Many of those with asthma, including young children and old people, receive free prescriptions. So we feel that people are being well treated.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend knows that I am severely asthmatic. Is she aware of the study which indicated that very few GPs know how to use a puffer inhaler? Would not the education of GPs in this respect benefit asthmatics?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. I do not know the research the noble Lord is referring to; I am sure he is right that GPs, in the normal way, would and should receive updated training. I know that the British Thoracic Society gives this sort of advice. I will follow up what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend said that she would be using asthma as an exemplar in the national standards framework for children. How will this affect prevention and the treatment of children with asthma in the education system?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, asthma has a whole section in the guidance issued in 1996 on supporting pupils with medical needs in schools, which I understand is working very well. The guidance stresses that children with asthma must have instant access to reliever inhalers when they need them. The staff are informed what to do, what triggers an attack, what treatment and support they can give and when an attack is sufficiently urgent to bring in medical advice and the ambulance. The guidance also promotes the idea of an individual care plan for children, and we are content that it is working well in schools.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that those who cannot in conscience accept pay for work done in a no-smoking environment will not be subjected to the penalty of voluntary unemployment?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I predicted, I find it difficult to answer the question. However, we might test this out in the Department of Health; it has just declared all its workplaces smoke-free, and we are hoping to promote that across government. That may be the way to go rather than the apocalyptic vision of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, will my noble friend reiterate the connection between asthma and smoking? Will she welcome the response given last
944
week in another place by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Patricia Hewitt, who said that women's health was being severely affected by smoking and that women's health should be taken as a priority? She welcomed the Secretary of State's consideration that smoking should be banned in all public places, which would benefit women and children.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I certainly agree that smoking triggers asthma and makes it worse. There is no question about that. We also know that women tend to smoke more at different ages, so I certainly support my noble friend in that respect.

Food Containers: Safety
2.53 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the Department of Trade and Industry's 23rd annual report of the home and leisure accident surveillance system entitled Working for a Safer World, they will encourage the food and packaging industries to redesign food containers and cans, for example those containing corned beef.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, my department has not taken any specific actions with the packaging industry as a result of the 23rd HASS report. However, based on information from earlier editions of the report, during the 1990s my department published a number of research reports aimed at helping manufacturers improve the design of cans and make them easier for consumers to open safely. Statistics show dial the number of accidents from corned beef cans has been declining and they are not a major cause of accidents now. Packaging, as with many products, is covered by the provisions of the general product safety directive, which imposes a general safety duty on it.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does he understand that many of us still believe corned beef tins and, indeed, other varieties of pull-top cans, to be inherently unsafe? Will he ensure that his department pursues its interest in helping to have those redesigned by the food and packaging industry? Will he also note that the report shows that some 6 million of us each year attend accident and emergency units in hospital, and that some 90 children under the age of five die as a result of accidents at home? Is he satisfied that the Government's accident taskforce has sufficient resources and powers to reduce the incidence of these accidents at home?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has asked me a Question about corned beef cans. I have been answering questions about them all my life and I regard them as one of my real areas of expertise.
There is a real problem about corned beef cans. They have a trapezoidal shape and a key kind of ring. The DTI has done much work on this issue in giving further instructions and also special coatings for the cans which enable the corned beef to be extracted more easily. There has in fact been a remarkable drop in accidents with corned beef cans. They have fallen from 8,720 per year out of 26,000 accidents caused by all tins to 3,091 out of 19,000. I should point out that the really dramatic decrease came after 1997.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether ring-pull cans are safer than ordinary cans which are opened with a tin-opener? Which is safest?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give exact details between the different kinds of can, but the one which is used for corned beef is particularly disliked by people, mainly because they lose the keys and then attack the corned beef can with whatever is at hand. If the noble Baroness would like to pursue this point. I can probably find her some detailed statistics.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister allow me to rescue him from his worldwide expertise on the topic of corned beef and ask a slightly wider question? Does he agree that, taking the nub of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison—working for a safer world—a reduction in the use of products which have an impact on the environment would be highly desirable? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that clear, verified information is available to consumers on the environmental impact of such products?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that goes wider than my knowledge of corned beef; it strays into a completely different department and area—the impact on the environment. This report is very specifically about recording accidents which take place in accident and emergency departments of hospitals. The impact on the environment is a totally different question.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if, having taken off one end of the corned beef can with the twisty thing provided—assuming that you have not lost it—you then take a common, ordinary, household tin-opener and take off the other end, it is very easy to push the corned beef out of the tin without any danger to yourself?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords, I was aware of that, and I am very glad that that essential piece of information is passed round for the benefit of this House.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister agree, as the noble Baroness has demonstrated, that most home accidents are avoidable, arising out of carelessness, and that therefore paying attention is one of the best cures?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords. I totally agree. These statistics on accidents are extremely fascinating: they prove that the British public can use practically anything in this world to hurt themselves with. It is understandable that there are an estimated 55 accidents a year from putty, while toothpaste accounts for 73. However, it is rather bizarre that 823 accidents are estimated to be the result of letters and envelopes. It is difficult to understand how they can be the cause of such serious plight. I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be helpful if people paid careful attention.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that sardine tins and anchovy tins are also very difficult to open with their tin-openers?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords. I think I will just agree with the noble Baroness on that question.

Unsolicited e-mails
2.59 p.m.
Lord Mitchell Lord Mitchell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans to reduce the growth in spam (unsolicited e-mails).
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will appreciate how I move seamlessly from corned beef to spam.
We aim to implement by the end of October this year the privacy and electronic communications directive. This includes requirements that unsolicited e-mails may be sent to individuals only for the purpose of direct marketing with their prior consent, except where there is existing customer relationship between the sender and the addressee. Consultation on the draft regulations started on 27th March and closes on 19th June.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Unsolicited e-mails, known as "spam", now account for half of all e-mails in this country. In the United States, they account for 70 per cent. Spam, whether it is nuisance advertising or hardcore pornography is literally choking the Internet. Will the Minister expand on his Answer? Do the Government intend to follow the example of the United States Senate in introducing legislation specifically prohibiting unsolicited e-mails?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we believe this to be a serious issue. The fact that a European regime has now been agreed opens the door to bilateral

947
agreements between the EU and other countries, which is clearly very helpful. The European Commission is keen to pursue that.
There is now a big movement to stop spam in the United States. Twenty-six states have legislated and, although I do not believe that any action has been taken at the federal level, there has been a recent forum from the Federal Trade Commission on the subject.
We take the matter seriously. If measures are to be effective, it is vitally important that the international dimension is taken account of.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister explain how it is that an inedible tinned food that lasted for ever and was supplied to those on active service can become an unsolicited e-mail, bearing in mind that some of us wish to be protected from having an e-mail?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not been able to find out why the term "spam" is used, but that is the meaning it now has. It is a matter that should be taken very seriously because it not only clutters up computers but involves a great deal of very unpleasant advertising to do with easy credit, pornography and miracle diets. That is offensive to people, and we should try to reduce it.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I can help the Minister with the origin of the word. It comes from aficionados of Monty Python, and the famous song, "Spam, spam, spam, spam". It has been picked up by the Internet community and is used as a description of rubbish on the Internet.
More seriously, is the Minister aware that up to 85,000 pieces of unsolicited e-mail are received by the Parliamentary Communications Directorate each month? Will he join me in congratulating the directorate on its valiant efforts to filter out that menace, given that a high proportion of it is rubbish advertising from the United States and that some of it consists of profane material? The directorate is battling against a rising tide; the Government's assistance is needed in combating it.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am happy to commend that course of action. As I say, it is a serious issue. We need to take all steps against it.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, given the Government's concern about voter turnout in elections and their commitment to increasing the use of Internet voting and campaigning, does the Minister consider that further restrictions on unsolicited e-mails would be contrary to that objective?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no, not at all. I cannot see that it helps anyone in any activity, including voting, to have their computers flooded with this often quite distasteful material. It takes up a large capacity—some 40 per cent of e-mails around the
948
world, according to my figures. It takes up a considerable amount of space for Internet service providers and is a very poor use of the infrastructure.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, do the Government have any plans to restrict unsolicited faxes? My fax paper is always being wasted by people who send me faxes I do not want. I do not know whether they could be called "corned beef' or something, but I have had enough of them.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, faxes are already covered, in exactly the same way, by the existing telecoms data protection directive. The essential nature of the privacy directive is to extend that into the question of e-mails.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that modern fax machines are equipped to refuse faxes that have no return telephone number? In that way, many unsolicited faxes are filtered out. Is there any way in which the Internet system could operate similarly? For example, can the Internet service providers filter out e-mails that do not have a return address on them?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a lot of action that Internet service providers can take to help customers to protect themselves. They can and indeed do offer spam filtering and blocking options. However, we do not want to specify what ISPs must do, because different people require different levels of protection. There is a strong commercial incentive to ISPs to offer a range of solutions, and they are keen to do so to cut costs.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister think of a name for the enormous amount of unsolicited ordinary mail we receive?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, when I have a moment I shall bend my mind to that question.

Eurogroup (euro-zone Finance Ministers)
3.6 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consequences they believe will flow from the decision to exclude United Kingdom officials from the future work of the "Eurogroup" of eurozone Finance Ministers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have recognised, since the Luxembourg European Council in 1997, that member states participating in the single currency will want to meet from time to time to discuss certain issues to do with sharing a currency, but it is important to remember that ECOFIN is the sole decision-making body on economic policy co-ordination. Whenever matters of common interest are discussed, all member states will

949
be present. The UK is already playing an active role in helping to shape the European agenda; the leading part played by the UK in the Lisbon economic reform strategy is a case in point. The Government's positive approach to Europe means that we are able to play a full part in shaping EU policies.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, would he accept that Britain is losing the opportunity to influence the development of a number of key economic and financial policies, not least the operations of the European Central Bank and the growth and stability pact, by not being a member of the Eurogroup? Although ECOFIN is technically the body that takes the decisions, in reality the Eurogroup, meeting on the day before ECOFIN, is where the real deals are hammered out. ECOFIN is increasingly becoming a rubber stamp.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is simply an assertion. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, has no evidence for it whatever. Decisions cannot be taken by the Eurogroup; they can be taken only by ECOFIN.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister telling us that the Labour Party has not yet discovered the device of the pre-meeting?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have been in the Labour Party for more than 50 years, and I am well used to devices within the Labour Party to avoid democratic decision making. Fortunately, with the advent of one member one vote, nearly all those devices have become inoperative.
In the case that we are discussing, the reality is that no decisions can be taken other than by ECOFIN. If, for example, decisions have to be taken by qualified majority voting, they cannot be taken by the Eurogroup. They certainly will not be able to be taken by the Eurogroup after enlargement.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House why the decision was taken?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was referring not to a decision but to an article in the Financial Times on 29th April in which it was reported that it was proposed that United Kingdom officials should no longer attend the working group of officials—not the Eurogroup itself, which Ministers have never attended. There are purely practical reasons for that, in that at the moment there are three member states outside the euro-zone and within a year there will be 13. Noble Lords can imagine, in such circumstances, what it would be like to do simultaneous translation in Estonian.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one of the matters he mentioned? Will it be the
950
ECOFIN group of Finance Ministers or the Eurogroup of Finance Ministers who decide on the future structure of funding the NHS?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Neither, my Lords; nor will publications by the European Central Bank.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister really saying that the decisions that ECOFIN takes at its meetings are not affected by the fact that Ministers from the euro-zone countries will have met the night before and decided the position they will take at ECOFIN? Is he really saying that Britain's interests are not affected by the fact that we are currently outside the euro?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two different questions there, the first of which is what happens at the meetings before ECOFIN. British officials have since the beginning seen the agenda for those meetings. So the answer that I give to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, is that, yes, I can say that the decisions are taken by ECOFIN and not by any pre-meeting. The answer to the second question is the wider issue of the advantages and disadvantages of being in the euro-zone. The Chancellor will be making a Statement on that matter within the next month.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, given the Minister's reply, can he explain why, a short time ago, in the magazine the Business in this country and in the Economist there were specific references to the fact that, as a senior Danish diplomat said, the real decisions are taken not in ECOFIN but in the Eurogroup?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, journalists will report what they hear or what they think they hear. The Government are not responsible for newspaper reports.

Crossrail
3.12 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
Whether Her Majesty's Government will repeat the Statement already given elsewhere by the Secretary of State for Transport on the decision not to proceed with the Crossrail project.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's decision remains as I stated in the Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, on 28th April. The Government continue to support Crossrail. There has been no decision not to proceed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, one has to be very grateful for that reassurance—the noble Lord is really saying that there was absolutely nothing in the report in The Times which indicated that the project is likely

951
to be postponed until 2020. I should just like to ask him whether he is aware of how grateful your Lordships were for the nugget of information that he released in the course of his Answer—that, after all the talk, reports, consultation and consultants, a final business plan will be available in July. However, what I should really like to know is this. Why was he not in a position to add something of what must have been in the Secretary of State's mind?
I should like, if I may, to introduce into this air of timelessness an air of topicality. In view of the report today that the Prime Minister is prepared to support the Olympic Gaines for 2012, he should be aware of the fact that although he can have Crossrail without the Olympics, he cannot have the Olympics without Crossrail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I repeat what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. The Government cannot be responsible for the way in which journalists interpret what they hear or what they think they hear. Let me explain what happened. On the day after I answered a Question about Crossrail in this House, the Secretary of State was addressing the Social Market Foundation on a totally different subject. On the way out, he was waylaid by journalists, quite legitimately, and he made five points about Crossrail: that the Government supported it in principle; that it would cost £10 billion to £15 billion to build; that we would have to consider how to fund it; that if London and the South East continued to grow, we would need an east-west link; and that no decision had been made on whether a hybrid Bill was required.
Not a single thing that I said was in conflict with anything that the Secretary of State subsequently said. Even if something that the Secretary of State said was in conflict and I had known about it in advance, looking back at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was Minister of Transport and then Minister of Transport Industries, would he have been happy to have his junior Ministers—the noble Lords, Lord Heseltine and Lord Kelvedon, or Lady Young and Lord Sandford—giving advance notice of things that he was going to say the next day as Secretary of State?
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the interesting thing about why the Secretary of State did not give advance notice is that he did not have the faintest idea that he was going to say it? As the Minister rightly says, the Secretary of State came out of a conference on a totally different subject, spoke to an experienced journalist and made the off-the-cuff comments which were picked up. Does the Minister agree that it is not surprising that such a statement on a £15 billion project—which is itself an integral part of a £110 billion project—had a degree of sensitivity about it? Perhaps the Minister could have a chat with his colleague about taking these matters a bit more seriously. Secondly, as I asked him on the previous occasion, is he still satisfied with the way in which the management of these interdependent, massive projects is being carried out?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in his second question the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is going way beyond the subject of the Private Notice Question. Perhaps—in order to be helpful to the House as always—I was being a little too helpful about what the Secretary of State said. The important point as regards this Private Notice Question is that, the day after I answered Questions in the House, the Secretary of State said nothing which was in conflict with what I said and made no new announcement of the kind which is not implied but stated in the Question.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I think that I was the only Member of your Lordships' House who was at that conference and heard the Secretary of State. It might be helpful if I say that, although the subject was discussed, nothing that was said would contravene what my noble friend said in the House a day or two before. The only question was whether some finance could be raised from other sources such as gains in property value. I am very surprised to hear the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, which indicates that the Secretary of State is reported to have said something completely different after the conference.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Precisely, my Lords.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is not the reason why my noble friend Lord Peyton gets so exercised about these matters that, time after time, particularly as regards the Department for Transport, we see announcements being made outside Parliament, very often when Ministers themselves have not been properly briefed? What is the noble Lord doing to ensure that this House is properly informed before statements are made in public outside?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has any evidence of statements being made outside by the Department for Transport before Parliament has been informed and on which Ministers are not properly briefed. I have no doubt that he will let me know.

Business
3.19 p.m.
Lord Grocott: With permission, my Lords, I should like to make two brief announcements, the first about a Statement on Northern Ireland. It is likely that, later this evening, there will be a Statement in another place on Northern Ireland. It could be quite late this evening and it is impossible for me to say when. All I can say now is that it will be repeated by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House as soon as convenient after it has been made in another place.
Secondly, I am able to give some information on recess dates. The House will remember that I announced possible dates for the Whitsun Recess as long ago as 18th November 2002 and referred to them again in a short Statement on 5th March. I am now

953
able to confirm that, subject as always to the progress of business, which includes the three Motions to be moved shortly, the House will rise for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday, 22nd May, and return on Monday, 2nd June. Starred Questions on Thursday 22nd May will be at 11 o'clock.
I now turn to the Summer Recess—a glorious thought! On 25th November last year the House resolved—I am sure that the House will remember this resolution—that,
"subject to the requirements of business, in 2003 the Summer Recess should begin not later than the middle of July and the House should sit for two weeks in September".—[Official Report, 25/11/02; col. 565.]
I am aware that since that time scholars and other learned people have debated what precisely is meant by the middle of July. The Whips Office has analysed the matter and has come to the conclusion that the middle of July and, therefore, the date on which the Summer Recess will begin, subject to the progress of business, will be Thursday, 17th July. As everyone in my post always adds, that is subject to the requirements of business. I am making exactly the same comment as all my predecessors in this post. However, to be slightly more specific, the date of 17th July in particular is dependent on the progress of Bills in Committee on the Floor of the House. The two Bills progressing—if I may use that word—in Committee on the Floor of the House at present are the Sexual Offences Bill and the Communications Bill. For completeness I repeat what I said on 5th March about the September sitting; that is, that we envisage that the House will sit from 8th to 18th September.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 6,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 7 to 31,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 32 to 40,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 41 to 60,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 61 to 91,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 92 to 99,

Schedules 6 and 7,

Clauses 100 to 102.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question. Motion agreed to

Railways and Transport Safety Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker):My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Extradition Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary' Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin)The Parliamentary' Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin) rose to move, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Bill will benefit greatly from scrutiny in Grand Committee. It is legally complex and it requires detailed consideration and dispassionate argument rather than rhetoric or humour. Compared with the Chamber, Grand Committee provides more time, a less adversarial atmosphere, better facilities, more direct engagement with officials and a better view for the public.
The Bill was published in draft and received pre-legislative scrutiny by the Commons Home Affairs Committee and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. If' necessary, I shall speak later about our recent experience of the Crime (International Cooperation) Bill in Grand Committee. I believe that those who took part in it thought that it was an exemplary example of scrutiny by this House.
The Bill is not about the principle of extradition, in which this country has participated for over 100 years, but about the processes. It seeks to make those processes fair to justice and fair to the individuals charged. It is precisely because of the fine balance of that endeavour that a considered process in Grand Committee is a first-class process for considering the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe rose to move, as a manuscript amendment to the Motion, at the end to insert—
", save for Part 1, which shall be committed to a Committee of the Whole House".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I describe this as a manuscript amendment although, thanks to the good offices of the Public Bill Office, it is available in type. I hope that most of your Lordships have it.
The purpose of the amendment is very simple; that is, to ensure that the Committee stage of Part 1 of the Bill, which deals with the European arrest warrant, remains on the Floor of the House and is not removed to the Moses Room and subjected to the procedure of the Grand Committee. As I say, Part 1 contains the provisions which introduce into British law the European arrest warrant which means that extradition to other European Union countries will be virtually automatic subject to certain very limited exceptions.
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has just said that the Bill is about processes not principles. If he describes the principle as "some extradition is a good thing and should happen", I suppose that he can say that the Bill is about processes. But beyond that very broad principle the Bill completely changes the system of extradition. It means that, subject to very limited exceptions, a warrant issued by any European country for the extradition of someone in this country will go through on the nod. That is a total change from extradition as we know it.
Whatever one thinks of the overall merits of that concept, there can be no doubt that introducing the European arrest warrant constitutes a very major change to our existing laws and one which has caused considerable concern to a large number of people who are entitled to have their views seriously considered. The matter has also aroused considerable public disquiet and concern, perhaps partly through a mistaken belief that the new law will allow foreign policemen to break into one's bedroom and drag one away in one's pyjamas to a Greek court, but also for more substantial reasons which are matters of substance.
I give an example of that concern. The European arrest warrant has been subject to two reports of your Lordships' Select Committee on European affairs. Those reports stated that the proposal raised important questions which they recommended should be debated in your Lordships' House. I shall say no more on the Select Committee as I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, who chaired the relevant sub-committee is present. Following those reports debates took place and many speakers on all sides of the House expressed concerns about numerous aspects and urged the Government to resolve them before the latter committed themselves. It is fair to say that some of the difficulties have been resolved but others have not.
Since publication of the Bill it has been the subject of a report of your Lordships' Constitution Select Committee. That committee reported,
"The extensive review of extradition law proposed by the Bill was a matter of constitutional significance".
When the idea of a constitution committee was mooted the Government gave it warm support, but they are not giving much warm support to the Constitution Committee's assertion that the Bill raises matters of constitutional significance by ignoring that assertion and hustling the Bill to the Moses Room to be treated as if it were a matter of technical detail.
The Bill's Second Reading took place last Thursday. I believe that there were 16 speakers. They had varying degrees of enthusiasm or opposition to the concept of the Bill but virtually every speaker drew attention to serious specific matters which would require reconsideration, and probably amendment, at the Committee stage. Even the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, who is an enthusiastic supporter of the concept, listed four separate matters on which we,
"should look for better assurances from the Government".—[Official Report, 1/5/03; col. 879]
He also referred to numerous other problems to be explored in Committee.
So many different points were made on Part 1 that even in his excellent 25-minute speech the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in replying to the debate, was unable to deal with many of them. So we do not even know the Government's position on a large number of these matters. It is absolutely plain from that debate and from the matters that I have already mentioned that there will be many amendments.
I hope that that brief introduction demonstrates that Part 1 constitutes a serious constitutional issue on which there will be many amendments which are not of a technical, specialist and lawyerly nature but which concern the basic rights and liberties of our citizens. I suggest that matters of that kind should be taken on the Floor of the House, and not sent to Grand Committee for consideration out of the public gaze merely by those who take a specialist and technical interest in the Bill.
There is another, separate point. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, indicated that the Government would bring forward amendments in Committee—indeed, they gave an undertaking to do so—to improve the position on dual criminality. That is the question of whether one can be hauled off to a foreign court for an offence that was fundamentally committed in this country—for example, whether one could be taken to a foreign court to be tried for publishing an article in, let us say, the Spectator, because a few copies of it appeared in that country and were alleged to offend against that country's laws against what there was called racism or xenophobia.
Those will be important amendments. Unless they go a very long way, it seems likely that they will be extremely controversial. Of course, no amendment can be made in Grand Committee save by absolutely everyone's consent. A single voice against prevents any amendment in Grand Committee. It would be a travesty if the Bill came back on Report without government amendments, so that the House could not consider them as part of the Bill until Third Reading.
I hope that that makes a fairly powerful case as to why the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House. No doubt in reply the Government will say, first, that the matter has been agreed through the usual channels. With the greatest respect and admiration that one has for the noble Lords who compose the usual channels—I am sure that they are extremely useful people for deciding how our business shall be timed, when we shall have our lunch, tea and dinner, and so on—they

957
are not the proper body to decide how constitutional Bills shall be treated and that they shall be moved from the Floor of the House.
Secondly, I am sure that the Government will say that they have an awful lot of legislation to get through. I was interested to hear a moment ago the Government Chief Whip giving what was not a very subtle or veiled indication that it might cost noble Lords their holiday if they agreed to the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will not succumb to that sort of bullying.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I do not use the word pejoratively. I suppose that it is perfectly legitimate to say that we will not get our holiday if we agree, but our duty is to scrutinise the Bill properly. If that costs us our holiday, I suppose that we will have to bite the bullet and face it, but I do not believe that it really will.
Earl Russell: My Lords, has the noble Viscount ever heard the words "for the Recess" moved without the words "subject to the conduct of business"?
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Earl is of course right, which is why I say that I doubt that it will make much difference. However, the Chief Whip did rather stress the inclusion of how noble Lords decided on the Motions today. I took that to be a slight nudge on the Bills. I am not complaining or criticising; I merely seek to anticipate the answers that I fear that I shall get.
I hope that noble Lords will take the matter as serious. Part 1 of the Bill ought to be considered on the Floor of the House, and the remainder can properly go to the Moses Room. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will reconsider the suggestion that the Bill be referred to a Grand Committee. I listened with a great deal of interest at Second Reading last week. The Bill is not on my particular subject, but it was an excellent debate. A number of points made by noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and many others—led me to believe that the measure was very controversial indeed.
I speak from my experience of working on Bills in Grand Committee. I remember the then Employment Bill in particular, which it was felt was not controversial but later turned out to be very controversial. That meant that we spent an awful lot of time in Grand Committee when it would have been a great deal better had the points that we wanted to raise in amendments been debated in Committee on the Floor of the House.
I know that one can have votes in Grand Committee, but one does not, generally speaking. The assumption is that one will not do, which has a psychological effect on the way in which debate is
958
conducted. Bills of such substance and controversy—the Bill really is very important, as has been said—would be much better debated by the House as a whole in Committee on the Floor of the House. I therefore hope that the Minister will give some consideration to what has been said this afternoon.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, we should be very grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, who has not left me with very much to say. I appreciate that it is now well established that a number of' Bills should go to Grand Committee. However, the Bill, with its constitutional implications, its implications for the liberty of the subject, and all the controversy that it has attracted because of the European arrest warrant, is really the last sort of Bill to be treated in such a way.
Bills in Grand Committee do not get the same publicity as Bills taken on the Floor of the House. It is a sad commentary on how another place now deals with its business that this important Bill has arrived in the House having attracted very little attention from the press, or indeed from Members of Parliament in another place. If the Government are saying that no other Bills are available to go to Grand Committee, so the Bill must go there to allow them to complete their legislative programme, that is a sad commentary on the way in which they are managing our affairs.
The Government's programme is obviously overloaded. They should put their house in order and have a programme of a scale that can be dealt with properly. The Bill will not be dealt with properly if it is treated as a merely technical Bill that can, so far as its Committee stage is concerned, be safely dealt with in Grand Committee where no amendments can be carried to a vote.
The noble Viscount should be commended for approaching the matter in a spirit of compromise. I hope that the Government will either accept the amendment or, perhaps even better, withdraw their Motion so that there can be further discussions through the usual channels to try to sort something out.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before the noble Viscount made his proposed amendment known, I wrote to the Minister to ask him not to press his Motion to send the Bill to a Grand Committee. I have three reasons that I would like to outline briefly to the House, and I hope that they will receive some support along with the amendment.
First, Part 1 of the Bill—I appreciate that the whole Bill might be involved as a matter of convenience, but Part 1 is picked out by the amendment—is controversial. For medical reasons, I was unable to be present in the House last Thursday at Second Reading, but no one who reads that debate can fail to notice that highly controversial individual human rights issues were raised from the Cross Benches, most particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. If there is any ground on which the case should be supported, it is that I found myself in agreement with him.

959
The noble and learned Lord made a most powerful case, along with noble Lords from the Conservative Back Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said that it would be a pity if the Bill were sent to the empty theatre of the Moses Room. Speeches were made on all sides of the House—including by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and from these Benches—on points overlapping controversial matters relating to human rights. We had previously received reports, not only from the Constitution Committee but from the Home Affairs Committee of another place and from your Lordships' European Union Committee; and there are outstanding issues from the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, on 23rd April last year.
My noble friend Lord Filkin, said at Second Reading that the Government intend to bring forward in Committee most important amendments on the principle of dual criminality as regards which there could be a no more fundamental issue than that of human rights. These matters need proper scrutiny—that means a proper Committee stage.
My second argument is that this proposal would lead to a Committee stage that would not be a proper Committee stage. That is not to say that I am in any sense opposed to the reforms of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House—indeed, I warmly supported them. But to press matters such as this into Grand Committee could ruin those reforms. The Government should pay attention to that point.
My noble friend Lady Turner referred to the fact that some of us had long and unhappy experience of the remission of a controversial Bill—the Employment Bill 2002—to a Grand Committee, which was a mistake. Your Lordships will know that it is impossible to have Divisions in a Grand Committee. It is not held in the Chamber. Therefore, debate is inadequate. It is stultified. In the case of the Employment Bill, I found that the preparation of ministerial answers was not so good as it sometimes is in the Chamber.
More particularly, the Grand Committee is not attended by noble Lords whose minds are not made up. In 26 years of debating some very controversial legislation in Committee in this Chamber, I have found that people attend whose minds are not made up, who are not specialists in the subject. One often has to address one's arguments to them. In Grand Committee that simply does not happen.
I want to say immediately—because the point has been misrepresented in the past—that in making this comment I am not in any sense criticising Hansard, but it is a fact that the resources of Hansard in Grand Committee are not as full as they are in the Chamber. On one occasion, when dealing with the Employment Bill, we were asked to repeat our speeches because the recording tape had broken down during an earlier period and there was no record; therefore we had to make it up again.
960
It was said to us then—and mutterings from the prefects' room begin to indicate to us now—"What are you making a fuss about? You can have your Divisions on Report"—or even, these days, at Third Reading. Some noble Lords say "Hear, hear"; but the logic of that is not to have a proper Committee stage in the Chamber for most Bills.
One of the worst developments in the past 25 years is that Report and Third Reading have become yet another Committee stage. It is Committee stage in the Chamber which is the mark of this House. It is rare for me to think that, but it is the merit of this House that the Committee stage of Bills dealing with controversial human rights issues takes place in the Chamber.
That leads me to my third point. I hesitate to say this as I see heads nodding on the Opposition Front Bench, but this problem falls not only, indeed perhaps not mainly, from the hands of the Government. It is agreed in the usual channels, and that means, first of all, by those on the Front Bench of the Official Conservative Opposition. Yet at Second Reading last Thursday the Official Opposition made the hold—some would say extreme, as I think it is—proposal that in Committee the whole of Part 1 dealing with the European arrest warrant should be excised from the Bill. But having made that proposal they now appear to have agreed to a process in Grand Committee whereby no amendment on that or any other matter can be put to a Division.
That is a mystifyingly self-contradictory intellectual position which should not be allowed to control your Lordships' procedure. In a post-Freudian age it would be quite wrong for the Government to take advantage of the eruption in the usual channels of some self-emasculatory anxiety to determine the procedures of the House.
My submission is that in those circumstances it becomes the duty—and we should be grateful to the noble Viscount for expressing this in his amendment—of those of us who serve only as spear carriers in the shadows of the Back Benches to ask your Lordships' House to give a proper Committee stage to a Bill which manifestly involves controversial issues of human rights.
It is not a question of being for or against the European arrest warrant in principle. I am all in favour of bringing people to justice when they flee to the Costa del Sol, but there are issues in the Bill relating to the mechanisms of the European arrest warrant which require that Parliament properly debates them and properly decides them.
As my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading, Parliament is sovereign, and Parliament can do what it wishes in this respect, and that includes your Lordships' House. In the light of those three submissions I earnestly ask my noble friend, the Minister not to press the Motion today but to take soundings in various corners of the House as to why these objections have arisen and how they should be dealt with, and to come hack with a consensual and agreed procedure which we can then follow.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene at this point, but there are new points that can be made and I understand that the debate is open-ended.
As someone who has served much longer in another place than in this House, I should be properly bashful about arguing about the procedures of this House. But the arguments advanced by the noble Viscount seem enormously strong. I say that with some knowledge of how the conventions have operated in another place over 35 years in relation to the discussion of constitutional Bills. There was a convention that such matters should normally be considered by that House as a whole and not in Committee. It became latterly, when there was rather a lot of constitutional legislation, a convention more honoured in the breach than in the observance. That seemed to me at the time to be an unfortunate tendency. It would be unfortunate if one of the most attractive aspects of the procedure of this House were to follow in that direction.
The substance of the Bill before us is in a sense not important. I agree with those who have already said that whether or not they agree with the arrest warrant is not the issue. What is important is the manner in which the arrest warrant legislation was decided in the European Union—which, there too, was novel. That is a subject that merits further consideration, because it is a portent of more to come, and the Bill should be considered in the traditional manner in this House.
There is one aspect of the business of this House which is potentially superior to that of another place. In another place, whether a Bill is or is not constitutional is not decided by Erskine May, or indeed, I believe, by anyone other than the Government, relying on the support of their Members. In this place, an important step has been taken to determine whether or not a Bill is constitutional. I refer to the setting up of the Constitution Committee. We owe that committee considerable respect and should listen to its advice; that is, that there are significant constitutional issues in this regard that merit consideration. We should follow that advice and, acting on it, consider these matters in the way in which the noble Viscount suggests. I hope that his powerful arguments—I have rarely listened to a speech in which the points were more carefully marshalled—will be given full and deliberate weight.
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I support the noble Viscount's amendment. In view of what has already been said in support of the amendment, I confine myself to one matter of particular importance. No one doubts the constitutional importance of the Extradition Bill or the fact that one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the abolition of the safeguard of dual criminality in relation to extradition to category 1 countries—that is, by and large, member states of the European Union—over a whole raft of categories of offences, of which there are some 32 in
962
all. A feature of the categories is that they cover matters in which there is no harmonisation between the criminal laws of the various member states.
Conduct falling within one or other of the categories may be criminal in one member state but not in another. An example involves the category of racism and xenophobia. I shall concentrate on the racism half of that composite expression because no one has provided any explanation of what xenophobia adds to racism. Within that category, there are relevant types of conduct in, for example, Germany, but not in this country. Holocaust denial is the obvious example.
The proposal is that dual criminality will not be necessary for the extradition of someone in this country to another member state, notwithstanding the fact that the conduct in question was not criminal according to the law of this country. That is justified—and can only be justified—by the proposition that all member states share common values and common respect for human rights, guaranteed by the European convention. Each therefore owes to the other mutual respect and recognition of the criminal laws and procedures in each country.
That justification works where the conduct of which one is speaking is conduct committed within the territory of the member state in question. However, some types of conduct cannot be so easily classified. Some types of conduct are committed partly in one country and partly in another, and the conduct as a whole may be said to constitute the offence in question. That is particularly so when one considers what constitutes various offences that some member states may have within the "racism and xenophobia" category.
Currently, the Bill's provisions do not cater satisfactorily for cases in which the conduct crosses borders in the way I have described. Let us suppose a case involving publication on the Internet by which there was publication in this country but downloading in another member state. We might consider the case of newspaper articles: an article may be written and published in this country but distributed in another member state. Let us suppose that the content of the article on the Internet would be regarded as criminal in the other member state because it contains, for example, holocaust denial. Is that a case in which we should have to extradite without the requirement of dual criminality to the foreign country in question, notwithstanding the fact that a substantial part of the conduct had taken place in this country?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, for giving way. I answered those important questions in the European Union Committee last week and did so a second time in the Second Reading debate. On the specific examples that he gave—they relate to the nature of the Bill rather than our current debate—I have already answered the point and put beyond doubt the fact that the concerns that he is raising will not be issues because we will move amendments to that effect.
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was trying to set the background

963
before coming to the very careful and clear evidence that he gave only last Wednesday to the subcommittee of the European Union Committee of which I have the honour to be the current chairman. He made the position clear and gave assurances—no one doubts those assurances—that the Government will introduce amendments so that there will not be extradition where a substantial part of the conduct, albeit not all of it, took place in this country. However, that is the vice, as I understand the procedure, of sittings in Grand Committee. We have not yet seen this highly important amendment, but it must be considered by Members of this House. It may be necessary to suggest alternative wording to that important amendment; it may be thought that one could more satisfactorily achieve the aim the common aim of all—in that way rather than with the wording the Minister proposes.
I respectfully suggest that that is a reason why the Bill should continue to be considered in a Committee of this House and should not be sent to Grand Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for anticipating the point that I was going to make. That is the point of importance that I suggest justifies support for the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, when this issue came to the committee in November of the year before last, we were not able to conduct proper scrutiny; there was pressure of time and we were assured that that would be remedied by proper consideration in this House when it came to legislation. For that reason also—because scrutiny was not satisfactorily completed—it is vital that we handle this Bill on the Floor of the House. That is where it should be.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there is no dispute about the significance of this Bill but I do not agree with the noble Viscount's amendment. Let me explain why.
Perhaps I should first declare an interest. I have attended, I believe, three Grand Committee sittings in their entirety on three different Bills. I do not know whether any other noble Lord has done so. I speak with a little experience of how Grand Committees work. I am satisfied that the process of scrutiny in Grand Committee is thorough: in many ways, it gives more opportunity for proper discussion and debate than does the more formal context of debates in a Committee of this House. It is not as if we are short of the opportunity to move amendments at later stages of the Bill. That contrasts with the situation in another place—I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, in this regard—where the opportunities on Report are limited by the Speaker's selection of amendments; we know that opportunities are few and far between there. There is also no opportunity to amend at Third Reading in another place. In contrast, we have a wonderful opportunity to debate and vote on amendments on Report and at Third Reading. We have adequate opportunities in this place.
964
We do not need a further Committee stage that is taken on the Floor of the House as a matter of course. Indeed, I believe that, as a matter of course, Bills should go to Grand Committee. That is a better way of debating the details and of testing the Government's view in order that amendments can be tabled at a later stage. We should not indulge ourselves in the luxury of being able to have the same debate three times on the Floor of the House. Twice is surely enough.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is only one fundamental reason—it is a short one—why the Bill and Part 1, which contains points of principle, should be taken on the Floor of the House. We are not concerned, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, with whether the scrutiny in Grand Committee in the Moses Room is first rate or not. In my opinion, it is first rate. However, that is not the issue. The issue is that on points of principle, and for the reasons given throughout the House, the Committee stage should be on the Floor of the House.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I shall explain briefly why the noble Viscount's amendment, and a number of points made in this debate, are wrong. A Grand Committee is a Committee of the Whole House in exactly the same way as is a Committee in the Chamber. Every Peer who wishes to attend or speak may do so. I cannot believe that if noble Lords are so interested in the merits of this issue, they cannot walk to the Moses Room or a Committee Room upstairs to deal with the point that they want to raise. In my view, every point that has been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, can be dealt with in a much better way in Grand Committee, where scrutiny is better.
For obvious reasons there is more time in Grand Committee than on the Floor of the House. The only difference is that your Lordships cannot vote, a point to which I shall return in a minute. If unsatisfactory government amendments are tabled, they cannot be inserted in a Bill in Grand Committee unless such a committee is unanimous. If one voice says "No", such an amendment has to be withdrawn and brought back at Report stage. If there are alternatives, a government amendment may be brought forward in Grand Committee and considered there.
The fallacy in the argument advanced by noble Lords is that if noble Lords wish to vote in Committee they will give the Government no chance to think again. We all know the rules of the House and once the House has made a decision noble Lords cannot return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. If' the arguments are as strong, as I am sure that they are on the part of the Bill that is causing concern, they can be advanced in Grand Committee. Then the Government will have to realise that they will have to make concessions at Report stage if they wish those issues to go through. It seems to me that the argument of principle is fallacious.

965
It is easier—I say this as a former Chief Whip—between Committee stage and Report stage to get the Government to realise that they have to make concessions or they will be defeated on Report but if the decision has already been taken in Committee, the Government will have no chance to rethink. I ask your Lordships to realise that a Grand Committee is a Committee of the Whole House; all the points made there can be made again and explored; and there is not the same pressure of time as there is on the Floor of the House. But noble Lords must realise that if they force this part of the Bill onto the Floor of the House and insist on voting on it, noble Lords will give the Government no chance to make a concession.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I want to refer to how we have reached this procedure. While I was a Chief Whip in opposition, the bane of my life was the ability, by virtue of our procedures, of noble Lords to have not one or two bites but three bites at the cherry. Colleagues in the House who felt passionately about an issue, whether they lost heavily or not at the first bite in Committee, would return to the matter at Report stage and at Third Reading. One can have too much of a good thing.
About a year ago when the decision was taken to modernise procedures I took the view that in general we wanted not just to speed up our procedures but to take account of a situation in which a small number of Members would keep a large number of Members about the House waiting for a vote. I am not as involved as other colleagues—I believe that the laughing noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is one of them—and I am not one who understands the issues passionately. I come completely fresh to this discussion.
However, I understand that the procedure that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, suggests is one that has the approval of the usual channels. As someone who once was a member of the usual channels, I sometimes look aghast at the ability of people who, in general, are happy to be led by the usual channels but who reserve the right from time to time to go against that leadership. If the usual channels have recommended or agreed to or acquiesced to this procedure—I declare where I come from—that is almost good enough for me.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, when replying to the debate—I shall give way to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn when I am ready—will have the opportunity to tell the House that perhaps there are special issues in this case that deserve reconsideration. For my part I have heard nothing that justifies a change from a procedure that I and the whole House were happy to support less than 12 months ago.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps I may speak now that my noble friend is ready to give way. I was laughing not at him, but with him. Is he aware that one of the first things that was explained to me when I came to the House 26 years ago was that we
966
did not debate issues at Report and Third Reading stages—especially at Third Reading—that had been decided in Committee. Therefore, the logic of his remarks, and unhappily the preference of the executive, is not to have Committee stage in the Chamber at all, but to send all Bills to a Grand Committee. That is the logic of the position. Therefore, my mirth was because I was sure that that was not his position, and that he too would be aware that the two or three bites at the cherry argument is non-existent.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this Motion and those previous Motions on earlier Bills are the result of a decision that the House took last summer on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that for a two-year trial period more Bills should go to Grand Committee and that, in consequence, the House should normally rise at about 10 p.m. For our part, we do not like any Bill being committed to a Grand Committee. I certainly do not agree with the over-glowing description made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, of the process by comparison with a Committee of the Whole House. However, we have done our best to implement the decision of the House taken last summer and we support the Motions today for that reason.
I am well aware, as I was before this debate, that there are many noble Lords in all parts of the House who are unhappy about this Bill and the important Local Government Bill—an earlier Motion—being committed to a Grand Committee. We also know that the Government have problems with the 10 o'clock arrangement and we continue to deplore the idea that the Government can have one half of last summer's deal, which the House accepted, and not the other half. Of course, the 10 o'clock finishing time means that a Bill that may have taken four days in Committee under the old system, may now take six days. For that decision to be implemented, more Bills must to go to Grand Committees. In many cases the process also means that Report stage is likely to take longer than it would have done.
The problem is compounded, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said earlier, by the weight of government legislation and by the fact that these days so little is reviewed in another place. The Government Chief Whip, when speaking about recess dates earlier, indicated the pressure that the Government's programme is under for all those reasons.
In the terms of his amendment the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, calls for the consideration of the Extradition Bill in Committee to be split between the Floor of the House and a Grand Committee. Last summer the Procedure Committee considered the matter briefly, but did not accept in principle that Bills should be so split. I believe that it was right to take that view. If we split this Bill, why not split many other Bills? Frankly, I do not relish having to negotiate on every Bill which clauses should be discussed where. Different aspects of particular Bills are thought to be controversial by different groups of Peers. Furthermore, when there is controversy about an

967
aspect of a Bill, the proposed changes often affect other parts of it as well as the immediate one that is under consideration. I also think that splitting Bills would make it even more difficult than at present for noble Lords and those outside the House to follow our proceedings from reading Hansard and so on.
On this matter we are, as always, in the hands of the House itself. Today, I think that it should stick to the experiment that was decided upon last summer. It should review the position as a whole, including the 10 o'clock arrangements, in due course when the experiment has run at least more of its course than it has so far.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his honourable speech and position on the point, which is much appreciated. The Procedure Committee said in July 2002 that the Grand Committee is right for Bills of the kind considered suitable by the Rippon Group. The usual channels have agreed that this Bill passes that test. As to whether the Bill is constitutional, many Bills have elements in them which touch on the constitution, but that does not mean they are constitutional Bills. In the Commons, where constitutional Bills are normally committed to a Committee of the Whole House, this Bill was considered in Standing Committee in the usual way.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, is exactly right that splitting the Bill in the way proposed by the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, would be extremely complicated and damaging. It is inappropriate because many of the same issues arise in Part 2 as in Part 1. Indeed, I note that the Official Opposition's Front Bench have tabled identical amendments to both Parts 1 and 2. If the amendments were to be made we should run the risk of having the same debate twice, once in Committee on the Floor of the House and once in Grand Committee.
I shall not respond in detail to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on the substance of the Bill itself. This is not the place. It is not true that extradition is virtually automatic. If anything, as a country we extradite. Other countries in the European Union do not currently extradite to us, which is why there are great benefits in the Bill. The noble Viscount was right to say that I did not respond to all the points. We had about a three or four hour debate. I gave my usual commitment that every Member who speaks will have a full response in writing from me about any points that have not been fully handled on the Floor of the House before the first day of Committee. I repeat that undertaking. There can be a lot of serious amendments. In fact, it is important that there are many serious amendments in Grand Committee. That is when the process of testing starts.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, raised the amendment that I promised at the European Union scrutiny committee and again at Second Reading. I shall go further: I shall ensure that the House is aware of that amendment before we reach the first day of Committee so that all Members can see it. I can give
968
the House the assurance that in general it will be well pleased with the amendment because it specifically addresses the issue that has been raised.
I think that the Bill is appropriate for Grand Committee because of my experience of working with noble Lords on Opposition Benches in Grand Committee. I do not say that the procedure is easy for the Government, but it strikes me that it is a good process for scrutiny. The Government are able to listen more; are able not to resist for the sake of it; and are able to respond where appropriate.
My noble friend Lord Carter stated the situation correctly. He pre-empted what I was going to say should the House want to persuade the Government to think again and not send the Bill to Grand Committee. On the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill—and please ask of colleagues who worked through that process—in response to the debates we had in Grand Committee we brought back amendments on Report, which progressively narrowed down the nature of the Bill. We did not dig in. We were able to give way willingly when we thought it was sensible for us to do so.
By comparison, defeat us on the Floor of the House in Committee and noble Lords lock the Government in to conflict for no good reason. I give the House my assurance that the tone and style in which we handled the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill will be applied to this Bill. We shall listen seriously to the arguments without fear or favour. If we think that we should be persuaded, we will be persuaded and will adjust accordingly. The House will have a full opportunity to test those matters at later stages of the Bill.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am most grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. I am interested to note that—I may be wrong—the only noble Lords who have spoken against the amendment are all former Whips or operators in the Whips' department, which perhaps says something about the difference between those in favour and those against.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We have had a Whip round!
Viscount Bledisloe: I was disappointed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. I had hoped that he would accept the invitation addressed to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. Surely, if this procedure is to work, we should not send Bills to Grand Committee where a sizeable proportion of the opinion in the House does not agree. If the Grand Committee process is to work, the Bills that go there should be Bills that virtually everyone concerned with them agrees should be dealt with in that way. If the House is going to send Bills, by reason of Front Bench majorities, that the interested and concerned Back-Benchers think should be debated on the Floor of the House, the Grand Committee procedure will not work.

969
Perhaps I may say two other things. First, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter—
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. The same arguments were used before we went into Grand Committee with the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. I have to say that I am satisfied that everyone who took part in the Grand Committee sessions were satisfied that all the important criteria for proper Committee scrutiny was met by that procedure on that Bill. It was certainly a controversial Bill; it was certainly a Bill that had constitutional implications; it had serious human rights implications; and it was a satisfactory process.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, having not taken part in it, I cannot comment on whether the process was satisfactory. It was—this may not be a good point and I may regret making it—a Bill of specialist interest relating, presumably, only to Northern Ireland; whereas this Bill relates to the whole of the country.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, he is of course right to say that if the Government indicate clearly that they will think again, the proposer of an amendment would be mad to press it to a Division when he may get something jolly good by negotiation. But that does not mean that where positions are really entrenched, it is not much better to put it to a Division in Committee so that the matter can be resolved.
Secondly, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, of course the Procedure Committee recommended that more Bills should be committed to Grand Committee; but that does not mean that everything should be, especially not Bills of such constitutional significance that have raised so much concern.
My proposal that only Part 1 should remain on the Floor of the House was advanced in a spirit of compromise. Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that some Bills may be difficult to split and would require the usual channels to sit down with a microscope to study them to decide whether Clause 63(b) was appropriate. But it was clear from our debate on Second Reading—which I think that the noble Lord did not hear—that Part 1 concerns a totally separate matter and that almost all the points of criticism were raised about it.
If I am told that it is wrong to keep only Part 1 on the Floor of the House, I should be perfectly content to keep the whole Bill on the Floor of the House. I was trying to be co-operative; but this Bill is perfectly suitable for such treatment.
We submit that this is a battle between Whip convenience and principle; and I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
4.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the manuscript amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 172.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Ackner, L.

Marlesford, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Arran, E.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Morgan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Biffen, L.

Moynihan, L.

Blackwell, L.

Naseby, L.

Blaker, L.

Northbrook, L.

Bledisloe, V. [Teller]

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Boothroyd, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Bradshaw, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Brightman, L.

Onslow, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Butterworth, L.

Palmer, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Parkinson, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L. [Teller]

Chalfont, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Chan, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Colwyn, L.

Renton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Sandberg, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Scott of Foscote, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Sharples, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Denham, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Elles, B.

Slim, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Falkland, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Fookes, B.

Strange, B.

Fowler, L.

Swinfen, L.

Freeman, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Geddes, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hogg, B.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Wakeham, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Walker of Worcester. L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Walpole, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Jopling, L.

Warnock, B.

Kimball, L.

Weatherill, L.

Laird, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Lyell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Borrie, L.

Ahmed, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Andrews, B.

Bragg, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Brett, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Armstrong of Ilminster, L.

Brookman, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Buscombe, B.

Avebury, L.

Byford, B.

Bach, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Barnett, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L.

Berkeley, L.

Chelmsford, Bp.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Billingham, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blood, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

971

Cope of Berkeley, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Crawley, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Croham, L.

McNally, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Maddock, B.

David, B.

Manchester, Bp.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Marsh, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dholakia, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Dixon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dubs. L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Elder, L.

Moser, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Newby, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Northover, B.

Ezra, L.

Ouseley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Parekh, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Paul, L.

Fearn, L.

Pendry, L.

Filkin, L.

Peston, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fitt, L.

Prashar, B.

Flather, B.

Puttnam, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Radice, L.

Gale, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gavron, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Geraint, L

Rennard, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Richard, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rogan, L.

Goodhart, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rooker, L.

Goudie, B.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Sawyer, L.

Hanham, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harrison, L.

Seccombe, B.

Haskel, L

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hayman, B.

Sheldon, L.

Higgins, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Howe, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hoyle, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Uddin, B.

Jones, L.

Vinson, L.

Jordan, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Walmsley, B.

Lipsey, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Whitaker, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Whitty, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wilcox, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Wilkins, B.

Luke, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Bill
Read a third time and passed.

Communications Bill
4.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [General duties of OFCOM]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (2)(c) to (f), "television and radio services" includes all television and radio services transmitted directly to electronic communications devices via cable, satellite or dial-up modem."
The noble Lord said: I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Northesk. Unfortunately, his transport arrangements were made before the Committee began its very detailed consideration of amendments. He had expected to move these amendments himself on the first day of Committee. He has rather rashly asked if I would act as substitute for him.
It is worth repeating that my noble friend's view is that, although the amendment complements his Amendment No. 12, which was debated on the first day of Committee, it is distinct and merits separate debate. It is a much more general approach to the problem. Although last week's debate strayed into the area of content regulation—for example, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, questioned the feasibility of 9 year-olds accessing Dutch pornographic channels on their 3G telephones—it is questionable whether that provision would bite on the problem, except in so far as such content issues relate to "unwarranted infringements of privacy". This amendment, were it to find favour with the Committee, could have a direct impact. It is the "taste and decency" arm of my noble friend's amendments.
My noble friend's main concern is whether "electronic communications network services" of media enterprises, particularly their web-based activities, fall within the scope of the Bill. We know the official answer to that. As the Minister made clear last week, they do not. The fact that they do not is a deliberate and conscious decision on the part of the Government, despite the Minister's strenuous acknowledgement that it is a problem that must be

973
dealt with. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, put it, in the context of the Bill, that represents "a philosophical inconsistency" that generates,
"a hard position [for the Government] to sustain".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. 644.]
If, as the Minister argued, it is right and proper for Ofcom to have oversight of the radio, television and print activities of media enterprises, it follows, therefore, that Ofcom should have oversight of their web-based activities also. As the Minister said,
"if we have provision in Clause 3(2)(f) in respect of radio and television services, there ought to be comparable provision for electronic communication network service users—there is no doubt about that".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. 646.]
In principle, we are in agreement.
All of us agree that the global nature of the Internet—it is that platform that creates the difficulty—makes it desirable that its legislative framework should flow from international agreement. That is the background to the Government's position. But my noble friend will argue that that should not prevent our making appropriate, anticipatory but not pre-emptive provision in the Bill for any forthcoming directives or ensuring that the regulatory intentions of the Bill are construed in a comprehensive and seamless way.
There my noble friend parts company with the Government's position. The Minister appears to imply that it would be appropriate for Ofcom to have oversight of the areas represented in the amendment, but only when the final text of the relevant directives have been enacted by means of' separate regulations under the European Communities Act 1972. It is a case of, "Yes, you are right, but not right now and not in this way".
It is my noble friend's conviction that that approach will have the unfortunate effect of creating an unnecessary hiatus, both in terms of time and legislative provision, which will serve only to heap even more confusion on an already difficult situation. That leaves aside the conviction of many, including my noble friend, that the current texts of the relevant directives are, in any event, seriously flawed. To echo my noble friend Lord Brooke, it is a case of passing problems by because they are too difficult.
The way to resolve the "philosophical inconsistency" to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, refers, and to ensure that Ofcom can operate seamlessly across all relevant platforms is to give it some measure of responsibility for the activities carried out by media enterprises via electronic communications networks.
The amendment is fairly anodyne. Quite deliberately, my noble friend seeks to obviate the risk of Ofcom being drawn into areas beyond its remit. That is why it is linked back to the provisions of subsection (2)(c) to (f). It is conceivable, too, that the drafting may be less than perfect—that is not unusual in Back-Bench amendments—by perhaps being a little less technologically neutral than would be desirable, possibly when measured against the Government's
974
very welcome intention not to regulate the Internet. But that is a matter of understanding and perception as much as anything else.
The amendment's sole purpose is to give Ofcom the same oversight of the activities of media enterprises on the Net as it is already committed to in respect of television and radio in the normal broadcasting format. There is no attempt to draw the regulator into any of the wider issues of the Internet. What really matters—and it matters a great deal—is a fundamental point of principle to which we think the Government ought to attend. I beg to move.
Lord Northbrook: I support my noble friend's amendment. Following in his footsteps and in those of my noble friends Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I apologise for being unable to participate in the Second Reading debate.
I declare an interest as an amateur "fluffy"—in the parlance used by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, at Second Reading—having recently become chairman of a fledgling independent film production company. I definitely consider myself to be an amateur "techie". As a general observation on the Committee stage so far, I must say that it is remarkable how the first day demonstrated that different sides of the House agreed on many of the amendments made.
Amendment No. 16 continues with the theme included in Amendment No. 12 and addresses the issue by a different route. It would require Ofcom to secure, in carrying out its functions, the same availability, plurality and protection of standards for satellite, cable and internet broadcasts. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, in reply to my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 12, and in reply to Amendment No. 10. moved by my noble friend Lady Buscombe, that there was a,
"framework of European directives that will govern regulation of communication networks and services".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. 631.]
The noble Lord stated:
"we intend to implement the directive in the UK by means of separate regulations under the European Communities Act 1972".
However, the noble Lord admitted, in reply to my noble friend Lord Northesk, that,
"We started consultation on 2701 March".
It seems that the whole European process could take a long time. The Minister also admitted, when referring to the consultation: "we expect a large response".—[Official Report, 29/4/01 col. 647.]
Would it not, therefore, be better to have it all in the Bill, to ensure that there is a level playing field and to provide the consumer with protection for a period of up to two years or more? Why should those forms of communication be outside Ofcom's remit, particularly when they can be received in the UK and often repeat what is broadcast by television and radio services?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the amendment. There was an earlier amendment, to which I spoke, raising concerns about the Internet and

975
other forms of electronic communication device. We heard earlier today about spam and various other forms of unpleasant e-mail and faxes that people receive. We have heard that the European directives in the making will be the means by which such things are dealt with. However, like the previous speaker, I am worried that it will take so long. In the mean time, Ofcom will be up and going.
Increasingly, it looks to me—and, perhaps, to other noble Lords—that we will need not just a European but an international directive to cope with some of the problems that we have seen already. Getting that would take even longer. At least with an overview, without total interference with the Internet and so on, Ofcom could have the duty and ability in the long term, if it became necessary—we are told that the Bill is flexible and can adapt to any circumstances—to make some codes of conduct. It is in that spirit that we ought to think seriously about the amendment and support it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, explained the amendment well and clearly. If he continues in that vein, we shall not miss the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, as we will get the benefit of his advice indirectly, via the noble Lord.
The amendment would have a wider effect than the limited purposes that the noble Lord described. As I read it, the amendment would oblige Ofcom to secure that, whatever radio and TV services are provided, exactly the same variety should be on offer through the other media. An increasing number of people have broadband in their home, and, on the move, they will connect to the web through wireless LAN hotspots in pubs, airports, hotels, coffee bars and, now, in the whole of Soho, thanks to a bold scheme initiated by Councillor Wilder, of whom we have heard in another context, as the noble Baroness will realise. He has launched a plan for blanket coverage of central Soho, so that parking meter attendants, cleaners, noise inspectors and other officials will be able to link up to the council's IT system from anywhere in Soho. Among other benefits, the council will be able remotely to monitor noise levels around the clock with less expensive equipment and fewer staff.
The use of wireless LAN has been given a huge boost by the advent of integrated 802.11b in the Centrino processor, launched by Intel at the beginning of this year. That means that users who buy Centrino-powered laptops and ultimately, I suppose, an AMD equivalent will be able to connect to the Internet from any one of thousands of hotspots without the use of add-on cards. It would be possible for the whole of the Palace of Westminster to be enabled for wireless LAN, so that Members and staff with new laptops could log on wirelessly from anywhere on the premises.
Users of PCs and laptops will expect to be able to access TV and radio via their PCs or laptops, as they can to a certain extent already. With a broadband connection, one can get quite good video reception on a PC, and one can watch Colin Powell giving a press
976
conference in Beirut or Damascus or listen to the wonderful programmes of the BBC World Service without having to tune in at the exact time of the broadcasts. In fact, one can do the same on the Internet with public service broadcasts from other countries, including US PBS, Canadian or Australian broadcasting or Spanish language webcasts live and on demand via Spanish TV, for instance. The breadth and variety of the material accessible via the Internet is already superior to what one gets on conventional TV or radio, and the disparity is likely to become greater as the bandwidth available to the public at large increases. All major broadcasters will have to have a presence on the net, and they would do so without the intervention of Ofcom, which, in any case, deals only with UK broadcasters, a small fraction of those accessible via computers.
I suggest that, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, the amendment has some logic—in so far as, if the clause endows Ofcom with powers over radio and TV services, the powers should extend to all means of delivery of those services—it is unnecessary to extend them to the dial-up modem. That would conflict with the principle that the regulator does not have any say on what is provided on the web. Content is dealt with in paragraphs (e) and (f), and what is provided on cable or satellite is presumably already covered in the same way as for terrestrial radio and TV, and the variety is taken care of by the "must carry" provisions that we shall discuss later in Committee.
Baroness Wilcox: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Northesk and moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am slightly surprised by that last intervention. I had thought that it was a typical Back-Bench amendment.
The regulatory regime that the Bill introduces gives Ofcom regulatory powers over licensed television and radio content services provided by cable and satellite delivery for reception by the general public. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. The Bill does not bring elements of information society services delivered by the Internet, such as webcast, into the regulatory regime. That would mean an enormous increase in regulation. If the Conservative Party wants to support that officially, it should justify that in other places.
The amendment would also mean that 3G mobile phone services, delivered by satellite, would fall within the scope of Ofcom regulation. That is not something that the Government want. Of all new services, mobile telephones are the most individualistic. The industry recognises the problems which can exist for minors, who are enthusiastic users of mobile telephone technology, and the industry is devising a code of practice and other protective measures, which we have talked about, or restrictions on sales to adults.
Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, legislative provision would not be needed to extend regulation. The Secretary of State can, by order, consider in the future whether regulation, as in the case of video

977
on demand, is appropriate if these measures fail. But this is an industry in its infancy where self-regulation is the more important path.
Clauses 230(3) and 245(2) deliberately exclude from regulation any TV or radio services provided over the Internet or via a mobile telephone. For the viewer or listener, choosing to access content by these means, on individual request, is not like using conventional TV or radio. He expects to receive content which may go beyond that on conventional cable or satellite services. As these streamed services develop, it will be increasingly difficult to distinguish those which could be clearly categorised as television or radio.
The amendment would impose clearly inappropriate content standards, such as the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of TV and radio services which, taken as a whole, are both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests. This is not the regulatory regime for these services.
Variety, even of a more dubious and tasteless kind provided it is not illegal in content, is the essence of information society services and can be provided by anyone. Some people might regret some of the content and we look to the industry to continue to develop blocking devices for the protection of minors. But there we should stop.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to those who have spoken and, in particular, to my noble friend Lord Northbrook, who said that perhaps we should have some clarity on this matter on the face of the Bill. I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that, unfortunately, whether one is a lover of spam or not, this amendment was never intended to deal with that. Personally, I always found spam indigestible and indigestible it will remain. This is not an attempt to solve that particular problem.
I am fascinated that the implication of this amendment, as read, makes it a requirement that media, which already broadcast through conventional television or via satellite, would have to broadcast on the Internet. I did not think that that was the implication, although the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seems to think that it is. That is not the intention. In his response, for which I am most grateful, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made it clear that the Government do not want to go into this area. However, the purpose of the amendment simply is to give Ofcom a right to look at what media companies, who already are regulated, do when they use the Internet.
The reality is that the media and information services now use the same medium. There is no distinction between a BBC broadcast in digital form and a digital message technically going down the Internet. At some point, and somehow, we must bridge that gap. One way to do that would be the highly delightful way of deregulating media services completely. That might be the more intellectually
978
sustainable way to do it. But I see a lot of frowns at such an anarchic thought. At least that would present a consistent position.
We have had an interesting debate, which has not taken the position much further forward. The Committee is examining the Bill in great detail. It would be entirely superfluous to divide the Committee on this issue, although I had some pressure from my noble friend to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 not meted.]
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 9, after "Kingdom" insert "of people of different ethnic origins and communities"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is intended to ensure that Ofcom has regard to the key role played by electronic communications in sustaining cultural diversity and promoting understanding between communities of differing ethnic origins. It is abundantly clear that Britain is fast moving towards being an ever more multi-ethnic and culturally diverse society. Those from different racial backgrounds should be and, above all, should feel themselves to be, included within the range of communities catered for by the communications industry.
Currently, despite full consultation prior to the publication of the draft Communications Bill, the Bill is, apart from some recognition within public service broadcasting clauses, quite unspecific about cultural diversity, leaving responsibility for this primarily to Ofcom to interpret as it sees appropriate.
The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, which requires public bodies to promote race equality and monitor the effect of such policies, will apply to Ofcom as a public body. Members of the Committee may ask, why not leave it to the good sense of Ofcom? But if the ethnic dimension of difference—so important in communication—is not specifically stated when others are, there is a danger that it will be neglected or given a lower priority. In communication, the racial aspect of diversity surely is at least as important as that of geography and disability, which are made specific Ofcom duties under the Bill.
Your Lordships should be in no doubt that a laissez-faire approach will not work in this field. I am afraid that the experience with equal opportunities for women over the years—women form 50 per cent of the population, not 9 per cent like the different ethnic populations—shows how vital it is to have these duties specifically spelt out and acted upon if progress is to take place.
A purely self-regulatory approach has not been found effective here, and it has not been found effective in the United States either. A Broadcasting Standards Commission (BSC)/PACT delegation to the United States in 2001 found that the two public bodies responsible there—the Department of Commerce and the Federal Communications Commission—both felt that self-regulatory measures had not been successful.
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that a report to be published by the Broadcasting Standards Commission and the Independent Television Commission—chaired by my noble friend, Lady Prashar—emphasises the importance of cultural diversity specifically written into the initial regulatory agenda of Ofcom. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, will expand on its findings.
However, there are three particularly important areas mentioned which need attention. The first is the content of broadcast material where there continues to be significant under-representation of minority ethnic individuals, especially on television. From my own viewing, that situation appears to have got slightly better but the figures do not yet indicate it.
The second area which needs attention is the manner of portrayal where stereotypical and culturally inappropriate representations still persist. Thirdly, employment is an area where, if anything, there has been a decline in the number of people of different ethnic origins employed in the industry.
I am glad that Channel 4, in its latest briefing on the Communications Bill, has specifically backed this amendment. I hope that we shall have the support of the other terrestrial broadcasters as well as Members of the Committee. But most important, I hope that the Minister and the Government will accept the amendment and the important principle that lies behind the need to table it. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. In making this contribution I declare an interest in that I was a non-executive director of Channel 4 for about seven years in the 1990s. As the Committee knows, the Government have declared their vision of developing an equal, inclusive society where everyone is treated with respect and within which there are opportunities for all.
The amendment seeks to instil that desire into the Bill, allowing an important and influential regulator the basis upon which to act to ensure that those objectives are achieved. It is also designed to ensure that Ofcom's decisions and the regulatory structure comply with the requirements of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
After some considerable thought, I decided to support the amendment. Some would argue that it is unnecessary. In an ideal world one could argue that such a provision is unnecessary. However, as we have heard, progress thus far has been patchy. Therefore, it is essential that such wording should be included in the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, for the past six months I have been chairing the review that has been looking at diversity in the context of the Bill. The review, which was established by the Broadcasting Standards Commission, with the support of the ITC, will be published in due course.
After considering the detail on progress, the review concluded that this amendment is necessary because it will take the burden off the individuals of goodwill and
980
commitment within the organisation, who, of course, will come and go, and require everyone within the new regime to share responsibility for ensuring compliance, especially in those areas already mentioned: namely, content, portrayal, and, in particular. employment. It will also focus the minds of those running such organisations to ensure that we continue to make progress, which, as I said, has been patchy to date. I very much hope that the Government will support the amendment.
Baroness Whitaker: I support the amendment. I declare an interest as the deputy chair of the ITC, which also supports the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, it is also supported by Channel 4, as well as the trade union BECTU. Briefly, the United Kingdom is multi-cultural: that is a fact. However, it could become fragmented along cultural lines, or even polarised. That could happen. It has happened in many countries but not yet here in a general way, although there are gaps here and there in social cohesion.
We need to foster inclusion. Television and radio are uniquely powerful in creating culture and in reflecting society. Failures in catering for all groups have been recorded, not only as the noble Baroness mentioned but also in research carried out jointly by the BBC, the BSC, the ITC, and the Radio Authority. For that reason, Ofcom must have regard to the concerns for the interest of the full range of communities in our society—nations and regions, as the Bill says—and also the other communities that stretch across our geographical divisions.
Lord Dubs: In supporting the amendment, I must begin by declaring an interest as chair of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. As my noble friend Lady Whitaker said, the BSC, together with the ITC and other bodies, has carried out a good deal of research in the area, some of which, I hope, will be published shortly. It is because I believe in the good sense of government Ministers—at least of this Government—that I cannot help feeling that the amendment seeks to put right an obvious omission. It is my charitable view that the failure to include this provision must have been an oversight on the part of the Government.
It is perfectly clear that the amendment is both sensible and appropriate for this part of the Bill. Channel 4 supports it. Earlier this year, I noticed that ITV published a cultural diversity guide that also embodies at least some elements of what the amendment seeks to achieve. After all, the functions of Ofcom under this clause refer to those with "disabilities",
"the elderly and … those on low incomes",
people from different parts of the country and the difference between urban and rural dwellers. A whole range of concerns is covered, so it is surprising that cultural diversity and ethnic minority concerns are not mentioned.

981
After the tragic events in New York on 11th September, I was asked to convene a meeting at the office of the Broadcasting Standards Commission comprising many broadcasters and leading members of the Muslim community in this country. We had two meetings to discuss such matters and to listen to the concerns of Muslims about the way in which the broadcasting media were covering certain events dealing with their community. They felt that the media were stereotyping their community and from time to time doing so in a pejorative manner. It was a very useful exchange of views which, among other things, convinced me that this amendment is appropriate.
When dealing with an amendment about public service broadcasting during the first day of Committee, my noble friend Lord McIntosh suggested that such an amendment was not in the right part of the Bill but that it should appear later in the legislation in the section that deals with television and radio. Taking that point to heart, I argue that the amendment is absolutely in the right place. Not only does it put ethnic minority concerns on a par with disability, and so on, but, with the convergence of media, surely we shall find that such matters cover not simply broadcasting but also a range of other electronic media, especially the Internet.
Indeed, research evidence suggests that some members of the Asian community use the Internet as a source of information more than is the case with other people in this country. They do so because they feel that through the Internet, more than through broadcasting, they can find matters of concern to them and their community. I argue that the amendment is proper; that it was omitted by oversight; that it is fully in keeping with the spirit of the Bill; and that it is in the right part of the Bill in order to be fully effective.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My speech could scarcely be briefer. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in terms of what she is seeking to achieve by way of this amendment. I apologise to her for the fact that I was not present in the Chamber at the beginning of her introductory remarks. I do not propose to add to any of the comments made by previous speakers, but I have a serious question for the noble Baroness. In terms of the sense of the amendment, does she agree that there ought to be a comma after the word "Kingdom"?
Lord McNally: Following the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, this is obviously a sensible and appropriate amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said that we had come a long way; that is certainly true. The broadcasting environment in which I grew up probably did not reflect my cultural background. The programmes broadcast on children's television were "Billy Bunter" and "Just William". Indeed, my mother listened to "Mrs Dale's Diary" on the radio. It was very much a white, middle-class, southern England view. We had to wait for John Osborne to
982
change things with his kitchen-sink dramas before we heard northern accents and all about working-class life—
Baroness Buscombe: Has the noble Lord forgotten "The Clitheroe Kid"?
Lord McNally: Indeed, my Lords. It is interesting that the one outpost of regional culture was music hall and light entertainment. I concede that to the noble Baroness. But I remember the BBC radio broadcasters had to change into dinner jackets in order to read the news, never mind the television news readers. We have come a long way since then.
Although I suspect that it abandoned the idea out of sheer embarrassment, one of the cable television channels recently broadcast a re-run of the 1970s "comedy" series, "Love Thy Neighbour". The basic premise was that of a black man who had moved in next door. It is absolutely excruciating to watch that series today, reflecting as it does a picture of racism. prejudice and stereotyping. Fortunately, however, it does highlight the sheer boorishness of the racist white neighbour, while the black neighbour is now safely ensconced as a character in "Eastenders".
Programmes have changed profoundly and our current affairs output reflects that. However, evidence is still being produced, not only from the usual suspects, to show that our communications industry tends to centre on London and the area encircled by the M25, and that it is still extremely difficult for ethnic and other minority communities to get into the system. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, who is not with us today, is probably the exception that proves the rule.
I was worried to learn that the noble Lord. Lord Northbrook, is seeking to become a film producer. I should warn him that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has advised me that the way to make a small fortune out of film production is to start with a large fortune. However, that subject may be for another debate.
I hope that this will be the first occasion on which the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh, will leap to his feet and declare that the Government accept the amendment—hook, line and sinker.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: There is a strong tradition of support from these Benches for those who belong to the different ethnic communities that increasingly make up this nation and add to its rich cultural heritage. It is in that spirit that I wish to add my support to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.
I do so also because I am the bishop of a diocese which has within it the largest ethnic communities outside London both in terms of individual size, in the cases of the Jewish and Chinese communities, and in terms of their mix. Over the past few months I have been aware, when meeting people from those different communities, how very vulnerable many of them still feel, in spite of the efforts that have been made in this country to include them far more in all our doings.

983
So while I am aware that the Minister may well feel that the points which have properly been raised during our debate are covered by the clause, I hope that he will recognise that it is extremely important to spell out this matter so that there can be no doubt whatsoever as regards our good will and concern for people of the different ethnic communities.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for tabling this amendment. It has sparked a most interesting and constructive debate during which several substantial points were made. As has been so eloquently illustrated, we live in a richly diverse country and our media must reflect that. We believe that we have made provision in the Bill to ensure that it does.
The Government recognise the importance of the diversity agenda, and Ofcom will want to embrace it fully. However, while we are totally in accord with the sentiments behind the amendment that have been expressed so graphically in the debate, it is our view that the Bill already adequately provides for the needs of all members of the community, and we are not yet convinced that we need to add a specific reference to people of different ethnic origins and communities to the general duties clause.
Ofcom's general duties are fully inclusive. In carrying out its functions it must,
"further the interests of the community as a whole".
Provision already exists in the Bill in Clause 260, the public service remit, to ensure that what we see on television properly reflects the cultural diversity of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, because we believe that the diversity of content is supported and enhanced through equality of opportunity and fairness in recruitment and employment, Clauses 24 and 330 ensure that the broadcasting industry is fully signed up to this agenda.
In addition to these provisions, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 will apply to Ofcom. The Act will require Ofcom to consider the specific needs and requirements of people from diverse backgrounds, both in terms of its own internal processes and as Ofcom deals with the external world. Ofcom will also be subject to Northern Ireland equality legislation and a Welsh language scheme.
Therefore, despite the persuasive arguments that have been advanced in support of the amendment, it is difficult to see what additional positive impact the amendment would have on broadcasting and what, if any, impact it would have on the networks and services provisions in the Bill. My concern is that it could, in effect, open the way for a degree of potentially rather heavy-handed intervention in the form of box ticking and quota setting, which we do not need.
I share the view of noble Lords that we need to ensure that broadcasting in this country embraces diversity. The case for that has been made splendidly this afternoon. However, I believe that the Bill as constructed already achieves this because we have provided for precisely those objectives. Having said
984
that, however, I have listened carefully to the debate and I shall consider the amendment further in the light of the comments that have been made.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I thank the Minister for his reply. He ended on a positive note so I am not quite as depressed by his answer as I might otherwise have been. I wish to thank all those Members of the Committee who have joined in the debate. I was most heartened to listen to what noble Lords had to say in support of the amendment. Perhaps I should apologise for not having declared earlier my now somewhat elderly interest, in that I am a former chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Commission.
I shall swiftly reaffirm my own view, having worked for so long in the field of equal opportunities. It is necessary to spell out these areas. It was necessary to do so again and again on women's issues, even though women comprise 50 per cent of the population. It is just as necessary now in regard to race issues, and to do so until the time comes when the message is completely absorbed. Where better than to spell it out as proposed on the face of the Bill?
For the moment I shall withdraw the amendment. I shall read carefully what all noble Lords have had to say and wait to see what may emerge from our discussions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) the need to promote good practice in relation to the security of electronic communications networks;"
The noble Lord said: I rise once again to move an amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Northesk. This amendment should come as no surprise either to Members of the Committee or to the Government. No doubt noble Lords will recall the promotion last year of the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Bill of my noble friend. Indeed, the Government and the Minister may even have thought to dig out and review the Second Reading debate for that Bill in preparation for today's discussions. It is sufficient to say that those proceedings, in their entirety and based on the contributions of all noble Lords who spoke, encapsulate the reason why my noble friend believes this amendment to be so important. But it is useful to update the background and factual information that underpins the amendment. In that way the Committee will gain a feel for the context in which it is intended to operate.
Inevitably, computer crime is a fairly recent phenomenon. As the technological revolution develops, so we become more and more aware of the myriad ways in which IT can be used for criminal or anti-social ends. For us, as legislators, it is a relentless process of catch-up, although there are senses in which we have not even begun to do so as yet. For illustrative purposes, it is worth considering a single subset of this problem, although I am bound to caution the Committee that this does not make any other aspect of IT security any less important.
A recent survey carried out for the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit by NOP of more than 100 firms highlighted more than 3,000 separate incidents of sabotage of data, virus attack and financial fraud. Hacking and denial of service attacks accounted for one in five of these episodes. As Detective Chief Superintendent Len Hynds, the head of the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit, is on record as saying,
"With 87 per cent of respondents reporting that they had suffered some kind of hi-tech attack it is not so much 'will you become a victim?' but rather 'when will you know that you are a victim?".
We are all aware of computer viruses and their huge potential for damage, but for most of us they are a threat that is only dimly perceived and even more dimly understood. At least in part this is a result of that sense of diffidence towards IT to which my noble friend alluded last week.
But there are some digestible facts. Industry experts estimate that the number of viruses and their variants currently in circulation is 62,000. According to a DTI survey in 2002, the rise in access attacks has gone from 4 per cent to 14 per cent in less than a year. Industry estimates that the average cost for a security breach is £30,000, with several companies reporting incidents which cost more than £500,000.
Typically, the fear of reporting IT crime to the police—notwithstanding the suspicion that many have that the law as it stands is ill-equipped to deal with the problem—stems from the belief that, in so doing, security shortcomings will be publicised and exposed. Not only that, but consumer and commercial confidence in their net presence may be undermined. Certainly reporting, even in confidence via the UNIRAS system, has yet to be taken up widely, although the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit seems to be making some progress with its confidential hot-line.
One or two companies have been willing to place on record reports of attacks on their networks, notably the Internet service provider, Tiscali. Its UK arm was severely impacted on 18th March this year—I apologise for my noble friend's "techie" approach to this issue but he is the expert and I defer to him—after a massive denial of service assault that downed the ISP's portal, denying customers net access and e-mail services. Nominet, too, has suffered, particularly at the hands of "spammers", and was forced to suspend the "WHOIS" service.
It is not only the private sector and individuals who are at risk; the public sector is equally exposed. The Committee will remember that, 18 months ago, the original Code Red virus wormed its way through the Internet, carrying a payload intended to cause a denial of service attack on the White House web server. The UK has not escaped its share of attacks from hackers. The No. 10 Downing Street website, on 23rd March this year, was briefly rendered inaccessible after a co-ordinated denial of service attack protesting the Prime Minister's role in the Iraq conflict. Separately, the Carder's group defaced more than 3,000 websites over a weekend early in March of this year.
We—and the Government should be included in the use of that pronoun—should be under no illusions: the problem is immense. It is getting worse all the time rather than better. I have skimmed the surface of only one of its aspects. It is seductive to imagine that, serious as all of this may be, it is outside the scope of the Bill. What conceivable utility is there in a primary economic regulator having any measure of responsibility over issues more correctly dealt with elsewhere?
The first point to be made is that, on the Government's own admission, Ofcom is not intended to be exclusively an economic regulator. For the avoidance of doubt, Dr Kim Howells, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, said,
"Ofcom is not purely, or even primarily, an economic regulator".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 10/12/02; col. 76.]
Secondly, a point already made by my noble friend in the context of other amendments, the economic and commercial vitality and success of IT are inextricably linked with the levels of trust and confidence that consumers have in it. It is possible to over-emphasise the importance of this but, none the less, in so far as Ofcom is an economic regulator and thereby has a vested interest in the health and vitality of the sector, issues of business trust and confidence can he seen as integral to its work.
Thirdly, to a very major extent we have already had a template of the Government's own construction of the way in which co-operative effort can impact beneficially within the sector. It is only last year that the Government introduced the Mobile Telephone (Re-programming) Bill which Parliament very quickly turned round and enacted into law. We all agreed that its purpose was to respond to a specific and identifiable problem within the communications sector. We all agree that its drafting was informed by inputs from telecoms companies, from appropriate regulators and from the Government. I do not know how it has impacted on the scale of the problem of mobile phone theft—perhaps the Minister will help me on that in his response—but it is reasonable to suppose that it will have had an effect and eased the problem somewhat. Certainly we do not hear so much about mobile phone theft as we did 12 months ago.
The point at issue here is to ask ourselves how much better and quicker would we all have been able to respond to the problem of mobile phone theft had the relevant regulator been more proactively involved at the coal face, as it were, on a day-to-day basis. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The Committee may feel that this is a rehash of Amendment No. 14 moved by my noble friend Lady Wilcox last week. It is not. That had some specific targets—copyright abuse, threats to children on the net and so on—but this amendment does not have that degree of specificity. It recognises that the role of Ofcom here is not that of creating regulation but of acting as a champion for security issues as they relate to ICT. If the objective of legislating for technological convergence is to be realised coherently, it is imperative that Ofcom should be placed in this position.
As with other technology-based amendments, the Minister will no doubt argue—with some justification, it has to be said—that the body of IT security-related issues should be left to be dealt with under the terms of the forthcoming European directives. That has an element of substance, but the rub, as my noble friend would argue, is that, as with Amendment No. 16, all the proposition does is anticipate without in any way pre-empting the terms of those directives.
We should not be deluded into ignoring a crucial aspect of the commercial and economic health and vitality of the new technology sector which, after all, should lie at the heart of Ofcom's work, simply because it may be more convenient, or possibly tidier, to defer the matter by dealing with it via the European route. It is important that Ofcom should have its finger very firmly on the pulse of technological development and the way in which it may generate problems and difficulties in the future.
If we are sincerely to believe that the UK can take its place in the forefront of the new technology in the years leading up to the delivery of the Government's various targets, we cannot afford to tie Ofcom's hands here. It is crucial that the Office of Communications has a specific responsibility to promote good practice in relation to security of the entire electronic communications network. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wonder if it would help the Committee if I said that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has answered his own amendment. The answer is indeed that Clause 4 places Ofcom under certain further duties in order to fulfil certain Community obligations under the framework directive. That includes, among those obligations, a duty to promote the interests of' the citizens of the European Union by, among other things, ensuring that the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained. There is nothing in the amendment that is not done already in the Bill.
Lord Northbrook: I support Amendment No. 21 which says that Ofcom must have regard in particular, where relevant, to the need to promote good practice in relation to the security of electronic communications networks.
I am aware of the work being carried out by the European Union with its comprehensive strategy on network security, cybercrime and the forthcoming data protection directive on electronic communications. But, as with Amendment No. 16, I am worried about the speed of progress. Can I ask the Minister—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to interrupt, but there is nothing that can be done more quickly by this amendment than is already being done in the Bill.
Lord Northbrook: With great respect to the Minister, I wonder if I could carry on with some points.
988
What progress has been made in the proposals made in the Council resolution of 28th January 2002, and on the more recent Commission proposal for a Council framework decision on attacks against information systems? In particular, is the cybersecurity taskforce, promised by mid-2003, running to timetable? This force is very important, since it is promised that it will become a centre of competence on security questions—that is, to develop with member states a concept for a European computer attack alert system and to improve cross-border co-operation.
In summary, I believe, as with Amendment No. 16, that this matter should be on the face of the Bill as the whole European process, however well intentioned, could take many years to implement.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This Bill transposes the framework directive—that is what it does. The third Community requirement specified by Clause 4 is to promote the interests of citizens of the European Union. Clause 4(2) ensures that the Community requirements are to be read in accordance with article 8 of the framework directive. The directive cites the need to ensure that the integrity and security of public communications networks are maintained as one aspect of the objective of promoting the interests of citizens of the Union. Therefore, although the words do not appear on the face of the Bill, the obligation applies to Ofcom just as if they did. This amendment is not necessary.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Whether my noble friend is as satisfied with it as I am at the present time remains to be seen, but I shall draw it to my noble friend's attention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) the impact of developments in relevant markets upon creators and performers"
The noble Baroness said: Before I speak to Amendment No. 22, I want to spend a couple of minutes in referring to a speech made by the Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, to the Westminster Media Forum last Wednesday 30th April. It is only right that Members of the Committee should know what the Secretary of State said in relation to this Bill, as it is entirely relevant.
The speech was about the Communications Bill. I have the text, in which the Secretary of State said:
"Many provisions don't face any real prospect of major amendment".
Indeed, she went on to say of the Bill that,
"most of it is now uncontentious".
It is also only right that Members of the Committee should know that, moving away from the specific words of the speech, the Secretary of State said that a consensus had been reached on the Bill. I questioned the Secretary of State as to whether we were wasting our time if it is the Government's opinion and decision

989
that whatever happens in this House, we will not be listened to. It is important for Ministers to be aware of what was said in last Wednesday's speech. The Secretary of State responded to me by saying that she felt that a consensus had, in large part, been reached, and that what she had said had a lot to do with the difference between our two Houses.
This is tremendously important, particularly given some of the interventions from noble Lords in the Bill's first day in Committee, when a real concern was raised as to whether the Minister would listen to what we had to say, given that pre-legislative scrutiny had taken place. I made it clear that noble Lords on this side of the House—and I believe I speak for all noble Lords—are not content to substitute pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill for proper scrutiny in this House.
On Amendment No. 22, amid our concern with communications network and service providers, I am anxious that we appreciate the impact of regulatory change on our creative industries and on the music industry in particular. The Bill rightly focuses on the importance of independent producers in other areas, but I feel that we are in danger of overlooking an industry whose fortunes are linked inextricably with those of the communications industry more broadly.
The success of individuals and companies in the music industry is closely dependent on the opportunities for the creation of music for and broadcasting of music by national and regional radio and television services in the United Kingdom. Reform of the regulatory environment for communications directly impacts on the music industry. We recognise that Ofcom is taking on duties of enormous breadth and complexity, and that it will be required to balance a huge range of different interests. We do not seek to add to those duties unnecessarily. I genuinely feel, however, that the inclusion of an additional general duty to secure the best conditions for the creation and supply of new and quality creative content to television and radio services would be a welcome addition to the Bill. The British music industry is a significant economic and cultural asset, and if it is in our power to secure optimal conditions for its development, I feel we should do so. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: In supporting the amendment, I remind Members of the Committee that a similar amendment, put before the House of Commons, was judged to be over-specific. The argument was that accepting the amendment would compromise the flexibility of Ofcom on the grounds that it would place in balance the interests of creators in relation to other interests—the general public interest in particular. One could argue, and I would argue on this occasion, that that is not the purpose or thrust of this amendment. Rather, the amendment would provide an assurance that the regulatory body, Ofcom, took into account the interests of the creators, but not that those interests would be in any way pre-eminent.
I imagine the Minister will say that it is the purpose of the content board to ensure that those creative interests are considered. May one suggest that there should be a statutory duty for the regulator to take
990
account of those important forces in broadcasting who create the content that we all, by and large, enjoy? That would be preferable to referring the responsibility to a sub-board entirely composed of non-creative people or, to use the word in the amendment, without creators on it.
The House will explore the issue of the content board later in the progress of the Committee. It may be appropriate to suggest that it would be pertinent for Ofcom to consider the establishment of a creator's panel, the chair of which would sit on the content board for relevant purposes. I am sure that positive action in the area to which the amendment indicates that the Government may go would provide a great deal of assurance to the music-creating industry, which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, mentioned. That industry's concerns about regulation and market developments would be properly considered.
In the meantime, we support the amendment, as it clearly attempts to enshrine the interests of creators in the legislation.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I make a brief contribution as the footnote of a scholiast to what my noble friend Lady Buscombe said at the beginning of her speech.
My experience of audiences addressed by Ministers is that they much enjoy their own textual analysis of what is said. I remember, when I was a Minister, someone who is now a noble Lord in this House saying that he always enjoyed after-dinner speeches by Ministers. He sought to detect the bits written in the department before the Minister set out and those hits that the Minister added during the drive to the dinner to add a personal touch. It is sometimes perfectly clear that the Minister has not actually read the speech at all before delivering it. I have been in the audience when that has happened. One can see him distancing himself from the text as he utters it.
I do not doubt for a moment that the Secretary of State had read whichever speech it was that she read out to the Westminster Media Forum, but it is just possible that she had not read it quite as carefully in advance of delivering it as she would have liked. In the course of the speech, as my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, she chose to distance herself from and to amend the speech orally. She may have realised that the speech had some downside in terms of its potential consequences. If the potential consequence was to give the impression that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had given up on the scrutiny of your Lordships' House and was taking your Lordships' House for granted, I cannot help feeling that the Secretary of State might have been making a mistake.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Let me straightaway deal with the question of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's speech. I was not there, so I did not hear what she said, but I can give all Members of the Committee who have raised the question the assurance that my right honourable friend is absolutely clear about the importance of scrutiny in this House.

991
My right honourable friend is also fully aware that there are some contentious issues. I believe that she was saying that many of the provisions in the Bill are the subject of general agreement. After all, the Bill has around 450 clauses. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would accept that much of what is in the Bill is a matter of agreement throughout the House. That does not mean to say that there should not be very careful scrutiny—
Lord McNally: I am listening to the Minister, but this reminds me of a problem that came up on day one. When Ministers go to conferences, where there are various vested interests, they get carried away by the event and start giving assurances. They tell people not to worry because those troublesome meddlesome Peers are not going to do anything to the Bill. "Rest at night, lads", the Minister says, "because we will deliver the Bill".
The problem is that noble Lords read. They read these speeches and get mad about them. I urge the Minister to tell them down the corridor, in another place, that a little deference in this case could go a long way. I refer not only to Tessa Jowell but also to Mr Kim Howells. They give the impression that we are just a rubber stamp. They are going to be wrong.
Baroness Blackstone: I have had numerous conversations with both Mr Kim Howells and with Tessa Jowell. Neither of them has ever given me the impression that they think this House is just a rubber-stamping body. I do not know where the noble Lord, Lord McNally, gets that from. I am also sure that Tessa Jowell would not have referred in her speech only to "lads"; she would have talked about "lasses" as well.
I give this Chamber an absolute assurance that neither I nor my ministerial friends on the Front Bench, nor the Secretary of State nor the Parliamentary Under-Secretary responsible for broadcasting believes the House of Lords to be somehow irrelevant. I might remind Members of the Committee that my noble friend Lord Davies has just conceded that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was something that we should take back and consider. There will be other examples where we shall want to do that.
I turn to the amendment we are discussing. The creative industries in this country, including the music industry. are essential to deliver the quality that we want in our broadcasting services. Their success contributes enormously to our economic well being. Developments in electronic communication services bring with them a whole range of extra scope for creativity. Important as that is, however, I do not believe that it is appropriate to single out that group as one of the matters to which Ofcom must have regard when undertaking its duties. We have emphasised from the outset of the legislative process, both in the White Paper and in the Bill, that it is the public interest that really counts in the regulation of communication services.
992
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned the content board. As we will talk later about the content board, I think that it would be wrong for me to engage now in what the board will or will not do except to say that the content board is part of Ofcom and any panels that it might set up will be a matter for Ofcom. As I said, I do not think that that should be put on the face of the Bill.
Where the work of creative performers has an impact on the public, we have focused on ensuring that Ofcom has the necessary responsibilities, notably in relation to the provision of high-quality and diverse services in the public service broadcasting remit and in the provisions for original production. In that way, we are creating real opportunities for creativity to flourish. I attach a great deal of importance to that.
There is already a fairly long list of matters to which Ofcom is to have regard and it is difficult to see what impact Amendment No. 22 would have on any particular Ofcom decision. It is to the public interest that Ofcom should look, and that is what the Bill provides for. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. If I may, I should like to respond briefly in relation to my comments on the Secretary of State. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for his intervention. It was actually the Secretary of State's personal touch that was so damaging. The speech written by the civil servants was damaging enough, but I think that the Secretary of State made matters worse. It is a lesson for all of us.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his interest in the matter. There were, of course, vested interests at the forum. Although the issue is particularly important to them, they were equally concerned that all the lobbying which they are continuing to undertake with all of us—and quite rightly so, as this is an important Bill—is not a waste of their time. I think that I was on the right side of the debate as it was I who received the applause.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his support for Amendment No. 22. He used the word "reassurance", which as much as anything else is what the music industry is looking for. It is tremendously important to show support for the music industry particularly now when it feels that it is being completely hammered by the Government in the Licensing Bill. We are speaking about an important part of the industry. Our music creators not only contribute significantly to our cultural life but are a commercial asset. I therefore think it right to urge the Government to urge Ofcom to take on board the interests of UK creators and performers and the impact on them of developments in relevant markets. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 14, after "consumers" insert ", including disabled, elderly and low income consumers,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 24 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41, 62 and 81. Amendment No. 24 makes it clear on the face of the Bill that when Ofcom carries out its duty to further the interest of consumers, "consumers" refers not only to those who have the physical and financial capacity to use the latest technological developments but also to disadvantaged consumers such as those with disabilities, the frail and elderly and those on very low incomes. We welcome Clause 3(3)(i) which states that Ofcom must have regard to,
"the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of those on low incomes",
but feel that this is an issue of such importance that it requires strengthening on the face of the Bill.
Different consumers will have different interests that need to be furthered and it is important that Ofcom takes that on board. Amendment No. 62 ensures that Ofcom bears in mind the differing experience of disadvantaged consumers when it conducts its consumer research. Amendment No. 81 makes the suggestion that when Ofcom publishes advice for consumers, it should be in a format that is accessible to those with disabilities.
Those who are most in need of having their interests protected by Ofcom are the disadvantaged consumers who are disabled, elderly or perhaps on a very low income. Those groups include the most vulnerable in society who must rely on technology more than others for safety, entertainment and to stay in contact with family and friends. Advances in technology open up real possibilities for an increase in the quality of life of those people, who because of disability, age or income are unable to be fully active in other areas of society.
Amendment No. 41 seeks to promote media literacy among disadvantaged consumers. Such literacy, by encouraging a deeper understanding of the technology involved by those who have so much to gain from it, would be of real value to those consumers and an excellent addition to the Bill. These groups also include those with special needs who require designs that are easy to use and understand. For, in an unfortunate paradox, those who have most to benefit from technological advances are those who are prevented from using them due, for example, to small letters and numbers that cannot be read, buttons that are hard to push and complicated systems that are difficult to understand.
Without referring at an early stage of the Bill to the different types of consumer need that Ofcom should consider, Ofcom will not have the legislative back-up to go the extra mile to ensure that the interests of all consumers are furthered. It seems to me that even without a regulator in sight, companies will be falling over themselves to meet the needs of the affluent, the technologically minded and the able-bodied proportion
994
of the population. Where a regulator can be of real use is in ensuring that companies do not ignore the disadvantaged. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I declare an interest. I appear on the letterhead of PHAB—Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied—but I do not do so in any executive capacity. Nor do I think that that particular disability is one that is particularly affected by Amendment No. 24. However, I recall from being a Member of another place for the best part of a quarter of a century the series of occasions when Members of Parliament were subjected to very considerable lobbying by correspondents on issues relating to the disabled and their reaction to the media. No one who has not experienced that should be in any doubt that it is an issue that resonates within those who have such disabilities. I cannot help feeling that it is desirable that it should be on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Wilkins: I speak to Amendment No 79, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 24, 41, 62 and 81, which I support. The purpose of Amendment No. 79 is to ensure that the statutory representation of disabled and older people is continued in the new regulatory framework laid out in the Bill, enabling the consumer panel to give informed advice on all issues affecting disabled and older people to Ofcom and the service providers. Without that, the Bill will signify a severely retrograde step in meeting disabled and older people's needs and one which can only get worse over time.
Currently, there is a statutory advisory committee in telecommunications, called DIEL, which provides the regulator with invaluable advice on the interests and access requirements of disabled and older consumers. The DI EL committee has 11 members, which enables it to reflect the wide range of impairments among disabled people alongside the interests of older people.
The Communications Bill makes no comparable provision. It removes both the statutory representation and the comprehensive breadth of advice. Instead it offers possibly one person appointed to the consumer panel to represent disabled and older people. Even if the Minister could give the Committee the assurance that one person with disability expertise would definitely be appointed to the panel, that person could not possibly represent the needs of all disabled people, such is our diversity. This proposal would turn hack the clock about 30 years to the time when disabled people were grateful for any representation.
The current advisory committee, DIEL. has ensured that the telecommunications industry has avoided many pitfalls in relation to disabled and older people during its existence. In a letter to its chair, Bob Twitchin, the national manager of BT's Age and Disability Action section stated:
"I am most keen to see an advisory committee like DIEL in the new OFCOM structure with the specific remit of looking after the interests of older and disabled people. Consulting with a group like DIEL can be of more benefit than consulting with organisations representing people with a specific impairment as the committee is able to provide a balanced view without over emphasis on one disability over another".

995
She added:
"I know that BT Payphones has also found the relationship highly valuable over the years and it would be a retrograde step for disabled customers if an advisory committee like DIEL were not to continue in the new Ofcom structure".
There is a danger, which will be voiced many times during this Committee stage, that disabled people will be increasingly excluded in the information society unless their needs are fully protected by measures in the Bill. It is hard to see how Ofcom will be able to receive informed advice in this crucial area unless an advisory committee akin to DIEL is established under the auspices of the consumer panel.
Similarly telecom companies will be required to consult the panel on improving services for disabled people. How is the panel to give informed advice without the sort of depth and breadth of expertise and the legitimacy that DIEL could marshal? As the Disability Rights Commission has made clear in its briefing, on the Bill, equal access to communications services for disabled people is a matter of civil rights not social policy and an essential prerequisite of equal citizenship. If we are to achieve full social inclusion of disabled people, the building blocks have to be put in place in all aspects of society's structure. The ways in which we receive information and the ways in which we communicate are obviously basic to our functioning in society.
The Bill will lay down the framework for years to come so it is imperative that the needs of disabled and older people are fully protected on the face of the Bill. Providing for their statutory representation through an advisory committee which is composed of a majority of disabled people is one of the essential building blocks for ensuring that disabled people will not be left behind and shut out of the information society.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My name is added to Amendment No. 79 in the group of amendments that we are discussing. I wish to speak in support of that amendment and, indeed, the entire group. If I did not recognise all the words that the noble Baroness used, I definitely recognised the tune. If we carry on at this rate we shall be able to come up with something we can all hum happily together.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, has just said, Amendment No. 79 is concerned with retaining what we have. I refer to a situation where one person is bombarded by dozens of different people saying that they do not understand the position. As a disability spokesman I know exactly what will happen to such a person as it happens to me. Dozens of people say to me, "You do not understand my specific needs". One has to say, "Wait a minute; there are other people involved. I need to get a balance. I need to find out what is going on". It is incredibly difficult to get such a balanced view. One needs to consider many views. One needs a consensus view. I hope that Members of the Committee will adopt such a course throughout the Committee stage. We need to represent the views of all
996
groups involved in the matter. I commend Amendment No. 79 in particular but also the entire group we are discussing.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I commend Amendment No. 79 to which the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, are added. I support very much all that they said, in particular what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about one person not being beleaguered. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, mentioned that communications service providers benefit greatly from the practical advice that they get from committees such as the one we are discussing. That is ably demonstrated by DIEL. It is vital that such provision should continue.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: There is nothing worse than arguments being repeated in this Chamber ad nauseum. Therefore, I propose to speak briefly. I endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said about Amendment No. 79. The name that she mentioned, DIEL, is an odd one. I am not particularly keen on that name. It is to be abolished. The letters "DI" stood for disability and "EL" for elderly. However, the body has an admirable function. It has campaigned actively, aggressively and persuasively for disabled and elderly people. It has done a good job. That provision will be lost under the Bill. There is no similar provision. It is entirely wrong that the Government should omit that provision. This is a very simple amendment. I am sure that my noble friend will consider it sympathetically. As I say, it is a very simple and modest amendment but I hope that the Government will give a categoric assurance that they will take it away and consider it.
It is of paramount importance that the committee we are discussing should include a majority of disabled or elderly people. There is absolutely no point in having people with no experience of the matters they are to discuss. If the disabled and elderly are not represented on the committee they will be excluded. On the question of exclusion I commend the speeches that have been made on other amendments in the group we are discussing. I warmly accept the principles behind the amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, mentioned numbers that are too small to be read easily by elderly or disabled people who have sight impairment. It is not just a matter of not being able to press buttons or to read tiny text. What that really means is that they are completely excluded from television as a method of communication. No thought has gone into that matter. If accepted, these amendments would go a long way to including disabled and elderly people in the matter we are discussing. It is a simple but profoundly important point.
Lord Carter: Amendment No. 25, which stands in my name, tackles this problem in a different way. I shall make my main argument when speaking to that amendment. However. I want to pick up one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made. I believe that she referred to Clause 3(3)(i). However, I believe that Clause 330 refers to the employment of disabled

997
persons. It does not refer to access for disabled persons. If I read it correctly, Clause 330 deals only with the employment of disabled persons. We shall certainly want to discuss that matter when we reach that clause.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I wish to speak briefly in support of what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. I remind the Committee that disabled people comprise a very diverse group but that another group must be considered within that; namely, those who have a temporary disability. Many hospital patients and people who are recovering from episodes are severely disabled. They also need to be considered. I do not think that it is possible for one representative with a disability remit adequately to represent the breadth of people who may be affected by the provisions in the Bill. Therefore, I support the wording of and the sentiments behind the amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: It would be strange if there were no support from these Benches for the amendments that we are discussing. The Committee will be well aware that as bishops and, indeed, clergy we come constantly into pastoral contact with those who are elderly, disabled and financially disadvantaged.
Many of the interventions that have been made have echoed points that would happily have been made from these Benches and I shall not repeat them. I gladly give my support to the amendments but not simply for professional reasons, as clergy from my own diocese would certainly endorse. During many years of my upbringing, my mother was confined to a wheelchair. I know very well the issues about access with which the amendments seek to deal, so I support them.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not at all surprised that there has been unanimity of support for the amendments around the Committee, not only for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on the efficiency of the lobbying, but because of the genuine feeling in favour of the issues raised. We are all united in our desire to see improved access to communications services for people with disabilities. We are anxious to see that the digital divide, as it is called, does not exclude disabled or elderly people, or people on low incomes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is right: we are concerned that there is a risk that the problem could get worse as existing and future services are delivered by electronic means rather than more conventional ones. That cannot be allowed to happen. We cannot be denied a fully inclusive society simply because of technological advances.
What is the government response to the issues? Let me come back to the general duties of Ofcom, which have been a common theme of our consideration of the Bill for a day and a half of Committee time now, as is quite right. Those general duties are the key. We have
998
to consider the amendments against the requirement in Clause 3(3)(i) that, where relevant in carrying out its functions, Ofcom must have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities, the elderly and those on low incomes.
We must also consider the amendments in the light of the role that the consumer panel will play. A number of speakers have dealt with that subject. Formally, people with disabilities, the elderly and those on low incomes are named constituents of the panel. It is true that the formal requirement is for only one person on the panel to represent those interests, but I hope that I can convince the Committee that the actual commitment goes a good deal further. The panel has to provide Ofcom with informed advice about their interests, and Ofcom will have to have regard to their interests in carrying out all its functions.
We have looked at whether the amendments will add anything real and tangible to what Ofcom will do. As well as the fully inclusive general duties to which I referred, the specific "have regard to" and the remit of the consumer panel have included specific provisions where most needed to ensure that everyone has access.
Let us consider the universal service provisions set out in the universal service order. By virtue of the provisions in Clause 3(3)(i), Ofcom will have to take into account the needs of people with disabilities, the elderly and those with low incomes. The current draft, which is out for consultation, aims to safeguard the interests of disabled end-users and to ensure access to, and affordability of, publicly available telephone services equivalent to those available to other end-users. It requires Ofcom to take specific measures to ensure availability of directory inquiry services, text relay services, priority fault repair services, specially adapted public call boxes, and the provision of contracts and bills in suitably adapted formats.
It is very important to have access to broadcasting for people with sensory impairments. That is why the Bill requires Ofcom to draw up, publish and ensure compliance with a code giving guidance on the extent to which television services should promote understanding and enjoyment by deaf and visually impaired people. The Bill also sets targets for the proportion of programmes to be subtitled, audio-described, and presented in or translated into sign language. Clearly, later amendments are relevant to that. In drawing up and regulating under the code, Ofcom would have to consider the specific needs of deaf and visually impaired people.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment No. 24, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, seeks to ensure that people with disabilities, elderly people and those on low incomes are treated as consumers for the purposes of Clause 3(4). However, the definition of "consumer" is set out in Clause 398(5). People, including people with disabilities, elderly people and people with low incomes who meet the very inclusive criteria set out there are "consumers" and will benefit from Ofcom's duty to consumers. When people do not meet the criteria, they will not be consumers, so adding

999
the definition to Clause 3(4), as the amendment proposes, would not make them consumers. Therefore, it would make no difference to the Bill.
Amendment No. 41 has to be seen in the same way. We have to weigh it against the general provision in Clause 3. The amendment seeks to prescribe more specifically to whom Ofcom should direct its attention when exercising its duty in relation to media literacy. Ofcom will exercise that duty in the interests of the public as a whole. The general provision in Clause 3(3)(i) ensures that Ofcom will take into account the needs of persons with disabilities, the elderly and those on low incomes.
I referred earlier to the work of the consumer panel in representing people with disabilities, the elderly and people with low incomes. We are sympathetic to the intention of Amendment No. 62 hut, because of Clause 3(3)(i), it would result in duplication of work carried out by the consumer panel. We are creating the consumer panel specifically to give Ofcom informed advice about the range of consumer interests in respect of provision of electronic communications networks and services. We have expressly provided in Clause 16(4) that disadvantaged persons, persons with low incomes and persons with disabilities are among the groups on which the panel must be able to advise.
The panel will have the power to carry out research, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. Ofcom must give reasons when it chooses to ignore the panel's advice. We do not want to undermine the important and independent work of the panel, and we do not want to duplicate the effort. Of course, Ofcom may want to carry out or commission research itself into the particular needs of the groups. Under Clause 13, it is not prevented from doing so.
Amendment No. 79 was spoken to by the noble Baroness. Lady Wilkins, and a number of other Members of the Committee. Let me make it clear that the consumer panel must have members who have been appointed specifically to ensure that the panel is able to provide advice on the interests of, among others, persons with disabilities or the elderly.
I am not suggesting, nor are the Government, that one person on the consumer panel would be able to provide Ofcom with the advice on disability and the elderly. I say that particularly to the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilkins and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Consultation by Ofcom is going on at the moment on the general conditions, which includes a discussion of all the issues. However, the point is that the responsibility on Ofcom is to ensure that the panel as a whole—not only one person—is able to give informed advice about the interests of persons with disabilities and of the elderly.
I listened to what was said about DIEL. It is certainly true, literally, that DIEL is being abolished. However. DIEL was giving advice to Oftel only, and only on telecommunications matters. The panel has the power to carry out research—it will do so—and set up such committees as it thinks right to ensure that it can do that. Ofcom has an obligation to ensure that it has the resources that it needs to do its job.
1000
People with disabilities are named constituents of the panel. Their interest will form an important part of the panel's work. The panel cannot choose to ignore them in the face of competing pressures; it has a statutory duty to have regard to the interests of people with disabilities in carrying out all of its functions—these are listed in paragraphs (a) to (k) of Clause 15(3)—and to be able to give Ofcom informed advice on matters that impact on them.
We believe that disabled people, the elderly and those on low incomes will be better served by a consumer panel that can make its own choices about the best way to address their needs. There are plenty of options open to such a panel. It could set up working groups on particular topics. I have been very impressed by what has been said about the diversity of the needs of different groups of people with disabilities. That is why it would be inappropriate to force a framework on Ofcom and on the panel at this time. How it is done is a matter for Ofcom and the panel—rather than such a provision being on the face of the Bill. The working groups could be on particular topics rather than on marginalising the disabled viewpoint. However such an approach is organised, it is not essential for us to consider it now. The panel will have to make sure that it meets its objectives of providing Ofcom with informed advice and having regard to the interests of disabled people and the elderly in carrying out all of its functions. I do not think it would be right to constrain the independence of the panel by placing a requirement on it now. All of what is asked for in the amendments, particularly in Amendment No. 79, can and should be done by Ofcom and the panel.
The last of the amendments, Amendment No. 81, seeks to ensure, by including such a requirement on the face of the Bill, that in publishing information or advice in accordance with Clause 23 Ofcom must have,
"regard to the need to make the information or advice accessible to persons with disabilities".
Of course that is right; and that is exactly what is provided for in Clause 3(3)(i).
The fact that we believe that our intentions are so close to the views expressed today, and the fact that I have taken so much time to reply—for which in a sense I apologise—is, I hope, evidence that we do agree with and understand the needs that have been expressed in this debate. To employ a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I would rather use an example from a song by the electric string band. I shall not sing it in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, but it said: "You know all the words and you sing all the notes, but you never quite learnt the song they sang". I hope that we are singing the same song.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for taking the time to respond to the amendments—the importance of whichhe recognised. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for his support. I am delighted to know that his name still appears on the letterhead of PHAB. In speaking to her own amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, also supported the other amendments in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, indicated

1001
that he did not recognise all the words but recognised the tune. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for their support.
I am disappointed. I was quite encouraged when the Minister began his response, but ended up feeling again that an aspiration rather than a fact is being expressed. The experience of disadvantaged consumers is that, unless they are mentioned early on the face of a Bill, they have an uphill fight all the way. When I was chairman of the National Consumer Council—set up by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, 28 years ago, continued by the Conservative government, and continued to this day by the Labour Government—its mandate was to be the voice of the consumer, with a special brief for the disadvantaged consumer. That made an enormous difference to the way in which we approached our work. Every time we examined an issue, we did so for the able-bodied consumer and for all of those who did not have a big enough voice; but because that requirement was on the face of our mandate, every time we examined matters we did so in relation to the disadvantaged.
I shall not press the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 24, at this stage. However, I ask the Minister to note the support expressed for them—not by people who do not understand how to read a Bill: they can read "must have regard to" and they can hear the wonderful aspirations expressed in the Minister's comments. But these are aspirations. My experience teaches me that that is not good enough. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. I know that we shall discuss other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others who can speak personally of issues, even within their own families, who have great expertise and who always speak for the disadvantaged. But if I have any expertise to bring to bear here, it is based on the fact that for 10 years I spoke for the consumer, particularly the disadvantaged consumer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 15, after "choice," insert "accessibility and usability of services,"
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to insert "accessibility and usability of services" into the general duties of Ofcom. The amendment is grouped separately. Although it seems to cover the ground that we have covered in relation to the previous group—so we shall not have a long debate on it—it approaches the matter in a different way. It would be helpful to the Government were they able to accept it.
Under the heading "General duties of OFCOM", Clause 3(4) states:
"In performing their duty under this section of furthering the interests of consumers, OFCOM must have regard, in particular, to the interests of those consumers in respect of choice, price, quality of service and value for money".
The provision sees the issue entirely in market terms—it sees the consumer in terms of a market. The object of including the words "accessibility and usability" is to meet that point. It is all very well having choice, value for money and the rest, but if there are people who are not able to access or use the services, then their needs are not being met. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in interpreting and performing its primary duty and in furthering the interests of consumers, Ofcom takes into account issues of accessibility and usability alongside the other issues of affordability, choice and quality. As we have heard, if services are not accessible and widely usable, disabled consumers, those with literacy problems and many for whom the digital services are difficult to use will not be able to exercise real choice or to obtain the value for money mentioned in the Bill.
noble friend Lord Currie emphasised that Ofcom is a creature of statute. Therefore, what the Bill does or does not make explicit really matters. That was borne out in paragraph 16 on page 9 of the report by the Joint Committee:
"If duties are not stated with sufficient clarity in legislation, there is potential for regulators to exercise their functions in a manner at odds with the intentions of Government and Parliament. In determining OFCOM's general duties, Parliament will do much to set the terms under which that body will perform its functions".
So there is an argument that the current wording could mean that Ofcom overlooks the vital issues of accessibility and usability while fulfilling its other functions under the clause; or indeed that it will take a less robust approach.
We believe that it is far better to be explicit and to state that that the Government expect the new regulator to work for the basic right of disabled and older people to access and enjoy the same information and resources as the rest of society.
In reply to the previous group of amendments, my noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out the diversity of the requirements of disabled people. I declare a past interest which I should have declared at the beginning of my remarks. For nine and a half years before I entered government I was executive producer of the weekly "Link" programme for people with disabilities. Every week we had 15 minutes of television. I am well aware of the diverse requirements of disabled people, who have many different disabilities, and of the need for "accessibility and usability" to be clearly stated among the general duties.
Later amendments deal with particular aspects of a disability. We know that disabled people have a special requirement of "accessibility and usability". The later amendments involve audio description, sign language, subtitling and so on. The amendment is intended to ensure that in addition to those specific requirements—which, to some extent. are scattered through the Bill, as my noble friend explained in response to the previous group of amendments—there should be an overarching requirement with regard to disability in particular of accessibility and usability, and that that should be clearly set out in the general duties.
I am sure that my noble friend has a briefing that says, "resist" but I cannot for the life of me see why there could be any problem about including the words "accessibility and usability" in the clause, which refers to,
"choice, price, quality of service and value for money".
I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: The noble Lord pointed out that unless a provision is added to the Bill, particularly in this context, this approach will not become a prime requirement. We shall later consider various amendments relating to disability and much of our debate will be about how we have not got the best out of existing technology. We have not done so, but we could have done so with more of a will and more pushing here and there. Having "accessibility and usability of services" early in the Bill would be a great spur and help us to avoid those problems. It would also help us to deal with current technical problems, which the noble Lord discussed. I refer to the farcical history of audio description: there was a requirement to produce it but no one was able to use it. That is a smack in the face of the Government's protestation that we do not need such a provision. If it happened once, it will happen again. Technology will advance. There is the idea that technology will always be able to solve problems if we can bring it into the argument, develop awareness and ensure that producers know that they should be doing something in this regard. That is a huge part of this field, which deals with many disabilities and, in individual cases, disability packages. Unless such a provision is placed up front in the Bill, the Government will miss things, not through any lack of will or good intention but because the proposal asks too much. There should be a requirement to take action as a primary duty.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I too support the amendment. To pursue the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, someone from a disability organisation said:
"All too often in the past regulators with a weak accessibility remit have overlooked opportunities to strengthen the inclusion of disabled people".
They cite the example of the awarding of licences for the new digital terrestrial service, which is a case in point. The ITC could have made accessibility for disabled people a key criterion in the awarding of the licences, but it did not. Nor did it use the opportunity to require bidders to demonstrate how they would provide access to audio description. The person who briefed me on this amendment wrote:
"so the new Freeview service is a disaster from that point of view".
Baroness Wilcox: I support the amendment, as one would expect in view of what I said on the previous group of amendments. I was very interested to learn about the weekly "Link". One learns much in this place about what other noble Lords get up to. "Accessibility and usability" are words that are precious to people who do not have easy access to services. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed
1004
out, we will increasingly access such services through technology. I am only too delighted to support the amendment. We are trying to introduce such a provision early in the Bill so that everything follows from it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In light of my response to the previous amendment, it will be clear that I am far from antagonistic to the amendment's objective. When the matter arose in Committee in the Commons, we said that we should consider a way in which to achieve that objective. The proposal was moved in a similar manner in the House of Commons. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, reminded us, Clause 3(4) requires Ofcom, in furthering the interests of consumers, to have regard in particular to,
"choice, price, quality of service and value for money".
On the face of it, it would not appear to be too difficult to add to that list. However, the difficulty is that the amendment does not quite say what the noble Lord. Lord Carter, said. It refers to,
"accessibility and usability of services".
However, the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee referred to accessibility and usability of services for people with disabilities, which is not quite the same as what is stated in the amendment. Agreeing to the amendment would have effects much wider than the disability issue. It could crop up all the way through the Bill in unexpected ways. We asked ourselves instead about what the role of Ofcom is and—this is Clause 3, after all—whether it is the most appropriate body to address what are essentially issues of design. I made it clear that I am very nervous indeed about the risk of the move towards electronic communication, which could be to the disadvantage of people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and those on low incomes. We will discuss the issue of design when we consider Amendment No. 39, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I shall not go into detail at this stage.
The Government are already active in this sphere, both in Europe, where standards for product manufacture and design are agreed, and through the digital TV action plan. A key part of the digital TV action plan is to ensure that the equipment on offer is usable and accessible to the broadest range of people. The Technology and Equipment Group, which is made up of manufacturers, broadcasters, software/ application providers and consumer groups, is making an important contribution to this work. One of its early recommendations—to hold a workshop on inclusive design and usability—will be taken forward in early July. This week, the DTI is hosting an RN IB seminar on the current and future development of audio description services.
The DTI has appointed the "Generics Group" to carry out research on how consumers engage with digital TV. It will explore the issues surrounding the usability of digital television for all consumers, with a special focus on users with special needs, including the elderly. It will deliver by the end of July. Bringing

1005
together all the people who can make a difference in this area is the proper role of government, not of the regulator.
Clause 3(4), which is where the amendment would be inserted, lists some but not all of the particular matters that Ofcom must have regard to. They are the bare essentials; the list is not exhaustive, and I do not claim that it is. It is important that they should be read in the context of the commitment to the interests of persons with disabilities at Clause 3(3)(i) and by the specific provisions throughout the Bill, to which I referred earlier.
Looking forward to Amendment No. 39 and backwards to my account of what is actually being done by government and the regulator and to my response to earlier amendments—and in view of my response to this amendment—I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall obviously not press the amendment in Committee, which is the time to probe. That allows the Government to make a considered and constructive response and avoids the tedium of having to seek the opinion of the House at Report.
I thank all Members of the Committee who spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, gave the good example of audio description. We shall return to that later. It is certainly available but it is neither accessible nor usable.
As I understood my noble friend the Minister, he accepted the objective of the amendment but said that the problem was in the drafting. I tried to make it as succinct as possible, but he said that that made it much too wide. If I had made it specific to disabled people, I am sure that he would have said that it was much too narrow. I was rather surprised when he seemed to find a problem with having wider "accessibility and usability" throughout the Bill. I thought that this was a communications Bill. So what is the problem with wider accessibility and usability? As always, I shall consider my noble friend's response. I am not convinced at this stage but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 4, line 22, at end insert "and publish the reasoning for the resolution of any conflict between their general duties"
The noble Baroness said: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 26, but I shall not move Amendment No. 28. This amendment requires Ofcom to publish a document in the event of a conflict between its general duties explaining how it reached a decision one way or another. It is a probing amendment.
As Her Majesty's Government have conceded that in the interests of transparency it is necessary for Ofcom to publish an annual summary of how it resolves conflict between its general duties, a further question remains to be asked: what does the Minister envisage will happen between times and what about
1006
particularly difficult or controversial cases? Surely it is desirable, especially during the early years of Ofcom's existence and whenever a novel conflict of its general duties arises, to publish a document outlining its reasoning at the time of the decision. That appears to be common sense if the Minister for DCMS in another place, Dr Kim Howells, is correct, when he expects, and I quote,
"Ofcom to be a model of good regulatory practice".
The first of the principles of regulation is transparency.
A short summary once a year is not sufficient to guarantee transparency. In order for communication users and providers alike to have confidence in the new regulator, it is essential that they are informed about the rationale behind the decisions that Ofcom makes, especially in the case of' appeals. Does the Minister envisage further publication by Ofcom on this matter above and beyond that included in the annual report? I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I support the noble Baroness in moving this amendment. I await with great interest the Minister's reply. It seems to me that in some ways the amendment goes to the heart of the Bill and to its central dilemma, which is that to an unusual degree the Bill produces a marriage between two great departments of state which have widely conflicting responsibilities. On the one hand there are the broadcasting responsibilities that go with the DCMS and on the other hand there are the equally important responsibilities of the DTI for telecommunications and the global marketplace.
In any normal legislation that comes before the House it is normal for the department of state and the Secretary of State to reconcile the conflicts that inevitably arise. There is the famous remark of the Scottish left-wing MP of the 1930s, Jimmy Maxton: "If you cannot ride two horses in this bloody circus you are not much good at it, are you?" In this case there is not the normal issue of reconciling conflicts of interest within a normal department of state, but of' doing so within the two great departments of state that have conflicting interests and that have a history of representing important national interests.
I well remember when I was chairman of the old IBA being summoned to a meeting in the House of Lords by my Minister. That was at the time when we were just starting geostationary satellites and BSkyB was on the horizon. When I arrived here and went to the office of the Home Secretary in this House I discovered to my dismay that he was not there and I was directed to the office of the Secretary of State for the DTI. I was not very pleased. When I arrived at the office we had a discussion and I did not receive the impression that the Home Secretary of the day was very pleased with the arrangement because there was the first vivid example of the troubles that lay ahead with the development of telecommunication's technology, the increasing convergence of the issues of telecommunications and the national interests involved in that, and the interests of broadcasting.
I do not know the solution to that issue, but I believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness has pinpointed an important aspect of the Bill. It will be

1007
necessary for Parliament to be able to have the necessary evidence on a continuing basis, especially in the earlier years of the working of the new Act, of how the genuine conflicts of interest between two great departments of state will be resolved. I have seldom come across blander language in a Bill than appears in Clause 3(5) and (6):
"Where it appears to OFCOM that any of their general duties conflict with each other in a particular case, they must secure that the conflict is resolved in the manner they think best in the circumstances".
We shall all want to know a great deal more about the circumstances as they emerge as the months and the years go by. I notice in the Explanatory Notes that there is a marvellous explanation:
"References to the Secretary of State in the Bill mean any Secretary of State. In practice, some of the functions conferred upon the Secretary of State will be exercised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport jointly and others by only one of them".
I believe that last week in Committee on this Bill I mentioned that just as two cooks in a kitchen are a problem, I foresee immense problems ahead with two major Secretaries of State involved. I do not conceal my own interest in trying to ensure that the broadcasting interest, which appears to be so important to the character and quality of our society, is adequately maintained in that conflict. It is a real conflict and requires adequate machinery of government to deal with it.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I had not intended to intervene, but I shall do so only briefly. I have been prompted by the remarks that I have just heard. I was a regulator—chairman of the National Rivers Authority—answerable to the Department of the Environment and to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On at least one occasion—I could think of others if I put my mind to it—the issues were so contentious that they had to be resolved by No. 10 Downing Street. I can confirm that where two departments of state are responsible for one body there are complex issues that are sometimes difficult to resolve.
Lord Borrie: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, whose interventions in matters of this kind I greatly respect and always enjoy, has allowed himself to make a little fun of subsection (6) with its reference to the conflict of duties that may arise. As he is the former member of a government and a former regulator, I would have thought that he would welcome the openness and honesty of subsection (6) in which there is a recognition that conflicts of duty may arise and in which it states that Ofcom shall resolve such conflicts. That seems to me to be an excellent subsection. By the same token clearly, as consumers and as members of the public, we should all expect that Ofcom explains itself when it has the problem of resolving a conflict of duty. Therefore I believe that this is a good amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In following the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth and Lord Borrie, I apologise to the Committee for using an
1008
illustration that I have used on a previous occasion. I remember discussing the extraordinary kaleidoscope of strategies that were required under the Greater London Authority Bill that the Mayor was charged with setting up. I recall in Committee in another place asking Miss Glenda Jackson, who was the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of the Bill at that time, how differences between the various strategies would be resolved if they were in conflict. In response she made a very long speech at the end of which—it required a degree of textual analysis—she said that they would not conflict because the Bill prevented them from doing so. That is a nice and pious thought. If it was applied to the criminal law, prison numbers would melt at a stroke and penal policy would appear to be a great deal more effective than it had previously been.
The real world is not like that. Priorities must be calibrated. I support my noble friend's worthwhile exploration of this complex dilemma, on which the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Borrie, have also shed light.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I am emboldened to intervene briefly on some general aspects of this matter. At an earlier stage in the debate I said, that realistically it was not likely that in five years' time Ofcom would be reporting jointly to two Secretaries of State. I believe that it is important for the Government to give some thought to the mechanism for reporting. I suggest that there should be a Select Committee of both Houses which would receive a report from Ofcom once a year.
Otherwise, the DCMS and the DTI Select Committees in another place will want them and, I have no doubt, yet another committee. One will find Ofcom executives spending the greater part of the year preparing for hearings in front of several different Select Committees in another place. We need to focus and create one Select Committee. If we think we can create a single Ofcom, we surely can create a single Select Committee. The admirable work done by the committee of scrutiny under my noble friend Lord Puttnam surely is a good way ahead: a joint committee of both Houses, to which Ofcom would report once a year.
Lord Davies of Oldham: This is an interesting debate against the background of a substantial meeting of minds on the issue in another place. The Bill contains government amendments which were tabled in response to pressure from the Opposition with regard to these important issues. Let us be absolutely clear: the Government accept all representations which are made about the necessity for transparency on the part of Ofcom.
Perhaps I may deal with the original point raised by the noble Baroness about how frequently Ofcom will report on its decisions. In its annual report it will seek to identify the major issues which reflect its principles and the decisions which it has taken during the preceding year. It is fairly obvious why we cannot accept an amendment which looks as though every

1009
decision should be subject to such a report. If the board meets 10 times a year and there are 12 issues of substance which it debates at each meeting—which makes for a fairly substantial meeting—one would expect those decisions to form the basis of the annual report. As noble Lords have indicated, it is enormously important to all stakeholders and the wider public that full information is available.
However, the board will not concern itself with dozens or hundreds of decisions that Ofcom may be taking with regard to individual small stakeholders which raise no significant issue of principle. The board will not be debating them. Therefore, it would be very odd indeed to suggest that documentation was necessary to detail what might consist of hundreds of cases. Anyone who has been involved in a regulatory authority—and I am grateful for the slight nod of assent from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—would appreciate that point. So of course we recognise that the major issues before the board will need to be transparently identified and how Ofcom has reconciled the conflicting interests must be made abundantly clear.
I add also that Ofcom already gives public notes on the deliberations of its meetings. Clearly, issues of substantial principle which the board is considering will not await an annual report and Ofcom will put those into the public domain. So, within that framework, I accept the contention of the noble Baroness that just the annual report would not be sufficient because of the inevitable factor of delay.
I turn to the more general issue first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. It caused me to shudder in my seat when he talked a little about the tectonic plates of two great ministries colliding. We do not see earthquakes ahead. We rather belong to an age of joined-up government where we expect our two departments to work in mutual amity and consideration. In fact that mutual amity, consideration and forethought is present in the Bill. That is why we all enjoy a broad consensual perspective on the merits of this Bill now that it has emerged from another place and is before your Lordships.
Of course there will be differences which will need to be identified. At present, I have no comment to make on the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Gordon. I recognise what he said. I shall certainly look at the matter, although I must say that it is for Parliament to make a decision on that issue rather than the executive. However, I recognise the fact that inevitably with a body of this kind, with its very substantial interests, there will be widespread interest in both Houses of Parliament with different perspectives on how to respond.
In general terms, I hope that I have given the obvious assurances that we think the Bill was improved in another place as a result of Opposition arguments and amendments, that led us to change this clause, to clarify the issues. I am a little saddened at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that perhaps the phraseology is a little bland. I thought that it was a masterpiece of draftsmanship and expressed
1010
the aspirations of all good people and true, and even Members of the Committee, in relation to the issues. Of course the objective is for this body to be transparent and open. Issues of principle must be before the public and stakeholders, otherwise they cannot organise themselves in response to these important issues.
I add that the Bill's approach reflects the recommendation from the joint scrutiny committee, which also accepts that requiring Ofcom to explain every decision by reference to its general duties would be unduly onerous. I hope that I have given assurances to the Committee. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able, on that basis, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for his explanation and for taking the trouble to answer my two questions which I still ask. First: what does the Minister envisage will happen between times? I think the answer I received was that he did not really envisage anything, but he hoped that the regulator will choose to report. My second question was: what about particularly difficult or controversial cases? That did not cover every decision but was for particularly difficult or controversial cases. However, as the Minister said, this is an aspiration. It seems that the Government are becoming more and more aspirational by the day. Hopes and aspirations are wonderful things, but they are not always met.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie—whom I know well from his days as the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading. and I was very interested that he supported the amendment—to my noble friend Lord Brooke and to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, who brought forward a very interesting idea.
I said that this was a probing amendment. So for the moment I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Finlay of Handaff Baroness Finlay of Handaff moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 38, at end insert—
( )In performing their duties under this section OFCOM shall have a duty to consult the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly over matters of specific concern, respectively to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to Amendment No. 27, but my remarks may also be relevant to the other amendments in the group. Telecommunications and broadcasting are not devolved; they are a UK-wide industry subject to EU directives, regulation of frequencies, internal market regulation, and so on. But there are some specific issues that are pertinent to Wales which, I believe, are also pertinent to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Perhaps I may address some issues for Wales.
BBC Wales, Radio Wales and Radio Cymru, S4C, HTV and the independent radio channels are all important broadcasters focused specifically on Wales, the people of Wales and their needs. However, because of the topography, the roll-out of cable is restricted to south Wales and in large areas of Wales there is no mobile telephony coverage at all. Within Wales, the population is diverse. There are those who have Welsh as their first language; those who have English as their first language; some who have no Welsh at all. There is also a marked difference between the populations and their needs between the north and the south; the rural and the urban areas. Even within the urban areas, there arc the Welsh Valleys.
The proposal for an Ofcom office in Wales is to be welcomed, as is that for a Welsh representative on the content board, but that is not enough. We need a full consumer panel for Wales to cover the issues specifically relating to Wales, and to work with the Welsh Assembly government to meet the specific needs of Wales. The Welsh Assembly government does not have an executive role, but it must be consulted under the Bill through the statutory routes.
The Welsh Assembly government has an advisory group to a Minister, and the report of that group to the Minister for Culture. Sport and the Welsh Language was laid before the Welsh Assembly government on 27th March 2003 and submitted to the noble Lord, Lord Currie, the chairman of Ofcom, on 3rd April 2003. The report makes a recommendation entirely compatible with the amendment: the preferred option in the recommendation. I cite the report. There were two options for an advisory structure. Option 1 was,
"That an Ofcom Wales Communications Council should be established to advise and assist the executive team in Wales"—
That was the option strongly endorsed. The other option, 'shish was not, was,
"That no advisory structure be created by Ofcom, and that the executive team in Wales should rely instead on a structured relationship with the National Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government".
My amendment is entirely compatible with the recommendation in option I. The amendment would acknowledge the interests of devolved bodies in matters that concern the economic and cultural development of devolved government not only in Wales, but, I suggest, in the other devolved governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, Amendment No. 27A:
Line 5, at end insert "and give due consideration to representations made by the National Assembly for Wales"
The noble Lord said: Of course I support the duty to consult set out in Amendment No. 27, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Amendment No. 27A would add a specific duty to give due consideration to representations made by the National Assembly. It is one thing for Ofcom to consult the
1012
National Assembly; it is another for the Assembly to take the initiative by advancing concerns to Ofcom on which it wants Ofcom's consideration.
For example, on the first day in Committee, we were discussing jobs and creativity. One cannot imagine Ofcom picking up the telephone to ask, "How are things going with the creative companies in Caernarfon?" Those are matters of jobs—employment—that one would imagine the National Assembly would be anxious to take up with Ofcom in due course.
A proposal has been made that there should be concordats between Ofcom and the Secretary of State's office. That is unsatisfactory; that is not consultation with the elected representatives of the National Assembly. Although broadcasting is not a devolved matter, the National Assembly has and will continue to have an immediate interest in how a broadcaster serves the needs of the people of Wales. No doubt, following his answer on a previous amendment, the Minister will point to Clause 3(3)(1), which states that Ofcom must have regard to,
"the different interests of persons in the different parts of the United Kingdom and of those living in rural and in urban areas".
But that is not enough. The decision was taken that there should be no national representatives on the board of Ofcom. There is no advocate for specific Welsh issues on that board, which, we have just been told, meets 10 times a year and which therefore will not have time to consider such matters in detail. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the provision of one member on the consumer and content panels is by no means satisfactory.
The fact is that Wales, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, has a democratic, policy-making forum that both creates and implements public policy in many areas in which Ofcom will also have responsibility. Mutual understanding and agreement will require close co-operation. That is a structural issue, not a cosmetic exercise. It is essential that Ofcom continually recognises that the cultural diversity of the United Kingdom must be reflected on our screens and through our radios.
Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 61, which has been proposed by a cross-party group. The proposed new clause sets out a statutory duty to establish consultative councils with membership determined only after the views of the National Assembly and the equivalent Scottish and Northern Irish bodies have been ascertained. That follows the recommendations made to the National Assembly, as the noble Baroness pointed out, if it is unacceptable to have a consultative council, we propose Amendments Nos. 59 and 78, which give specific authority for the board to establish committees and panels under Clause 12(5), which will have a similar effect. I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 93, which would place a specific obligation on Ofcom to publish an annual report on its activities in Wales.
I am sure that the Government will accept that the amendments are intended to be helpful and to clarify the role of Ofcom and its subsidiary committees. I have

1013
no doubt that Ofcom will try to establish a good and effective working relationship with the National Assembly, but that should not be voluntary—a matter of goodwill that can be revoked at any time. If ownership is to be thrown to the four winds, it is essential that the regulators are properly informed and given the resources, advice and tools to maintain the quality of regional broadcasting.
A London-centric or multinational corporation will not understand the specific needs of our unique communications ecology in Wales. It will be tempted to cut down on hours and investment in Welsh programming and production. The amendments would assure that that will not happen.
The primary purpose of the Bill ought not to be to bow the knee to global institutions and corporations but to enrich and inspire the lives of ordinary people—in Wales as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 61 and 93, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred, and which stand in my name and that of other noble Lords who are members of the Joint Committee. They are grouped with Amendments Nos. 27 and 27A but go further than establishing a link with the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Amendment No. 61 would establish consultative councils for matters within the responsibility of the board of Ofcom in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and each region of England covered by a regional Channel 3 licensee. The Joint Committee, at paragraph 56 on page 20 of its report, refers to the Bill's requirement that four members of the content board be appointed to represent the interests and opinions of people living in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The committee referred to what it described as,
"the challenging requirement that the English representatives appointed for this purpose should be 'able to represent the interests and opinions of persons living in the different regions of England'".
If the handful of committee members will really be able to do that, they will be very remarkable people.
It must be understood that the needs of people in different parts of the United Kingdom are strikingly different. I am perhaps in a better position than almost anyone to comment, because I was chairman of the one licence-holder whose licence covered two separate regions—Wales and the west of England. We had to organise entirely different set-ups in Cardiff and Bristol. Welsh viewers wanted completely different kinds of programmes from those wanted by viewers in the west of England. The problems that we had to deal with in each case were entirely different.
I am sure that the same happens in many English regions. In my experience with the National Rivers Authority, when one tried to merge regions or to suggest that the interests of next-door regions in
1014
England were the same, one created outcries and much ill will. For example, the people of Cornwall simply do not believe that they have anything to do with the people of Bristol, with whom they are often linked. It is extremely important that the views of different parts of the United Kingdom are adequately referred to and dealt with.
The ITC, in anticipation of Ofcom's role. has been developing its existing viewer consultative councils in the nations and regions, with more representative content panels able to inform the content board about interests particular to the different parts of the United Kingdom. The ITC also saw merit in the establishment of streamline councils in the nations and regions to be chaired by the relevant members of the content board in providing a link to the devolved administrations.
Against that background, the Joint Committee welcomed the proposal for national and regional councils reporting to the content board through the designated national members. We recommended that formal provision for their establishment be made on the face of the Bill. We further recommended that, in establishing such councils, Ofcom be required to have regard to the views of relevant devolved institutions. We also recommended that Ofcom be required to include in its annual report accounts of its activities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is the point covered by the second of my amendments.
The Government responded that it was all a thoroughly good idea but it should be left to Mom. That is the reply that we have heard again and again from the Benches opposite today. But the Joint Committee believed that the issue should be included on the face of the Bill because of the importance attached to it in the regions and nations concerned. If the Government think it is a good idea, there can be no strong reason in principle why they should object to its inclusion in the Bill. It is a little hard to see why they should reject the proposition, particularly when it is so strongly supported by the National Assembly for Wales, among others, and other public bodies.
The case is particularly well summed up in the Welsh Assembly Government's statement of their current position on the Communications Bill:
"The Assembly Government is pleased that there are provisions in the draft Bill for designated members for Wales on the Content Board and the Consumer Panel. In order to support the work of the designated members for Wales on the Content Board and the Consumer Panel, the Assembly Government's response recommended that the Bill provide for the establishment of an Ofcom Wales Communication Council, which would be able to consider and advise on content, consumer and technical issues in Wales. The UK Government appears to be receptive to the concept of such a body, but its establishment is not included on the face of the Bill. It is important that viewers and the public at large in Wales have a channel to voice their opinions on content issues. The Independent Television Commission in Wales had its own Viewer Consultative Council until recently. Furthermore, we have the Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications, which was established under the 1984 Telecommunications Act to advise the Director General of the Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL). This Advisory Committee will cease to function once Ofcom is fully established. The Assembly Government therefore attaches great importance to the need to establish a communications council or committee for Wales, and that this is included on the face of the Bill".

1015
The debate on the subject in the Standing Committee in another place was unsatisfactory for two reasons. All the relevant amendments were moved by Mr Simon Thomas, the Plaid Cymru Member for Ceredigion. The merits of the amendments were then lost in a welter of politically charged accusations that they were all about extending devolution. The charge was completely unfair, but the Labour members could not resist playing politics with some sensible, practical proposals.
Mr Thomas also played into his critics' hands by tabling a new clause that probably went too far. It suggested that the Secretary of State should appoint the committee members after seeking nominations from the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales, and that the committee should then issue recommendations, not just on content issues to the content board, but on all the activities of Ofcom with their respective regions. The Minister, Dr Howells, in responding to the raft of amendments, concentrated almost entirely on that flawed clause. The difficulty is that, if one tables a number of amendments, skilful Ministers reply to one that is weak and pass over all the others that might have greater merit. That is exactly what happened on that occasion.
I draw attention to two particularly contentious observations by the Minister. Referring to the board members representing England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, he said:
"Through such mechanisms, the interests of the nations will most appropriately be represented".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 12/12/02; col. 105.]
I am bound to say that, without committees of that kind, it is extremely doubtful that they will be adequately represented.
On the question of appointments, the Minister produced what I think is one of the most tortuous solutions that I have ever seen devised by a Minister. He said that he could not see any reason for the formal involvement of the devolved Scottish Parliament or Assemblies, and added:
"When considering such appointments, we shall expect Ofcom to consult the relevant territorial departments and, through them, the devolved Administrations in order to seek nominations for suitable candidates. We envisage that such consultative arrangements could be set up in a memorandum of understanding between Ofcom and the relevant Secretary of State for each nation. The final appointments will, and must, be a matter for Ofcom"—.[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 12/12/02; col. 106.]
I understand that it is always a task in government now to find something for the Secretaries of State to do, but that is a bizarre way of approaching the system of appointment and consulting about them. We ought to do better than that. On that occasion, the Minister produced the argument that we will, no doubt, hear in a moment and say that Ofcom has the power to do everything that is necessary and that no more need be said about it.
As I have made clear, my amendments deal with content issues. Amendment No. 27, moved by the noble Baroness. Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is wider in scope. It deals with telecommunications matters as well. It has the
1016
support of the Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications. The WACT acknowledges that telecommunications and broadcasting are not devolved functions and says that that is understandable, in the context of the overwhelmingly UK-wide structure of both industries and the regulatory framework for the internal market and competition, which derives from a nexus of European Union directives. However, the committee then raises some specific concerns. It says that there is a danger that, if consumer panel members are appointed and—perhaps more importantly—dismissed by the main board of Ofcom, the consumer panel will be perceived publicly as a tame poodle, rather than a watchdog. It then points to the important precedent of the advisory committee for telecommunications specified in the Telecommunications Act 1984.
At the appropriate moment, I shall move two different amendments, but I will conclude now by saying that I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. It is correct that Wales should be able to express its interest in and concerns about telecommunications matters, as well as broadcasting issues. I am sure that that goes for Scotland, Northern Ireland and the English regions as well.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support all the amendments in the group. As the Bill impinges on some of the major functions devolved to the Assembly, it is extraordinary that there is no provision in Clause 3 that requires Ofcom to consult the Welsh Assembly. There is no provision anywhere in the Bill about the relationship between the Assembly and Ofcom.
It is strange because the policy statement on the draft Communications Bill, published in May last year, was a helpful starting point. Paragraph 4.4.1.7 said:
"The Government expects Ofcom to consult the relevant Secretary of State and devolved administrations in making appointments".
Paragraph 8.7 states:
"We will expect Ofcom to develop good links with the relevant policy committees and executives of the devolved assemblies and with representatives of the English regions".
I understand, therefore, the dismay of Welsh Assembly Members, when they came to appreciate that the Bill placed no statutory duty on Ofcom to consult the Assembly. Amendments Nos. 27 and 27A would remedy that omission, and I support them.
As the Bill stands, there is the inevitable risk that specific Welsh interests, such as those relating I o the bilingual nature of broadcasting in Wales and television reception in Wales, will not receive the attention that they merit. On 3rd April, the then Welsh Minister for Culture, Sport and Welsh Language 'wrote to Members of your Lordships' House with an interest in Welsh affairs to alert us to the fact that the Assembly was not satisfied with the Bill. The Assembly wanted changes, and it wanted the changes that are proposed in the amendments. I cannot understand why the UK Government should refuse the reasonable requests made by the Assembly. How could the Government

1017
have thought it right that two persons—one on the consumer panel and the other on the content board—could properly represent the Welsh public interest?
That brings me to a matter touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. In the Standing Committee in another place, the Minister, Dr Kim Howells, envisaged that,
"consultative arrangements could be set up in a memorandum of understanding between Ofcom and the relevant Secretary of State for each nation".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 12/12/02; col. 106.]
He also said that Ofcom could consult the devolved administrations through the Secretary of State. Is that really what is intended? I would be grateful if the Minister could elaborate on what the Government have in mind. I am bound to question whether such an arrangement would be adequate to protect the interests of Wales, particularly when the Secretary of State and the devolved Government do not share an allegiance to a political manifesto. Is it the Minister's intention that the Assembly should be a party to the memorandum of understanding?
There is a memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved administrations in being. It was presented to Parliament in July last year, and I shall ask the Minister a question about it. As there appears to be a disagreement—to use that term—between the devolved Government in Wales, on the one hand, and the DTI and DCMS, on the other, on the matters that we are discussing, should not the matter be referred to the joint ministerial council, under paragraph A1.7 of the supplementary agreement? We require clarification of that issue.
Having said that, I support the amendments.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I shall confine my brief remarks to matters relating to Wales, although, with a little transposition, they will be equally applicable to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
My first point is that this matter is the first evidence of real discord between the United Kingdom Government and the Assembly Government in Cardiff over legislative proposals. That discord is evident in the difference between the position taken by the Government and that taken by the Assembly Minister, Miss Jenny Randerson. Amendment No. 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, rightly highlights the inadequacy of the Bill's provision for the national regions. The National Assembly appears to have had no role in the appointment of Professor Ian Hargreaves of Cardiff to the Ofcom board. It will have no role in the appointment of Wales-designated members of the content board and consumer panel. That is a dreadful slight to the Assembly.
Lord Crickhowell: If there is an implication that the noble Lord did not approve of the appointment of Professor Hargreaves, I must say that I cannot think of a more suitable candidate. I am sure that, given the chance, the Assembly would have endorsed him.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Yes, but the point is that it was not given the chance. I believe that the Government's proposed concordat between Ofcom and the Assembly adds insult to injury. Concordats are normally between the Assembly and departments of state. As the Assembly Government Minister. Jenny Randerson, put it,
"any such arrangements will be purely voluntary and based on goodwill and could be revoked by Ofcom at any time".
Having considered all that, I am not at all sure that the requirement of Amendment No. 27 for consultation with the national representative bodies is enough. It is less than half a loaf; it is only a crumb of comfort. We should take the much more positive line that my noble friend represented as a member of the Joint Committee. I am of course delighted that under Clause 1 Ofcom will have separate offices in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and that presumably Ofcom will appoint people to run them. But in Wales, for example, with all its distinctiveness, including the Welsh language, who will advise the officers?
My noble friend is on the right lines with Amendment No. 61 which lays a duty on the content board to establish consultative councils. But is there not much to be said for more general advisory councils to correspond to the BBC's councils and other advisory bodies in the Ofcom field? Of course, that is true of Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as Wales.
Quite frankly, I must tell the Government that there is a head of steam behind this demand for a council in Wales and I believe that it makes a lot of sense. As we have already heard, there was a group set up to advise the National Assembly for Wales under the chairmanship of Geraint Talfan Davies, a former controller of the BBC. The group has certainly made the case and the Assembly has accepted it.
I shall not deploy the arguments; they are all there in the group's report. But I shall take a slight dig at the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, because he has always said—I am sure that many of us have heard him—that we should give the National Assembly what it wants. Are we going to give it what it wants or are we going to deny it, which is the case here?
I believe that we should concede the demand—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that Miss Jenny Randerson who he quoted is a Liberal Democrat.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I do not think that even she, at the distance between us, can alter the argument or the case which I put. The noble Lord is aware of the advice that he has given this Committee on a number of occasions and the situation that I highlight now. Are we to concede what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has frequently pressed upon us and give the National Assembly what it wants or are we to deny it? I believe that it is right on this occasion.

1019
Its broadband policy has shown that it has a degree of expertise that justifies its proactive involvement, a point acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the first day in Committee on the Bill, at col. 668 of the Official Report on 29th April 2003. Therefore, I shall consider tabling an amendment on Report outlining the proposition that there should be councils advising Ofcom in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I have added my name to. Amendment No. 78 and I wish to add a Scottish voice to what has been predominantly a Welsh argument. I want to make two points. Amendment No. 78 proposes that Ofcom should create committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We urge that from these Benches. However, I urge an additional point to those previously made.
As regards the quality of public service broadcasting in this country and the manner in which it has grown, its strength has lain in its arm's length relationship with the parliament and government of the day. What is good enough for the United Kingdom Parliament should be good enough for the National Assembly for Wales—if I may say so, with all deference—and for the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, while there is a need for Ofcom to ensure that it has the necessary committees to enable it to collect the views and interests of people throughout the United Kingdom, I regard public service broadcasting in this country as being one of the great cements that holds the whole United Kingdom together and creates a common climate of opinion, for all the diversities of geography and language. I would be very resistant to seeing the tradition established from the founding of the BBC that broadcasting organisations serve the public interest best by being kept at reasonable arm's length from the elected politicians, whether in the United Kingdom Parliament or in the Assembly or parliaments of other parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Alderdice: Having added my name to Amendments Nos. 59 and 78, I am gratified to hear the case for them put so eloquently by my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Thomson of Monifieth. In respect of Northern Ireland, there is a further important issue. The border—which stops many things, although not everything, as has been frequently noted—does not stop radio broadcasting, telecommunications, cell telephones or television. Indeed, a number of our broadcasters, particularly in the commercial sector, now receive a great deal of their advertising and their viewing from the other side of the border.
That is very important in terms of content. There are a number of people in Northern Ireland who, because of their sporting interests, their cultural interests or their wider intellectual and political interests, want to receive content which is not exclusively United Kingdom content. This is something that has been understood and achieved by broadcasters and broadcasting organisations because there are people from within Northern Ireland right across the communities making interventions and bringing to the attention of broadcasting organisations and regulators the needs of the people.
1020
There are also technical matters which are of great importance because people go backwards and forwards across the border. There are very real issues in terms of telecommunications. For example, as regards telephone numbers, frequently, those north of the border have found it more congenial and sometimes more effective to contact their colleagues in Dublin for an outcome rather than their colleagues in London, and frequently, through Dublin, London is more co-operative. Therefore, the idea of having something in Northern Ireland is very important for the people there.
This has been recognised in an international binding agreement. In the Good Friday agreement the question of broadcasting was included as one of the issues on which there would be co-operation. Therefore, I seek a response from the Minister as to whether the implications of that agreement have been understood and implemented in the conduct of the legislation and, in that sense, whether there have been consultations outside the United Kingdom—as evidenced by the activities of the Prime Minister today—which are a very important part of relationships with my part of the UK. That is not the only argument in respect of Northern Ireland, but it is in addition to the arguments already made by noble Lords in respect of Scotland, Wales and, indeed, the English regions.
Lord McNally: I am a signatory to Amendments Nos. 59, 61, 78, and 93. Noting the two horses that Ministers have to ride—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that broadcasting has undoubtedly been a great unifier of this United Kingdom of ours while at the same time recognising and reflecting national diversities and aspirations—I remind the Committee of just two points.
First, when this debate began some two years ago, much of the lobbying was for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish members of the full Ofcom board. Some of us resisted great pressure from our regional parties on the matter because we accepted the Government's argument that the main board should be kept small and not regionally specific. Secondly, my real point is one that reflects all these amendments and the arguments that have been made. The following advice is to be found in the recommendation contained in paragraph 59 of the Joint Committee's report:
"We are conscious of the fact that Parliament has already decided that the overwhelming majority of functions for which OFCOM is responsible should not be devolved. Nevertheless, it is right that the Bill provides further assurance that specifically Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland interests will not be neglected".
All the amendments in this group reflect the fact that such assurances are not yet contained in the Bill. Ministers would be well advised to recognise that.
Baroness Buscombe: We have considerable sympathy for all the amendments, but I was especially moved by the words of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy who spoke passionately in relation to the need to consider Wales. All noble Lords who have spoken have made useful contributions to the debate.

1021
However, it is important to balance the need for a board that is not too large and to avoid establishing committees for their own sake with the need properly to recognise the very distinct interests of those from our different devolved regions.
In relation to Amendment No. 93, I should point out to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell that one could more easily have deflected any charge that one is seeking to defend devolution for its own sake if that amendment included reference to "England". Indeed, it was the very fact that there is no specific reference to reporting the activities within England that deterred me from supporting the amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: When the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rose to introduce her amendment some three-quarters of an hour ago, as a veteran of devolution debates in the mid-1970s I noted that we were in for a late dinner hour. That has certainly proved to be the case. Indeed, we should have a very late dinner if I were equipped to answer in detail every point raised during this wide-ranging debate.
During the time when the debate seemed to be focusing overwhelmingly on the relationship between the Welsh Assembly and its role and on the position of Ofcom, I was enormously grateful for the noble Lord on his white charger, coming from Scotland, to remind us that broadcasting in this country is a reserved matter for a very good reason; indeed, broadcasting is absolutely critical to the unity of the end culture of the United Kingdom, as are the arrangements that we make in that respect—a point reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
We all recognise that public service broadcasting, which relates to so much of the work carried out, is a national concept of a fundamental principle that none of us would wish to put in jeopardy. Therefore, we must carefully consider the question of the representational role and how we respond to local communities, to the nationalities, and to the regions, who have a proper stake in ensuring that broadcasting is also responsive to local needs and interests.
There is a balance to be struck. In the course of my response, I hope that I shall defend the balance that the Bill seeks to establish. I am sure that Members of the Committee are well aware of the measures that we have included in the Bill in order to meet our commitment to ensure that there is an effective relationship between Ofcom and all parts of the United Kingdom. Provision has been included in the legislation to place the main Ofcom board under an obligation to have regard to the interests of the different parts of the United Kingdom in carrying out its duties; for Ofcom—this provision was applauded by several noble Lords in the debate—to have offices in each nation and in the English regions; and for there to be designated members on both the content board and the consumer panel to represent the interests of each nation and the English regions.
I emphasise that the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, in his capacity as chairman of Ofcom, has already visited Scotland, Wales and Northern
1022
Ireland and listened most carefully to the strong representations made to him on the way in which Ofcom should discharge that function, and on how it should organise both itself and its committees in order to meet those obligations. Such representations have been reflected in today's debate.
Amendment No. 27 would require Ofcom to consult the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly on matters of specific concern to those bodies. Amendment No. 27A, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would modify that provision by requiring Ofcom to give due consideration to representations made by the National Assembly for Wales.
When carrying out its duties, Clause 3(3)(1) already requires Ofcom to have regard to the different interests of persons,
"in the different parts of the United Kingdom".
The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the interests of the nations and regions are taken fully into account by Ofcom in performing its duties.
The Bill contains provisions throughout that require Ofcom to consult widely on its policies. The devolved administrations will be part of any consultation process that Ofcom undertakes in compliance with these requirements. Indeed, in recognition of the need to ensure that the devolved administrations are properly involved in the consultations that Ofcom undertakes, one of the measures that we expect Ofcom to put in place is to draw up a memorandum of understanding with each nation. Among other things, that would set out the arrangements for consulting the devolved administrations on particular issues of relevance to them.
Within that framework we envisage that the consultation in the first instance would be the appropriate territorial Secretary of State. Such Secretaries of State would not be fulfilling their duties unless they, too, took careful note of the representations made to them by the bodies of the nations involved. The appropriate formal arrangements that need to be developed in this area will primarily be the responsibility of the territorial Secretaries of State, but there is no way in which they could reach intelligent decisions without having due regard to the views of the Assembly and of the Parliament.
I am seeking to give clear reassurances that appropriate consultation is envisaged within the Bill, and that the framework within which it is being operated is one in which broadcasting remains a reserved matter. In doing so, Ofcom will need to give proper consideration to representations made to it. We believe that this will provide a sound basis on which to ensure that the devolved administrations are consulted properly and their views considered. Therefore, we do not accept the need for the amendments and I would ask the noble Baroness and the noble Lord to withdraw them.
Amendment No. 59 would require Ofcom to authorise the content board to establish committees to provide advice in relation to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 61

1023
would also require the content board to establish consultative committees for each nation, chaired by the respective national members appointed to the content hoard, and for the regions of England, the chairs of which will also serve as members of the board.
We have been considering with Ofcom what would be the most appropriate means by which to ensure that the content board receives the advice it will need in relation to the nations and the regions. There is a shared desire to ensure that the arrangements are right, but there are also resource implications for Ofcom—and, indeed, under the amendment, for the individuals serving on the content board—which must be taken into consideration. We hope to be able to discuss these proposals shortly with the relevant territorial departments and the devolved administrations to set out what those arrangements might be. That will provide greater clarity on this issue as the Bill progresses through the House.
I wish to emphasise that this is a changing situation, one which is evolving rapidly and needs to be worked out through the process of consultation. To that end, I can give the Committee a reassurance that before the Bill has completed its passage through this House we shall have a clearer definition of the nature of consultation which, at this stage of the process, is still being discussed. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that it is difficult for me to be as definitive at this point as some have sought.
The Bill already contains a provision to enable Ofcom to authorise the content board to establish committees and panels to advise the board on the carrying out of its functions. We have tried to avoid being overly prescriptive, as what may appear to be necessary now may not be so in the future. We believe, therefore, that the existing provision is sufficient to provide the flexibility needed to allow Ofcom to establish the most suitable arrangements both now and in the future.
I turn now to Amendment No. 78, which would require the consumer panel to establish and maintain advisory committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Apropos Northern Ireland, I thought that my cup was already full, but it then ran over when the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, introduced a dimension to the debate which I had not anticipated and feel singularly ill-equipped to respond to. However, let me give the noble Lord the fundamental assurance that I believe he is seeking. The Government fully recognise the role of broadcasting in the Good Friday agreement. The Bill as drafted does not conflict with the agreement. While I recognise the points made by the noble Lord and the emphasis he sought to lay on the very special dimension of broadcasting in Northern Ireland, I can give him that assurance and I have no doubt that, if it does not meet the point to his satisfaction, he will press me further at subsequent stages of the Bill.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the Government agreed with the recommendation made by the Joint Scrutiny Committee that the consumer
1024
panel should be given a greater degree of independence from Ofcom by being able to determine for itself what committees it wishes to establish. Clause 17 of the Bill allows the consumer panel to set up committees to provide advice about matters relating to its functions. If the consumer panel is now to enjoy exercising this additional level of independence, as recommended by the scrutiny committee and which we have provided for in the Bill, then it must be allowed to decide what committees to establish for itself. Therefore we do not propose to limit the panel's independence by placing a requirement on it, as this amendment would do, to establish either national or any other type of committee.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 93, which would require Ofcom to include in its annual report accounts of its activities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment seems to take as its starting point an assumption that Ofcom is otherwise likely to report on its activities only as they relate to England, which is a somewhat unlikely concept. Ofcom has a United Kingdom-wide remit, a point clearly made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in his intervention. That United Kingdom remit can be met only ifOfcom's reports cover all its activities, including those which impact individually and separately on the nations of our country. I cannot see that Ofcom would ever want to limit the accounts it gives in its annual report to activities concerned with England alone. Similarly, where Ofcom carries out significant activities specific to a particular nation, I am sure that it will wish to report on those activities. Indeed, as we discussed in an earlier debate, the Bill demands from Ofcom a substantial degree of transparency in the way it carries out its activities. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
There appeared to creep into the debate on one or two occasions an implication that somehow the relationship between Ofcom and the devolved administrations will be largely dictated by Ofcom's whim. That will not be the case. Ofcom will agree memorandums of understanding with the relevant Secretaries of State covering issues such as consultation on relevant national appointments; it will hold regular meetings with the devolved administrations; and it will produce an account in its annual report of its activities within the nations. So Ofcom has clear obligations built into the Bill in relation to the administrations addressed by this group of amendments.
I apologise to the Committee for speaking at great length, and I apologise too for having had to glide over certain points that were made with some force during the debate. We are still at an early stage of the Bill. Certain aspects of it will become clearer over the next few weeks. If I have not been able to respond to the satisfaction of all Members of the Committee today, perhaps I will be able to do so at a later stage. On that basis, I hope that I have been able to respond in a manner that will satisfy the Committee at this point and that the amendments will be withdrawn.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for that reply and for his assurances with regard to the memorandums of understanding. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. While listening to the tone of our discussions, I was struck by the tensions that appear to exist between the devolved governments and the need for a UK-wide remit. I am not sure that I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that there is a degree of incompatibility in seeking to meet the needs of Wales as expressed by the National Assembly for Wales and maintaining a UK-wide responsibility in broadcasting to the whole nation.
All the contributions have been extremely interesting in relation to the way in which the devolved administrations will look at the rolling responsibilities and monitoring through Ofcom. At this stage, I would like to withhold any decision with regard to my amendments. I shall read carefully all that has been said.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Baroness formally withdraws her amendment, perhaps I may say a few words or I shall not have a Motion before the House.
In relation to Amendment No. 27A, of course I shall withdraw it if the noble Baroness withdraws her Amendment No. 27. However, I should like to make one or two comments on the Minister's response. A memorandum of understanding made with a Secretary of State is in no way satisfactory. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, pointed out, the noble Lord underestimates the head of steam which has built up on this issue. The Secretary of State, who, by the Government's own choosing is a part-time Secretary of State because he also spends time in Europe, does not have the direct confidence of the people of Wales enjoyed by the National Assembly. If the noble Lord thinks that the people of Wales are going to be satisfied with some kind of agreement hammered out with the Secretary of State, then he is much mistaken.
The Minister did not respond to the point that a conflict is arising between the Assembly and the Government and that, as the noble Lord said, it may very well come to machinery being employed to resolve it. The Minister will be building up a great deal of trouble if the views expressed today are not taken seriously by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment No. 27A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for that intervention. Extremely serious points have been made and it may be very important to consult outside the Committee and to come back later to the House having considered all the points in hand. This is probably not the time to seek the opinion of the Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 27, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 9.1 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Tuberculosis and SARS
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Iltonrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is being done to combat the spread of tuberculosis and severe acute respiratory syndrome; and what facilities for treatment and after-care are available in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. my Question on tuberculosis has been queuing up for several months—well before the problem of severe acute respiratory syndrome was made public—but, as much TB is caused by the bacteria mycobacterium tuberculosis and is spread through the air like a common cold, I thought that the subject of SARS would fit into this short hut none the less important debate, and so I have included it.
SARS is easily transmitted by droplets that can travel two to three feet when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Some people are saying that it is a difficult disease to catch. There are confusing messages and the public should know the truth.
TB is of high prevalence in China, where SA RS originated. As a cousin of mine who visited the street markets in southern China said, "They are too horrible for words" and perfect breeding grounds for bugs. In southern China some people live close to birds and animals. Historically the region has been an important source of epidemics, and some diseases can be transmitted from animals and poultry to humans.
I am most grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who will speak today. I could not have asked for better Members of your Lordships' House. As the House will know, the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, is a world expert on zoonoses and other infectious diseases, including tuberculosis. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the questions we will raise in the debate.
I recently asked two nurses, who work as district nurses in London, what we should do to stop TB. They both said, simultaneously, "Stop people spitting-. Spit had landed in the eye of one of the nurses. I checked to see what legislation there is and the Library drew a blank. It seems that footballers who spit at opponents on the pitch are the only people who get fined. When I was young, there used to be signs in trains and public places stating that you could be fined for spitting. Is it not now time that this was brought back as a matter of public health?

1027
SARS has made the world realise how important are new infectious diseases. We should be looking with equal interest at diseases such as HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. As Sir William Stewart, the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Cabinet, said:
"It is the combination of global bugs in global numbers, all with a propensity to mutate across the globe, that is an increasing concern".
There is concern that the scale, the size and the resources of publicly-funded research facilities no longer match their equivalents in the US, Canada, the Netherlands and Germany. The Public Health Laboratory Service, now being subsumed into the new Health Protection Agency, operates from one floor in Colindale, North London, and yet it is expected to deal with a huge range of infectious diseases such as the current avian influenza, Lassa fever, Ebola and the threat of bioterrorism. The Government have laid all these problems at the door of the HPA, which faces the massive task of rebuilding our research base.
One of my cousins is a microbiologist and loves research. When he was working in Leeds he got frustrated as he did not have time to do his clinical research in the way he felt it should be done. He is now working in Western Australia, with a well-settled family, enjoying sport and his work, which gives him time for research. Unless the Government are prepared to give scientists the backing that they need, it will be a long time before Britain can again take its place in the front ranks of medical science.
I was most impressed when I heard the right honourable Ian McCartney speak in a personal capacity at a campaign to stop TB. Perhaps he was not what most people expect as typical of the person who gets TB. He was well paid, well housed, well fed; he is white, middle aged and a Member of Parliament. He had become increasingly tired and listless and developed acute abdominal pain in his left side, and the symptoms spread to his groin and testes. It was all put down to stress. Finally, after months, he was diagnosed and treated for non-respiratory TB. This is an example of how TB can affect anyone, anywhere in the body. After the right honourable Member for Makerfield was treated, he suffered a great deal of pain which, after years, was found to be from adhesions.
The right honourable Member's case illustrates the need for correct diagnosis and for more specialists who can diagnose and treat patients with the expertise they need. I have been in touch with the right honourable Ian McCartney, and I told him about this debate.
One has to ask what happens in the UK to those on the street or those who have a chaotic lifestyle. The simple requirement of a regular supply of fresh running water is difficult for many, yet to fail to maintain the drug regime is potentially disastrous for the individual and for society as a whole as we see the emergence of drug-resistant strains of tuberculosis.
Three million people a year die from TB and about 7,000 people are affected in England and Wales every year. There are outbreaks from time to time all over the country in places such as Leicester, Glasgow, Kent and Liverpool, but the highest numbers are in London,
1028
which have been compared with third world countries. The areas affected are Newham, Brent, Tower Hamlets, Ealing, Hackney, Islington and Camden.
With the increase in active cases which is expected in the future, the correct treatment is vital. The most common cause of treatment failure and acquired drug resistance is non-adherence. Predicting non-adherence is highly problematic. Directly observed therapy is the most effective means of combating non-adherence; intermittent—less than daily—regimes facilitate the therapy. Testing the susceptibility of mycobacterium tuberculosis to drugs is essential for identifying resistance and tailoring treatment. Managing multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis is complex and should, when possible, be done in specialised programmes.
In New York, DOTS was tried, and it worked. The World Health Organisation recommends it throughout the world. Is DOTS currently carried out in Britain and, if not, why not? I was concerned to read in the press that of 43 TB hotspots in England and Wales 86 per cent had insufficient staff to treat patients with the disease.
As we know, the modern world is small, and air travel is fast. Many of the people developing TB here in the UK have lived abroad; many with HIV/AIDS also have TB. To know the approximate numbers is important for planning health services. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what is being done about testing and ensuring there are adequate treatment and aftercare facilities. Is BCG vaccination being given in schools, and how effective is it?
It would be most helpful for a global, unified response to the WHO's global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, as it needs more support from most donor countries. The WHO predicts that by 2020 nearly 1 billion people will be newly infected with TB, of whom 70 million will die.
I look forward to the contributions of your Lordships and the Minister's reply.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for putting down this debate on these two important entities—the old and the new. The old—tuberculosis—is often called the captain of death, and the newest is SARS, or severe acute respiratory syndrome. I declare an interest as chairman of the subcommittee of the Science and Technology Committee on fighting infection. We take a strong interest in both these entities.
It is not many years ago that we tended to believe that as an island we were secure from many global diseases, but that is no longer so. As the noble Baroness said, Sir William Stewart, the recently appointed chairman of the Health Protection Agency, made the point that global disease entities are our neighbours. As an example of how diseases an spread, he estimates that there were 750,000 flights into the United Kingdom last year, bringing 72 million passengers into this country. We are a nation of 60 million or so, and we are exposed to the infections of 6.3 billion people on a global scale. Global infection is the norm.

1029
Tuberculosis is now classed along with HIV/AIDS and malaria as a major killer. The figures are horrendous, as the noble Baroness said. The WHO has said that between now and 2020 there will be 1,000 million new infections. Two hundred million people will become sick and 35 to 50 million will die. We believed that we had TB under control. Infection rates were progressively declining. But two entities changed the situation, one of which was the occurrence of HIV/ AIDS. The two diseases go together, and the occurrence of tuberculosis is 30 times higher in HIV/AIDS communities. The other important factor is the antibiotic-resistant forms of the tubercle bacillus. In England and Wales in 1987, when we believed that the major problem was over, prevalence rates began to rise again. Whereas, in 1987, 14 per cent of all TB cases occurred in London, now 50 per cent occur there.
As the noble Baroness said, the most effective therapy is directly observed therapy—or DOTS. There are five elements to DOTS, all of which must be accomplished for the programme to be effective. First, there must be political commitment to it. Secondly, there must be case detection, either by sputum testing or possibly by a new blood test, as was mentioned recently. Thirdly, standard treatment must be provided under direct observation. Fourthly, there must be an uninterrupted supply of drugs and. fifthly. standard recording and reporting.
When introduced on a national scale in various countries, the cure rate has been very high. For example, in India DOTS has achieved a 95 per cent cure rate, at a relatively small cost of 6 to 20 dollars per patient. However, it is no easy task to satisfy all the criteria of DOTS. and unsatisfactory completion will lead to failure.
In the United States, especially in the Harlem hospital which members of my committee had the pleasure and honour to visit, there is a very effective programme. They have extensive community outreach. Since the hospital is in a low socio-economic area, incentives for therapy are provided by way of food coupons and travel cards. Most impressive of all was the commitment of hospital staff, from cleaners to the chief medical officer, to getting rid of TB. The concept of the individual patient was that helping himself or herself to be cured of TB helped the community by clearing the infection from the local population and stopping transmission. Thus it became an outreach control programme.
I join the noble Baroness in asking the Minister if such centres exist in the United Kingdom, how they are functioning and what plans there are for their expansion. Other areas on which she may wish to comment are vaccination, especially the availability of BCG vaccine and the development of new drugs to overcome the problem of multi-drug resistance.
In the few remaining minutes I shall refer to SARS, which on the scale compared to tuberculosis is infinitesimal in terms of infection and death rate. Nevertheless, we do not yet know how far it is going to go. The main focus is the Far East, in China and Hong
1030
Kong, where there have been hundreds or thousands of infections with hundreds of deaths. We are fortunate in this country that we have had only six reported cases and no deaths. In the European Union, there have been 100 cases and no deaths.
We need to ask about a number of entities in this matter. First, what are the facilities for isolation in this country of SARS cases? Have special nursing facilities been identified? What research developments have occurred in the field of antiviral drugs? Is there good collaboration and exchange of information between this country and the United States, where major developments in vaccines and antiviral drugs are taking place?
SARS is an example of the truth of the adage that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We now know that that is best achieved by national and international collaboration, as has been well demonstrated by the response of the global community to SARS.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, may I remind the House that my noble friend the Minister will not have time to reply to the many questions asked if noble Lords overrun their time?
8.20 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Masham of Ilton on securing this short debate on two important infections which are very relevant to the health of our nation.
Tuberculosis is an ancient infection found in Egyptian mummies which still affects some 7,000 people every year in England and Wales. Conversely, severe acute respiratory syndrome—SARS—is a new infection which is probably caused by a new variant of the coronavirus. It was first reported last November, and within three months has captured headlines worldwide because of the fear it has generated in East Asia and in Toronto, Canada. Thankfully, there have not been a significant number of SARS infections in Britain. However, our communities at risk, such as the Chinese community, are as fearful of SARS as their counterparts in China, Hong Kong and Singapore. That is one reason why we should be considering this new infection for which there is no known treatment and from which some patients die within a week or two of falling ill.
Tuberculosis cases have increased 27 per cent in the past 10 years, to 7,000 cases reported in England and Wales annually. Communities at high risk of TB tend to be new arrivals from Bangladesh, India. Pakistan, Africa, South East Asia and some countries from eastern Europe including Russia. They account for the high incidence of TB in some inner-London districts. People with HIV/AIDS, particularly those from sub-Saharan Africa, tend to be malnourished, to have reduced immunity and to be prone to TB infection. Some have come to Britain for treatment.
Physicians treating tuberculosis, specialist tuberculosis nurses and NGOs focused on TB have designated 24th March as Concern for Tuberculosis Day. The

1031
recent campaign to raise awareness of TB among high-risk ethnic minority communities is to be commended. Patients with TB can be successfully treated with a six-month course of anti-tuberculosis drugs. It is essential that patients complete their drug treatment. If they fail to do so, drug-resistant strains of TB may develop and become difficult to treat. As TB can be effectively prevented by BCG vaccination, I look forward to the Minister's report on how BCG immunisation is being administered to prevent TB infection in our children.
SARS is a new infection which originated last November in China and spread to Hong Kong, Singapore and Toronto through an infected person spending a night at the Metropole Hotel in Hong Kong, infecting people living on the 9th floor of that hotel. The spread of SARS to Singapore and Toronto has been traced in detail by epidemiologists. Deaths have been highest among family contacts and healthcare staff. The death rate has risen from 4 per cent to nearly 10 per cent. Children are least affected and older adults most likely to die. There is no specific treatment for this pneumonia-like infection.
In Britain we have had only six probable cases and all have recovered. However, high levels of fear are present in the Chinese community, particularly as they watch satellite television from Hong Kong and erroneously assume that precautions recommended there, where SARS infection is still active, should be implemented in Britain. Fear of SARS has drastically reduced the number of diners in Chinese restaurants in London's Chinatown. Chinese students attending boarding schools in England have been kept in quarantine in schools in the Isle of Wight and in Knutsford, although all have been in good health and, as far as we know, have not been in contact with SARS patients in Hong Kong or China.
Will the Minister please give us assurance with regard to the system of SARS infection surveillance and indicate what advice should be made available to the Chinese community here? I look forward to her reply particularly as regards reassuring Chinese families that cutting themselves off from other Chinese who may have recently visited South East Asia is unnecessarily contentious. It would be more practical for all with coughs, colds and fever who have been travelling and have come home to consult their GP as soon as possible.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for initiating the debate. It is a subject which interests me as years ago the Brompton Hospital had a huge basement full of TB records. When the new hospital was being built and we discussed what we should do with the TB records some people said that they were history and that TB had gone for ever. However, those records were not thrown out in the expectation that one day someone would sort them out.
No one then imagined that TB would come back in the way that it has. The tubercle bacillus is as serious today as it was when it caused such damage in the past.
1032
However, standards of general health have improved and perhaps people now have more resistance. On the other hand, certain strains are resistant to antibiotics.
As far as we know, SARS and TB have a common form of transmission. We believe that they are both transmitted by air or in sputum. As the noble Baroness said, the world is small and jet air travel has made it even smaller. On 10th April during Starred Questions I asked about airlines and air circulation in aircraft. The Minister gave a satisfactory reply but subsequently I received an excellent letter from British Airways. Your Lordships may like to know that British Airways takes these matters very seriously and more than meets the World Health Organisation requirements. The letter states that,
"approximately 10 cubic feet per minute [of air] is re-circulated and passed through high efficiency particulate filters to remove bacteria and viral particles. These … filters … are the same as those used in hospital operating theatres".
That is reassuring for travellers. Indeed, it is believed that,
"the Coronavirus is too large to pass through the filter".
That is also reassuring.
However, it is less reassuring to read the newspaper headline:
"Touching a door is enough to catch Sars virus".
We might have thought that we could prevent airborne transmission by wearing masks. However, now the newspaper states that transmission can occur through,
"touching a contaminated table top, lift button, or doorknob, rather than being directly exposed to the sneeze or cough of a patient".
The paper further states:
"Globally, according to WHO, Sars has infected 6,234 people and killed 435".
It also states:
"Experiments show that Sars can survive for at least 24 hours on surfaces, and for several days in human waste".
It is believed that that was a factor in the outbreak in a Hong Kong block of flats. A man infected with SARS used his brother's lavatory in the block. The sewerage system was defective. It is believed that the infection was transmitted via a tiny crack in a sewage pipe.
Reading that latest scare story it seems to me that we still do not have any real idea of how SA RS is transmitted. We are more able to deal with TB as we know how it is transmitted. We must be vigilant in that regard.
When I first raised the issue of SA RS in the Chamber during Starred Questions on 25th March the Minister told us that there were very good procedures for warning GPs about infections such as SARS. The noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, asked whether we had isolation facilities. When I was chairman of the Royal Free we were responsible for the isolation hospital which was equipped to deal with the Ebola virus, which is much more serious. It was scary to see the ward in which people were to be nursed. The entire bed was encased in plastic. No hand came into contact with the patient. Even any food to be given to them had to put in one little hatch and taken out of another. We

1033
have the facilities but, to the present time, we have not needed to use them. The cases that we have had have responded to good nursing and good general care.
Let us hope that this country never sees an infection like the Ebola; that would be just too terrible. I was very disturbed to read in, I think, the Sunday Times, an article written half-jokingly about that terribly serious subject. If what we are talking about tonight is serious, that is even worse. To write about it in that way was not good news.
We will all be interested in what the Minister has to say. The financial implications for the world are very serious, and there must be some overlap between financial concern and health concern. People worry about how they will survive, which could be damaging in itself. There is awareness in this country and across the world, and we now simply have to proceed and do whatever we can.
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, like others who have spoken, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for having introduced the debate. I must declare an interest as a member of the Science and Technology Committee's sub-committee on fighting infection.
I shall confine my remarks to SARS. In doing so, I pay particular tribute to my friends and colleagues who have been at the forefront of dealing with the epidemic. I suggest that it is because of the vigilance of healthcare workers, their quest for knowledge so that they can understand what is happening, the research they have undertaken and its rapid publication, the sharing of all data, and the rigour of applying isolation procedures that we do not have a much worse situation on our hands.
The Hong Kong Hospital Authority website is excellent. It records that, as of yesterday, there were 187 deaths in Hong Kong, principally among those who had a history of chronic disease. The authority also records that 20 per cent of cases are among healthcare workers and their families and the volunteers working with SARS patients. It seems that hepatitis B and chlamydia are co-factors in the disease, and may account for children having a less severe and aggressive clinical course with their disease.
I wish to read briefly from an e-mail from a friend of mine who is at the forefront of the battle. She is chairman of the Hong Kong Society of Palliative Medicine and describes its involvement, stating:
"Just to name a few, both Dr. KS Chan and I have to work as clinicians in the SARS ward in different hospitals. KS volunteered to work in United Christian Hospital … which receives a bulk of very critically ill patients, and co-lead the team with the clinicians. I … have to set up the SARS ward in Caritas Medical Centre, and in-charge of the overall operation … The dying process of a patient suffering from SARS is very different from what we regarded as 'normal' because of infection control policy. To me, it could be the most isolated and lonely path for the dying patients and their families … In Caritas Medical Centre, we have a psychosocial support team comprised of social workers, volunteers, pastoral care workers, clinical psychologist and other supporting staff. They provide services … delivering supply from
1034
relatives to patients twice a day, provide brief account of the latest clinical condition, and sending words from relatives to patients by fax. As for the dying scene, I am still thinking hard so as to make it less traumatic … Many of my staff are staying behind to combat a possible outbreak in one of my wards. Many are sleeping away from home. It is time for me to take a break for today as well … The virus is extremely tricky".
In Hong Kong, a SARS task force has been set up. and in Beijing the experience is similar. A doctor from Beijing has told me that approximately 8,000 people are in quarantine there. At great speed, a 2,000-bed isolation hospital is being built by the army on the outskirts of Beijing. It is anticipated that the epidemic there will peak in the next two weeks.
Research among healthcare workers in Hong Kong has shown that those who have become infected have had a significant failure in using one of the protections, particularly a surgical mask. Paper masks are inadequate, but it seems failure in the use of a surgical mask has accounted for infection. Some of the others who have become infected have failed in the use of gloves, hand-washing or gowns.
The cost of containment is massive and is resulting in a radical change in society. I quote an e-mail from another friend and colleague. She says:
"No school … no lessons, no ice skating, no piano, no swimming … no travel … No touch … as the hand is dangerous and the face most vulnerable. Ladies don't play with your hair or touch your glasses … Don't rub your eyes … don't shake hands … don't kiss or hug … No talking … Note three feet apart and be anti-social … No coughing unless you want to have the whole room to yourself … No business … no flights … No banquets, no cinemas, no shopping, not even church … No rings nor earrings … no watches nor badges to work … no photo-frames, no cups nor chopsticks on your work top … Don't leave work with [the] Corona [virus] … shower before you leave. Wash your watch and glasses too. Wash your hair … everyday. Then wash your phone and pager with hexolwipe … Have a clorox towel ready at your doorstep".
She goes on:
"I'm running out of clothes to wear. My whole wardrobe is lined up for the washing machine … the obsessive survive … The staff [are] burning out … When will it end?"
This week's edition of the Economist and, today, the Financial Times have highlighted the effect on the economy. But what are some of the lessons that we have to learn? The Corona virus has been identified. It is a very tough virus. It survives cold; it survives on surfaces for at least four days; it may continue to be excreted in the faeces, particularly of those with diarrhoea, for about 42 days or longer. There may be others who are excreting the virus for even longer.
Long hospital stays are required. In Hong Kong it is reckoned that 23 per cent of sufferers have required intensive care and ventilation. I ask the Minister: could we cope with such a situation here if we had a similar number of sufferers? Could we cope in terms of the supply of masks? In Hong Kong there has been a major voluntary fund-raising effort to buy enough equipment to provide the staff with adequate masks, gowns and gloves.
Are we accepting adequate precautions here? Why did the department's advice on the way in which healthcare workers should be advised appear only on 30th April when our postgraduate students from

1035
abroad had returned to our healthcare institutions on the 28th and went onto the wards? Do we have enough supplies of disposables? Could we cope—or do we have to take the model of the giving people who have worked in healthcare in China and Hong Kong to try to contain the epidemic so as to protect us?
8.37 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, on initiating a debate on these twin, but related, issues which are both very important. The expert contributions that we have heard have been illuminating.
Last week we had an interesting exchange of views on SARS following the Government's Statement. I do not believe that any of us underestimated the seriousness of SARS, but the general view of this House was that the Government, advised by the WHO, the Chief Medical Officer and the Health Protection Agency, backed by the expertise of the NHS, had struck the right balance.
Our main area of criticism on these Benches related to the visibility of Ministers and to the need to provide reassurance, and to the reasoning behind the decisions that were made in response to some fairly alarmist press coverage. This was largely remedied in our view by the Secretary of State's Statement last Monday.
It is now good to see that the UK has been taken off the WHO list of countries affected by SARS, as the number of the six original cases has not grown any higher. It is also good to see—an area of major concern—that India is judged by the WHO to be SARS free. However, we must not be complacent in the UK or internationally. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the HPA and other agencies will remain vigilant. In particular, we must all hope that the Chinese authorities, after a bad start, now with a new policy of public openness, manage to bring SARS under control. In Hong Kong, however, despite the graphic and interesting consequences mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the outbreak does appear to be coming under control.
We should also welcome the meeting today of European Health Ministers in Brussels, which is designed to ensure that the virus does not gain a larger foothold in Europe, and that there is a properly coordinated response to SARS. Public health is increasingly a matter that governments accept should be dealt with at the European level, in view of the speed of cross-border transmission, as we have seen with SARS.
During the Statement last week, I asked whether there were sufficient resources for our infection control teams. The Minister replied that all necessary resources must be provided. She did not say how the HPA or the department would audit that. I asked the same question in the debate on MRSA in light of the survey findings of my honourable friend Paul Burstow: that is, that the perception in the survey of the infection control teams was otherwise. However, on neither occasion did the noble Baroness give me an
1036
answer. I do not know whether the answer is a secret, since she has not vouchsafed one so far. Perhaps it will be third time lucky in this debate.
I believe that TB is a major contrast to SARS in being much longer-standing as a killer disease. As the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, mentioned, it is ultimately more serious. If I had a better memory, I could recite which of the Dickens characters suffered from consumption, which was so rife in our cities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parkes, said, the worry is that it appears to have returned in spite of our belief that it had been conquered. Disastrously, TB still has a massive impact worldwide. Eight million people a year develop its most active form and 2 million people a year die from it. A total of 900 million people are infected with TB. Someone dies from TB every 15 seconds. Even in the UK, we have had outbreaks over the past few years in Leicester, Glasgow, Kent, Dundee and in particular London, where the majority of cases are now diagnosed.
There are major questions about resources, which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised, and in particular about vaccinations. London is a hotspot, as the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, said: 50 per cent of the cases that come to the notice of health authorities are in London. There are major questions about the way in which that is being tackled in the area.
At the end of the day, there are 7,000 cases in the UK. The key problems are on the international front. I welcome the actions by the World Health Organisation and the Stop TB Partnership, which is sponsored by it. I welcome the appointment of the next director-general of the WHO, Dr Jong Wook Lee, who spent the past two years as director of the Stop TB Partnership. Clearly, TB is high on the WHO's list of priorities. The UN has set the target of halving and reversing the incidence of TB by 2015.
There is no doubt that the DOTS programme has had some major successes, particularly in China and India. However, in some sub-Saharan African countries and countries of the former Soviet Union, TB is still growing unchecked.
Many of the answers lie not domestically here with the Department of Health but with DfID, the Treasury and the Foreign Office. We cannot isolate the UK from TB as it rampages in developing countries. We need action on a global scale. The WHO described it as the disease of the disadvantaged. It identified a funding gap of some 300 million dollars. What is the Government's view of whether there are adequate resources to fight it in developing countries? What pressure is being applied to pharmaceutical companies to prevent them from pricing treatment in developing countries out of the market?
As regards the UK, apart from our international aid efforts, TB must be stopped in its tracks on every occasion at which it is detected. We must ensure that our surveillance is excellent domestically and on our borders. There are signs that TB is becoming resistant to antibiotics and that drug cycling is necessary to

1037
combat that. Work by the University of Tennessee shows that it is most effective on a cross-border basis, which means, for us, on a pan-European basis. Our belief is that health checks should depend on where one comes from, not who one is.
Finally, it is important that our public health legislation is fit for the purpose. The Minister made it clear that the Government have accepted the fact that our public health legislation needs an overhaul. I hope that when she replies, she will cast more light on that and say when it is planned and of what it will consist.
8.44 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the coupling of SARS and TB in the noble Baroness's Question brings home to us, as she explained so well, the urgency and difficulty surrounding issues of public health. Last week we had quite a full and helpful debate on SARS on the back of the Government's Statement to Parliament. I do not believe that it would be fruitful to go over for a second time all the territory that we covered on that occasion. I said then, and I repeat, that I welcome the measures that the Government have taken to prevent the further importation of the virus into this country and to ensure that if it does arrive, sound protocols are in place to minimise the risk of it spreading.
Yet even in the past few days events have moved on. No new cases of SARS, thankfully, have occurred in the UK. There are signs that in the Far East, with the glaring exception of mainland China, the disease is being brought under control. It would be useful if the Minister could give us an up to date bulletin of new cases recorded in countries around the world over the past week and the progress made in stemming the progress of the disease.
One obvious difference between SARS and TB is that, whereas we know a very great deal about the latter, the same is not true of the former. New facts and new theories are emerging about SARS with every day that passes. We cannot devise robust strategies for controlling the spread of SARS without clearer knowledge of the ways in which the virus can be transmitted; how long the virus survives outside the human body; and who is most at risk of getting it. The precautions that have been taken to date are sensible only in the context of current ignorance.
It is certainly in no one's interests to exaggerate this scare in any way. The CMO has stated that the risk of catching SARS is low, yet, as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, the known facts inevitably change. Only a short time ago we were told that the SARS virus could live for a short time on the button of a lift but that the main route of transmission is through coughing. Now we understand that it can survive for up to 24 hours outside the body and that it can be transmitted via sewage. On top of that it appears that the virus can mutate quickly.
As was said last week, two things above all will help to defeat SARS: flexibility of response and vigilance. Setting aside the difference of view between the Opposition and the Government about making SARS
1038
officially notifiable, I believe that the actions that the Government have taken and are taking reassuringly embody those two principles.
What we would do and how we would cope if there were a major outbreak of SARS in this country is another question. The British Lung Foundation has expressed its grave concerns about the shortage of respiratory physicians. A third of all advertised respiratory consultant posts remained unfilled last year: and the number of consultants in the UK per head of population is under half the European average. In simple terms there are not enough chest specialists to cope with the present workload, let alone a bigger one.
That sobering fact, on which I hope the Minister will comment, is relevant to TB, which is now officially a global health emergency. The noble Baroness drew our attention to the steadily rising incidence of TB notifications nation-wide and its worrying prevalence in particular hot spots such as London, where the rate of infection in certain boroughs is higher than in some developing countries. None of us can be complacent in such a situation. Still less can we be complacent in the face of new strains of TB that have proved to be antibiotic resistant. As with SARS, the strategy to counter the spread of TB must be twofold: prevention and containment.
On prevention we have to face the fact that the rise in TB prevalence in this country is attributable principally to Africa and the Indian sub-continent. Individuals who arrive in this country either through the normal channels or as asylum seekers do not as a rule have to undergo medical screening, as they would have to in many other countries. I believe that we have to question whether we can continue to justify a policy of blissful ignorance about the health of those who apply to live permanently in the UK. Not to conduct basic checks for serious diseases such as TB or HIV both disadvantages the applicant and overloads the NHS. Compulsory screening of asylum seekers originating from TB hotspots is necessary. That is also the view of, among others, the BMA and the British Thoracic Society.
But TB can of course also be prevented by vaccination. I should be glad if the Minister could say whether she is satisfied with both the availability and the potency of current BCG vaccine supplies. Can she also tell us what has happened to the action plan for TB in London which was promised some time ago and whether the TB Awareness Campaign launched last year by Yvette Cooper has had any success in reaching ethnic minority communities?
In London we must be frank and recognise that strategies to control TB have thus far failed. London has the highest rate of drug-resistant strains and half the entire country's tally of TB cases. The action plan for London is of vital importance and will require both resources and a high level of commitment from all arms of health and social services. That commitment needs to extend across the country to our prisons. DOTS should be central to that. I hope that tonight

1039
the Minister will reassure us that there are credible strategies in the NHS to combat and to defeat this most tenacious of human infections.
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for enabling us to have such an interesting and incredibly expert debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke of their personal, professional experience and indeed of their many contacts on the frontline in order to inform us about what is going on in the most seriously affected parts of the world regarding SARS.
There is an ingenious link between TB and SARS. Given more time and based on my previous existence as a historian, I would have been able to dwell for many minutes on the gift that TB presented to Victorian novelists and sociologists. We are extremely grateful that those days have passed. By the mid-17th century, one in five deaths in London—as recorded in the Bills of Mortality—was due to TB. The disease became known as the "White Plague". The 19th century estimate of the world-wide TB death rate was 7 million per year. London, as now, was one of the worst affected cities. There was an apocalyptic vision that by the end of the 19th century TB would decimate the country.
So there are extremely interesting parallels, not only in the nature of the disease and the impact that SARS and TB might have, but also in the challenge that those diseases present to our public health system. Over a century later, just as tuberculosis helped to shape and strengthen our public health system and our ability to deal with infectious diseases, so now SARS has benefited from our having in place a robust public health system and our understanding of ways to prevent the spread of disease.
The contrast between SARS and TB is that for TB we have diagnostic tools; we have the BCG vaccine and effective drugs. Those, together with improved nutrition and improvements in the public health environment, have played their part in reducing the number of cases in the UK. They reached 50,000 in the 1950s and dropped to 5,087 in 1987. As regards SARS, the brilliance of our researchers—and we pay tribute to them and to their outstanding contribution made in recent weeks in the discovery of the Coronavirus and so on—now means that we know a lot more about the SARS virus. But diagnostic tests are still in the early days of development and there is currently no specific treatment.
My information to date is that there have been 6,583 cases of SARS reported from 27 countries and 485 deaths. Here, the control of SARS depends more on the traditional public heath measure of identifying and containing cases. Furthermore, as noble Lords have said, we have been successful. We have identified only six probable cases. The one case where infection was acquired in the UK, and as a result of which the WHO temporarily listed Britain as an affected area, was now more than 20 days ago. I am pleased to report that the UK, along with the United States, has now been removed from that list.
1040
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we must not be complacent. Although the situation seems to be improving in the most affected areas, including Vietnam, Singapore and Canada, in mainland China the number of people affected is still rising. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out in graphic detail what it means to be on the frontline and fighting the disease. That brought home to us, as nothing else could, what those health workers are facing on a day-to-day basis. I am very grateful that she brought that evidence to us.
Our knowledge is changing. From recent evidence, we know that the virus may survive on door handles and in human waste longer than we had previously thought. We have to build that into our assumptions. It emphasises the need for infection control. Here, the Chief Medical Officer has issued very strong and stringent advice to chief executives about infection control systems. As I informed noble Lords last week, we are keeping our plans under review. We must do. We are learning lessons where they need to be learned; we are building on good ideas wherever they are to be found; and we are in daily telephone contact with the WHO. So we know exactly what is going on and, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby, our researchers are in close contact.
There are similarities also because both SARS and TB appear to be spread mainly through a chain of person-to-person contact—family and household members and, with SARS, especially among healthcare workers. But it is with TB that we face a new threat.
As the noble Lord. Lord Soulsby, said, we thought that we had achieved control over TB by the 1980s, but it has re-emerged as a public health problem, largely as a result of increased migration from areas of the world where TB is most prevalent. It is important to put that in context.
During the past 10 years, cases of TB have risen in England and Wales to about 7,000 cases a year, bringing the long, steady decline to an end. I was grateful for the example provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, of how it can affect all of us, including a Member of the other place. We are delighted that he recovered so well. It is a global emergency, as designated by the WHO, which estimates that one third of the world's population is infected with the bacteria that cause it. Two million people die each year; and 8 million people develop the disease. It is important to stress that it is a curable infectious disease.
In the UK, our highest levels of infection are among the Indian sub-continent and black African communities—and, of course, in London. TB has been identified by the CMO as one of the four infectious diseases requiring intensified control measures. It has given rise to the TB action plan, which I should like to describe, which was preceded by three initiatives to which I draw the House's attention.
First, there was the TB awareness campaign, launched by the Department of Health, which hit its target audiences in the Asian, African and eastern

1041
European communities. We issued that information in all the appropriate minority languages and believe that it resulted in successful take-up.
Secondly, we have responded to concerns about people arriving. Immigration officers at inward ports are instructed to refer passengers who arrive from relevant areas who plan to stay for six months. In 2001–02, nearly 150,000 passengers were referred at Heathrow. About 57,000 chest X-rays were performed; 138 people were referred for further investigation; and 94 were found to have TB and followed up with therapy. So we know that that form of surveillance seems to be working. Thirdly, we have completed a pilot in asylum induction centres in Kent, which is also picking up susceptible people. There has been a positive take-up by asylum seekers.
We must regain the upper hand over TB and acknowledge that control has not been consistent across the country. The three main targets are to ensure that all people with TB receive high quality treatment and care; to reduce the risk of people acquiring new infections; and to maintain low levels of drug-resistance.
The Chief Medical Officer will shortly announce the plan, but we want to develop strong co-ordination to deliver a national TB programme with a clear focus. That includes staffing plans—who we need, where we need them and how to get them—because so many people are involved in TB, whether communicable disease staff, GPs or nurses. Co-ordination is essential.
We have worked hard on action in cities that have the highest burden of TB, and among population groups at risk, which obviously include the homeless and people in prison, for example. We shall ensure that patients are seen promptly and receive the aftercare that they need to support them during the six months for which they need to keep taking antibiotics. They do not enjoy it; but it is extremely important to support them in doing so, which is precisely where our strategy for fighting drug resistance is involved. We need patients to be seen more promptly and the laboratory services to work more quickly.
Perhaps I may quickly answer a few questions. We are satisfied with the BCG immunisation policy. We have sufficient BCG vaccine. We had a shortage last year, but that is now entirely solved and overcome. We provide BCG immunisation mainly to babies at high risk of exposure to TB and previously unimmunised school children aged 10 to 14.
In response to the noble Baroness's question about whether we could cope, we have in place contingency plans for outbreaks of infectious disease. We have no problem with the supply of masks at present.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who has been carrying out stalwart work with the Chinese community, we understand the need for reassurance. We will make an effort to provide further advice to the Chinese community. But, of course, the same advice that helps others in the community applies to the Chinese community. On resources, I say to the noble Lord that we have had an historic uplift in the NHS
1042
budget, which, I am sure, will make a big difference. We look forward to being able to do the things that we want to do and that we say we will do.
In conclusion, last week, in a Statement to the House, I mentioned five actions that we were taking in response to the SARS outbreak. The letter to the chief executives that I quoted was certainly circulated. We have now sent observers to look at screening mechanisms in Hong Kong and Singapore, and we are negotiating with Beijing. We have written to airlines to remind them of their responsibilities under the 1999 aircraft regulations. We are making substantial progress in information going on to airlines themselves. In the meantime, we had a European meeting today on co-ordination and development. We look forward to seeing what will come out of that.
The UK has a very strong record of surveillance and management of cases. We observe the DOTS strategy set out by the WHO. I hope that, in response, noble Lords will appreciate that we are doing our very best in relation to both TB and SARS.

Communications Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATION OF GENERAL DUTIES TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(1) Except as provided for in subsection (2), in carrying out his functions under the relevant enactments, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the general duties imposed by virtue of section 3.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) do not apply when the Secretary of State is carrying out his functions under—

(a) the provisions of this Act set out in

(i) section 5,

(ii) section 20,

(iii) section 26,

(iv) section 27,

(v) section 129,

(vi) section 153,

(vii) section 160,

(viii) section 329,

(ix) Chapter 5 of Part 3,

(x) Part 4, and

(xi) Schedule 2;

(b) sections 5 to 7 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (c. 54);

(c) section 7A of the Marine, & c, Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 (c. 41);

1043

(d) Part 5 and section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12):

(e) section 63 of the 1990 Act; and

(f) section 132 of the 1996 Act.

(3) In this section, "the relevant enactments" means—

(a) this Act:

(b) the enactments relating to the management of the radio spectrum (so far as not comprised in this Act and Part 6 of the Telecommunications Act 1984);

(c) the Telecommunications Act 1984;

(d) the 1990 Act;

(e) the 1996 Act; and

(f) the Office of Communications Act 2002 (c. 11)."

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 311 and 312. I draw attention to page 31 of the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which deals with the duties of the Secretaries of State. The general policy of the Government has been made perfectly clear, and I respect it. It is that there should be a clear dividing line between the Government and regulators, and that the Government should set the overall legal framework and then allow the regulators independence to operate at arm's length from the Government within that framework.
However, the Government propose that they should have a range of additional powers over Ofcom. First, the Secretaries of State are able to issue directions to Ofcom in respect of networks or spectrum functions in the interests of national security or relations with a foreign country, for the purpose of securing compliance with international obligations or in the interests of the safety of the public or public health. The Government also propose to seek an additional power, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to further extend that range of purposes. Secondly, the Secretaries of State are able to issue directions to Ofcom in respect of broadcasting functions for the sole purpose of securing compliance with an international obligation of the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the Secretaries of State have wide-ranging powers to alter Ofcom's legal framework on a continuing basis by means of powers to issue more specific directions and to make secondary legislation.
The Joint Committee considered that, as a consequence of those powers, the Secretaries of State will be able to exercise functions that are regulatory by nature. That is indicated in Part 2 of the Bill by the fact that certain functions of the Secretaries of State are subject to appeal, in the same way as are those of Ofcom. It was those facts that led to representations from a number of organisations—the Royal National Institute of the Blind, in particular—to the effect that the general regulatory duties under the Bill should apply to the Secretaries of State, as well as to Ofcom.
That is not a new idea. It is not a novel concept. The Secretary of State is subject to the general duties under Section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. It is a generally accepted principle, as we pointed out in the Joint Committee, that, in the words of the current Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting,
1044
"General duties … set the framework in which regulators—both the regulatory authorities and the Secretary or State—exercise their functions".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A. 29/2/2000; col. 232.]
Paragraph 42 of the Government's response to our suggestion that the general duties should, therefore, apply to the Secretaries of State said:
"We believe the functions of the Secretary of State and Ofcom, as set out in the Bill, to be quite distinct. The Secretary of State would be carrying out her functions in the context of wider policy considerations. In doing so, it would be open to the Secretary of State to import broader considerations of public policy than could Ofcom in carrying out their functions in accordance with their general duties. We do not therefore accept that it would be appropriate in general for the general duties to also be applied to the functions undertaken by the Secretary of State".
I accept that there are certain functions of the Secretary of State that fall outside the general duties applying to Ofcom. It is for that reason that my amendment makes an attempt—I expect that I will be told that it is an imperfect attempt—to list the general duties that apply, except where they are exercising powers for public interest purposes. We understand that there are matters that should be exempted from any general duty application, and we have attempted to deal with that. The subsequent amendments deal with an outstanding element of the Joint Committee's recommendation 43, which was accepted in principle and relates to the reporting provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1984.
Having myself been a regulator, I am a little sensitive on the subject of general duties and the relationship between Secretaries of State and the regulatory organisations. I know that there are matters in which Secretaries of State get involved in one way or another. However, it is a more important matter that leads me to move the amendment. There is a matter of principle. If Parliament gives regulatory powers to Ministers, the nature of those powers should be made clear and should be limited. The Bill, after all, spells out the extent of and the limitations on the powers given to Ofcom. It must be right that it should spell out with equal clarity the extent of and the limitations on the powers given to the Secretary of State.
If Ministers believe that different duties should apply and that they should be specified differently, they should say so. The general principle that Ministers should not be empowered to do things without a set of principles that clearly define and limit their powers is an important one. That is the subject that I wanted to raise by moving the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Puttnam: I support everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. I am supported in that by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, who is not in his place. In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, perhaps I may make an important general point which I hope I shall not have to raise again in Committee.
Along with noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I am a member of the joint scrutiny committee. It has been put to us that we are in danger of

1045
discrediting the process of joint scrutiny by tabling this very large number of amendments—70 in all. I should like to make it very clear that the reason 70 amendments have been put forward is because, as a joint scrutiny committee, we were wholly dissatisfied with the responses which we received from the Government to our report. I am a great believer in the process of scrutiny. If this process is to go forward, if it is to grow and to become a more important component of the life of this House, it will be increasingly incumbent on government to take joint scrutiny committee reports seriously, and not just numerically. I am delighted that the Government have responded positively to 122 of our 144 recommendations. It is not a matter of the quantitative; it is to do with the qualitative response—most particularly to those issues with which the Government do not agree.
Seventy amendments have been tabled in order to probe and encourage the Government to say in this Committee what they could just as easily—I think in a much more time-saving way—have said in their initial response. This is a very important issue. I doubt very much that my colleagues on the Front Bench will agree with it, but next time joint scrutiny is involved, I suggest that the Government take their response far more seriously and respond in a far more detailed manner.
Turning to the specifics of this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has covered most of the ground. Paragraphs 104, 105 and 106 of the joint scrutiny committee report make it clear that this is not a trivial issue. We suggest at the end of paragraph 106 that,
"Government should find it possible to draft the Bill so as to disapply the general duties from the Secretary of State where it is appropriate to do so. A general disapplication would appear to be at odds with the principles of earlier legislation".
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made that point very well. I am becoming very confused as to when a principle is a principle or when a general duty is a general duty because, as far as I can determine, the Telecommunications Act, the Utilities Act and this Bill seem to have taken very different lines. Therefore, three different regulators are being given three different forms of advice for three different forms of occasion. It is not tidy. I am the last person in the world to stand in your Lordships' House and suggest logic; I am anything but a logician. But there is a desperate lack of logic in the responses of the Government to what are important issues. I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Lord Fowler: I, too, support this important amendment. We are very keen on setting up regulatory bodies, giving them powers and laying down principles by which they should act. However, when it comes to it, I suspect that it is more important that successive governments and successive Ministers should act according to the kind of principles that are set out in Clause 3; that is, principles such as the maintenance of a plurality of providers of different television and radio services. These are issues which are set out there
1046
and which I think should guide successive governments and successive government Ministers. As the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said, this clause spells out the position as far as Ministers are concerned.
I am bound to say that I start from a suspicion of governments and government Ministers becoming involved with the media at all. I emphasise and underline that irrespective of political party. It is not remotely a party political point. The overwhelming interest of any government is that they should be seen in the best possible light on all issues, which can lead to all kinds of actions. When I served in another place as shadow Home Secretary a few years ago. I remember the Home Secretary placing an injunction on the national press because of a report that was embarrassing to him.
As for the regulatory issues of this Bill. I underline a point made earlier. I believe that we all have suspicions about decisions on ownership made by governments. I certainly hope that the Secretary of State does not believe that there is any kind of consensus on the ownership provisions of the Bill, with which we shall deal later. We all deeply suspect that some previous decisions have been made on the grounds that it might be politically advantageous to do so—indeed, this also applies to decisions that will be made—because it is useful to have an owner on your side. On occasions, we suspect that Ministers can make decisions on reference to competition authorities which are very much based on their own beliefs, and which might reflect their own prejudices.
Not all of those issues can be tackled by one new clause inserted in the Bill. However, the proposed clause lays down guidelines under which Ministers should act. I assume that the argument against such a provision is that government Ministers are different from regulatory bodies in that they are answerable to Parliament; and they certainly are. But the process and progress of this Bill show how inadequate such a check can be today. Over 100 of the clauses in this Bill were not debated in another place. That is utterly disgraceful.
The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who accomplished such a fine job on the scrutiny of the Bill, should not be apologetic about the 70 amendments that he has put forward at this stage. When the Bill was debated in another place, we can all agree that no adequate check was placed on Ministers responsible for this policy. It is very difficult to argue against that position.
Although the proposed new clause is not a guarantee that Ministers will act objectively, sensibly. and with fairness, it would at least set down the principles that they should follow. The latter are important principles. I believe that most noble Lords in this place, and most of the people outside, would agree with them. I see every advantage in such a provision being included in the Bill in the way proposed by my noble friend.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I have some brief comments to make about my noble friend's amendment. Whatever party is in opposition, it seems to me that it is always moving amendments to Bills stating that the Government and the Secretary of State should have less power. It is then the duty of Ministers of the party in power to defend that position, because they are constantly being advised by their Secretaries of State in another place who, having finally reached their exalted positions, want to keep the maximum amount of power possible.
I make the following comments with due deference to my two noble friends who spoke before me, both of whom have held exalted positions in another place. Nevertheless, I am sure that they will understand. The issue has been debated in this Chamber on many occasions during the course of legislative scrutiny. The one lesson that we learned from the two previous broadcasting Bills is that such legislation quickly becomes out of date. Therefore, it is important for the Secretary of State to have such power in certain circumstances, but also to have a wider view of such matters than we can possibly perceive this evening. At the same time, the Secretary of State must be answerable to Parliament and, indeed, he or she should not interfere with the running and the operation of Ofcom. If we are creating such an entity then it is important to leave it to carry out its duties without government interference, whatever shade of government that may be.
The Minister will have to demonstrate why the amendment spoken to by my noble friend should not apply because, in principle, we all believe that governments should be made more accountable, not less so. To that end, I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, should make no excuses for the number of amendments he has tabled, in particular given that, despite the best of intentions, the system operated in another place does not allow it properly to scrutinise Bills. This is a revising Chamber and we would be derelict in our duty if we did not carry out that role.
Lord McNally: On the point of the number of amendments which have flowed from the scrutiny committee, I hope that we have been able to strengthen the position of future pre-legislative committees in getting from the Government the proper response that the work deserves.
I wish to make a relatively brief point that flows from the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. There is much in the Bill that attempts to deal with the problem often encountered by broadcasting and communications Bills; namely, that very quickly they become out of date. As the joint committee noted, the Bill leaves a wide range of discretionary powers to Ministers, along with certain regulatory functions. Therefore I seek simply to put hack to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the point he made about an hour ago. He pointed out very pertinently that we have spent one-and-a-half days debating in Committee the general powers of Ofcom. Having spent so long considering those general
1048
powers, it is a little rum to be told, "Oh, by the way, it does not apply to Ministers". Future historians would boggle at Parliament if such gaps were left so that Ministers could later ride a coach and horses through them. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was right to point out that many of those gaps could be used by Ministers to make highly sensitive political decisions.
The case for Ministers to be subject to the same responsibilities and guidelines that have been put with such care on the regulator is very strong indeed.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise simply to support the amendments. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was in his place earlier when I referred to what the Secretary of State said in public last week. He stated that we had already reached a consensus on the Bill. That is why I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord has confirmed that he makes no apology—and nor should he—for bringing forward these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will forgive me if I start by responding to my noble friend Lord Puttnam. I shall do so because he sought to make certain general points about the work of his committee and the nature of the Government's response. His first point was that the Government should not be resentful of the fact that something like 70 amendments have emanated from what I refer to as the "gang of four"—I am sure my noble friend will forgive me for using that expression, because it is how I have thought of the committee all along.
We are not in the least resentful. We think that it is entirely proper for the pre-legislative scrutiny committee to recognise, first, that some 120 of the roughly 140 recommendations were accepted by the Government. My noble friend has acknowledged that and we are grateful to him for doing so. Conversely, however, it is also entirely proper for the committee to seek to protect and advocate the 20 or so recommendations which were not accepted by the Government. We harbour no trace of resentment about that and we do not in the least resent debating those points in public.
However, my noble friend went on to say that in some cases the Government's response was, shall we say, summary and that we would have saved time if we had argued the case in more detail. On that I do think he is wrong. When we consider the Government's response, it is a response not only to the recommendations, but also to the evidence which was presented to the committee. If he looks at page 405 of the evidence presented to the joint scrutiny committee by the Government he will see that the issues raised by the amendment are covered in great detail. Yes, the response to recommendation 42, to which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred, is fairly brief. But if we look at the detail in the evidence, we said that a number of powers were conferred on the Secretary of State and we explained the rationale for them.
We have tried to define the powers and duties of Ofcom—particularly the general duties, which we have been debating for a day and a half—because it is

1049
important that we should get them right and that Ofcom should have powers and duties which are definable and workable. But that does not apply to the Secretary of State, who has to represent the public interest for a period of time.
We suggested six broad categories where the Secretary of State should continue to have powers which were not restricted by the Bill. Incidentally, the amendment would restrict the Secretary of the State not only to the Bill but to Clause 3 of the Bill, which is not concerned with the whole range of responsibilities of either Ofcom or the Secretary of State.
The six broad categories are: future-proofing powers, which have been referred to, that permit changes to the Bill once it has been enacted to ensure that it remains effective in the light of rapidly changing market dynamics—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally; powers to ensure public policy objectives, such as the provision of services essential to full social and economic inclusion—yes, of course it is a proper objective of Ofcom, but Ofcom cannot achieve it by itself and it needs to involve public policy; powers to ensure compliance with international obligations, a point recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which he did not contest; powers to ensure the effective operation of concurrency and competition law and which concern the interaction between the Bill and the Competition Act 1998—which again has not been questioned as being a legitimate role of the Secretary of State; transitional powers—which again have not been contested; and the consequential powers needed to ensure that other areas of the law affected by the current regulatory regime are amended to reflect the proposed regime. Those are all matters which we need to get right to ensure that Ofcom is properly established.
None of those powers seem controversial. They are not difficult to understand. It is clear that the Secretary of State will have to do this before, during and after the existence of Ofcom. No, I am sorry; Ofcom must last for ever, must it not? Nevertheless, these are proper things which, in the exercise of public policy, any Secretary of State must do. The fact that Parliament has created an Office of Communications and given it defined and workable powers ought not to detract from the responsibilities of any Secretary of State.
It is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that somehow the responsibilities of the Secretary of State are not constrained. They are constrained all the time. They are constrained by obligations arising under European Community law, under domestic law and under international treaties to which the UK is a party. All this is set out in the evidence that we gave to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. So it is not new to any noble Lord to whom I am speaking today.
Before using the power, the Secretary of State would need to consider whether such action was proportionate and compliant with the EC communications directives. But the exercise of the powers is not subject to the general duties set out in Clause 3(1) and 3(2) of the Communications Bill. The reason for that is that the
1050
Secretary of State can be expected to exercise wider public policy discretion than that of Ofcom when using its powers under the Communications Bill. Clause 3(1) imposes obligations on Ofcom, among other things, to further consumer interest and promote competition—although the wording has of course changed; we do not say "promote competition" any more—and to encourage efficient use of the radio spectrum. The Secretary of State will not be limited to the consideration of these factors when exercising her powers—and nor should she be.
The Communications Bill does not impose a duty on the Secretary of State to take these factors into account, since Ofcom and the Secretary of State do not perform or share regulatory functions. This is the fundamental point which has to be recognised; it was made clear in the Government's evidence. The Secretary of State is constrained by the specific criteria listed in the Communications Bill, by the negative resolution procedure, by the affirmative resolution procedure and, of course, by the general requirements of administrative law.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, recognises the division of power regarding the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament. However, both former Secretaries of State—the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Crickhowell—are very cynical about the exercise of the functions they once exercised so joyfully.
Lord Fowler: I am not so cynical about that; I am, however, rather cynical about a Bill which appears in this House when over 100 clauses have not been considered. Does the Minister regard that as satisfactory? Is that what he is aiming to achieve?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have made no reference to that at all; I am not responsible for procedures in the House of Commons. That is the responsibility of the House of Commons. It would be utterly improper for me to make that kind of comment. The Bill comes to us having received such consideration as the House of Commons sees fit.
Lord Puttnam: Before the noble Lord moves on, I should like to make two points. First, I did not claim or suggest that the Government Front Bench were resentful of the number of amendments we brought forward. I did, however, make the point, which was put to me by the Government, that we—the gang of four—were in danger of discrediting the process of joint scrutiny because of the volume of amendments brought forward. I want to make it very clear—and I think I probably have an agreement from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—that that is not the case. It is important for the Committee to understand that the Minister agrees with me that it is very proper for a joint scrutiny committee to bring forward these amendments if it does not feel that the Government's response has answered it adequately.
Of course the evidence the Minister referred to was taken into account by the joint scrutiny committee, but that was before we published our report. Is the

1051
Minister really saying that we should not have published our report because of the evidence received or that it would not have been a good idea—I think he used the word "perfunctory"—to answer a lot of detailed suggestions in page 31, paragraphs 104, 105 and 106, with something rather less than this pathetic response in paragraph 42 of page 13 of the Government's response? That is my point. If we are making powerful points, they should be answered powerfully, irrespective of whether the Minister feels that the evidence might have clarified the situation in the first place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know what has been indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. For myself and my colleagues on the Front Bench, I repeat that as far as I am concerned, it is entirely proper and, indeed, desirable for the joint committee, having made recommendations which were not accepted by the Government, to pursue the matter in Parliament by putting forward as many amendments as it thinks fit. I have never had the faintest doubt about that. If anybody else has indicated anything else, at the risk of charges of splits. I do not agree with them.
Secondly, I did not use the word "perfunctory" and I did not use the word "pathetic". After all, the report has 140 or so recommendations, and each one is fairly short. I said that our response was summary—in other words, it did not cover all the detailed arguments we put to the committee in our evidence in any form. There really is no disagreement between us on this. We are delighted to be able to debate these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and his colleagues. We think it right that we should, and I hope that nobody will think that, given the time I have taken in responding to this amendment, we on the Front Bench have treated it with anything less than the respect it deserves. We do not agree with it; we think that there are separate functions for the Secretary of State, who has wider, continuing, changing responsibilities to Parliament and must ensure that we conform with our international obligations.
We understand the motivation behind the amendment and the skill with which it was framed, because it very properly excludes matters of national security and other matters in which the Secretary of State ought never to be constrained. However, we do not believe that it is a proper way in which to set up an office of communications or to define its responsibilities in a workable way, or that the Secretary of State, who has wider responsibilities, should be constrained by a particular part of the general duties of Ofcom.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this short debate, especially to my noble friends Lord Fowler and Lord Astor and to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who supported the amendment from the Front Bench. However, I must make special reference to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who so ably chaired the joint committee.
I am sure that the noble Lord will be, as I am, extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for the statement that he has just made from the Front
1052
Bench about these amendments and our right to table them. I regard it as profoundly shocking that anyone should have suggested otherwise, so it is good that we now have an authoritative statement in the House from the Government. I put a little emphasis on the words "in the House", because this is one of the issues that was never debated in another place. The only reference to the duties of the Secretary of State was in the moving of a clause at the tail-end of the proceedings in another place, when it was proposed that a report should be published on the exercise of those duties. That itself says something about the issue.
I am bound to say that I found slightly bizarre the answer to the criticisms that the response to the Secretary of State was perfunctory and inadequate. That answer drew attention to the evidence on page 405 that was given to the joint committee, but we had that evidence in front of us and we took account of every point in it when we drafted our report and made the comments and criticisms contained in it. It is precisely because we received that evidence that we drafted our report. To say that it is a response to our report seems a most extraordinary supposition.
I do not question that the Secretary of State must have broad categories of powers. Indeed, I referred to most if not all of them. However, I come back to the fact that general duties have been applied to the Secretary of State in similar circumstances in other legislation, such as the Telecommunications Act 1984. Yes, Parliament will have the opportunity to deal with matters brought forward by regulation. Yes, there will be amendments later in these proceedings to some of the powers that may be taken by the Secretary of State, and we will debate them in more detail. However, the fact of the matter is that by referring to the evidence on page 405, the Minister has failed to answer the criticisms that we made. He could not provide an answer by referring to it because that was the basis of the criticisms that we made.
I acknowledge that at this hour of the night, with an important Statement to follow, this is not the time to pursue the issue. However, in the light of the inadequacy of that response, we shall have to consider carefully what to do at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY MEDIA
(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to take all such steps as they consider appropriate for promoting the growth and development of community media.
(2) In this section—
"community media" means communications services provided primarily for the benefit of members of the public in a defined geographical locality or of a particular community and not operated by the BBC or for commercial purposes.
(3) In subsection (2)—
"communication services" includes—

1053

(a) radio and television broadcasting;

(b) electronic communications networks and services; and

(c) content services carried by services falling within paragraph (a) or (b)."

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments seeks to establish in the Bill the place of community media operations in the new landscape of broadcasting and telecommunications for the 21st century as set out in this massive Bill. Community broadcasting already has a long and honourable history. I can remember a local charity in my old constituency running an excellent local hospital radio service, for example. In the past, however, community broadcasting has always been limited by spectrum scarcity and has always met with—I am bound to say, and I say it with a guilty sense of self responsibility—a certain disdain from the engineering mandarins of the BBC and the IBA.
We are now in a new situation. Road maps are very much in the news these days. This group of amendments seeks to set out a road map for the expansion of community media across the new broadcasting landscape. That landscape should include community-based radio, television and Internet projects, and they should be on the face of the Bill. The Government's proposals recognise the potential benefits of community media, but they are disappointingly tentative in delivery. The Bill provides enabling powers but no firm commitment to a tier of not-for-profit access radio services, an access radio fund or the development of local digital television services.
The organisation Community Media is the coordinating organisation in this sphere. It is eager to exploit new opportunities for interaction between audiences and producers and to involve people directly in media production for community benefit and public service. Despite the difficulties, community broadcast groups are already quite widespread in the United Kingdom, located in both urban and rural areas. Radio Ryedale, for example, is a rural Internet-based webcast radio station and website. Tenantspin is a broadcast television service run by tenants in a Liverpool tower block. Desi Radio has a pilot 12-month licence for a radio service for West London's Punjabi community. Solent TV is a new not-for-profit community television service for the Isle of Wight.
In the future, community broadcasting will expand to go on broadband and be receivable through the next generation of mobile telephony. However, it has been held back by a lack of regulatory support, difficulty in securing access to frequencies and channels and the absence of a structural financial base. Amendment No. 30 therefore proposes to make the promotion of community broadcasting one of the duties of Ofcom, linked to a clear definition of this important and growing sector.
The next amendment in the group is Amendment No. 175. This new clause has the purpose of placing community television on the face of the Bill rather than leaving it to secondary legislation. The new clause has
1054
been drafted to provide a clear definition of community television and licensing criteria which would ensure the distinctive nature of community television as different from other local television services. As the cost of television facilities reduces and the techniques become easier to learn, there will be considerable interest in the development of new community television services.
Amendment No. 176 deals with the funding of access radio—or community radio, as it is more widely known. The amendment proposes that access to radio should be able to draw on a variety of funding sources. The principle of a mixed funding base is important both to the viability of this sector and to its independence. That funding base should be allowed to include public funds and private funds raised from commercial sources such as advertising and sponsorship.
I fully recognise that some in commercial radio, mainly existing smaller-scale local radio services, have expressed understandable fears that community radio carrying advertising sponsorship might have an adverse economic impact on their business. We consider that unlikely and not supported by researched economic evidence. The best evidence that that is the correct assessment is to be found in the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 177. That seeks to replace the existing Clause 258. It has been drafted by the Community Media Association in consultation and agreement with the Commercial Radio Companies Association. It has the purpose of placing community radio on the face of the Bill rather than leaving it to secondary legislation.
The new clause provides a clear definition of community radio and licensing criteria which would assure the distinctive nature of community radio as different from other local radio services. It does so by amending the Broadcasting Act 1990 to give community radio a status in legislation alongside other independent radio services.
Community radio is already a substantial and growing sector in the United Kingdom but it has been held back by an inappropriate regulatory framework. The Government have acknowledged the potential benefits of community radio. Over the past 12 months, with the Government's agreement, the Radio Authority has introduced, and recently extended, 15 experimental services—the access radio pilot scheme. The independent evaluation of that scheme completed in February of this year by Professor Anthony Everitt lends strong support to the case for a distinct licensing framework for community radio. In the foreword to his report Professor Everitt, a former secretary general of the Arts Council, states that this new tier of radio,
"promises to be the most important cultural development to take place in this country for many years".
The question now is not whether to proceed but how and under what rules. While the detail of licensing can well be left to Ofcom, there is no remaining reason why there should not be provision for community radio on the face of the Bill. That would give clarity both to aspirant community radio broadcasters and to the

1055
existing radio industry and would ensure that the new community radio sector builds on a clear parliamentary mandate for development.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 302 which sets out a new clause to put the community media fund into the Communications Bill as a primary legislative provision. That would give the fund a similar status to the Gaelic Media Service. An important principle of any public funding mechanism for community media, and indeed other forms of public service media, is that the arrangements should be at arm's length from both government and the regulator. That is an important guarantor of editorial independence and it is necessary to avoid the funding mechanism becoming an additional tool of regulatory intervention. I tell the Committee as a Scot that the arrangements in this amendment are similar to those provided for the Gaelic Media Service and consist of the appointment by Ofcom of the members of the community media foundation who then take decisions within the framework set down in the legislation.
The community media fund would be only one source of the financing of these new projects but it is thought that it might contribute between 20 and 40 per cent of costs depending on the need and the size of the operation. A potentially controversial issue is the source of income to the community media fund. In our view that should be taken directly from the receipts of Ofcom as part of the funding of the broadcasting side of the whole Ofcom, operation. Alternatively, however, the receipts could be paid from the Consolidated Fund or, as some have suggested, from part of the BBC licence fee. For my part I would not rule out a part of the BBC licence fee but I think that in practical terms that would need to be examined in the context of the review of the BBC services and the charter renewal process. If our professed mechanism of funding from Ofcom receipts is not adopted, we on these Benches would recommend that the community media fund be set up initially through a contribution from the Consolidated Fund. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose: I would like to offer my support to Amendment No. 30. Community organisations work in sound, pictures, text and moving image, and encourage interactivity and community participation. A future-proof Communications Bill committed to community-based media should provide Ofcom with a clear duty to take a strategic cross-media approach to the growth and development of all forms of community media. In doing so, it should take account of the range of present and future platforms, and the trend towards convergence and new interactive media.
We are all aware that the attraction provided by community media is that they give a channel for the promotion of culture, heritage and identity. They give access to local information, encourage citizens' participation, provide a platform for diverse cultures, and create a sense of local identity and community.
Scotland has been at the forefront of community media development in the UK. There are a number of successful community radio stations in the highlands and islands that have been pioneers in developing the
1056
model for community radio. At one time, I came across what might even have been a spoof radio channel called Radio Clachnacuddin, which took a light-hearted look at the situation around Inverness.
Amendment No. 177 deals with Clause 258. The Bill makes provision for a new type of radio licence that will enable the establishment of community radio stations all over the UK under the "access radio" provision. One of the "access radio" pilot stations, Radio Awaz, is also based in Scotland, in Glasgow. It has demonstrated the social benefits of community radio in the Asian community. Awaz FM not only fills a gap in entertainment and cultural provision, but gives the city council and police, who support it, and other public agencies an avenue of access to a somewhat isolated Asian community with which they find it difficult to communicate effectively by other means.
As it stands, the Bill seems liable to enable the concentration of media ownership into fewer hands. There will be a growing need for community media in promoting and protecting local culture, and in enabling minority voices to be heard.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I too strongly support this group of amendments. Because community media, both television and radio, are so little known and make up such a tiny proportion of the total broadcasting output, there may be a temptation to overlook their potential. On other Bills, we spend a lot of time in the House trying to address the intractable problem of social exclusion. It is fair to say that community radio outlets reach the parts that commercial broadcasting and the BBC do not reach. That is mainly because they are set up and driven by the communities that they serve.
I came across a striking example of community radio in the Feltham young offender institution recently. It is a remarkable and hugely encouraging experiment in community broadcasting, where the inmates do all the work necessary to broadcast not only within the prison, but for four weeks a year to the neighbouring community. As many Members of the Committee will know, the extent to which community media can broadcast is currently limited to a four-week broadcasting stretch at a time, save for the 15 pilot schemes that the Radio Authority has allowed recently.
As my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth said, the Bill only refers, and then indirectly, to the community media in terms of the enabling arrangements under Clauses 241, 258 and 352. The Government may be inclined to say that they deal indirectly with community media in the keynote clause of the Bill, Clause 3. Members of the Committee may recollect that Clause 3(1)(b) refers to furthering,
"the interests of the community as a whole".
However, that does not cover at all the territory covered by the amendments, which directly address media outlets that are non-commercial. That is crucial, and should put to rest any anxiety from the commercial broadcasters as to the danger that

1057
community media pose to them. So, first, the amendments address the non-commercial media. Then, as the definition in Amendment No. 30 makes clear, we are looking at particular communities, whether geographical or interest groups, rather than, and in contradistinction to, the community as a whole.
The Community Media Association deserves a great deal of credit for what it does. It has 250 organisations as members, 170 of which run some sort of community-based media—the vast majority being radio. That small army of community media could and should grow in the coming years exponentially. It needs to grow exponentially, because, as has been said, it has a direct and unique impact on the particular community that it serves, being created by them and serving their needs directly, enabling them and giving them esteem.
So for all of those reasons I hope that community media will cease to be the Cinderella of the broadcasting family. I should like to think that bringing them to the heart of the Bill in the explicit way provided for in the amendments could usher in a new era for these very important small media outlets.
Baroness Buscombe: We are supportive in principle of community media, and in particular of community radio. We are sympathetic to these amendments put forward by the Community Media Association.
I want, however, to raise a point in regard to Amendment No. 302. To be brutal, where will the money come from for the community media fund? Suggestions have been made by noble Lords that it should come, for example, in terms of receipts from Ofcom; but, in practice, is the funding to come from general taxation, from the national lottery or from some other source? Or is it to come from the general fees that Ofcom charges its licensees?
We have had input from commercial broadcasters, who have raised some concern that, were they to pay into the community media fund as suggested by the amendment, they might be prevented from diverting resources for the improvement of their own services. There is a potential conflict here. I shall be interested to hear how the Government will respond to the amendments.
Lord McNally: I have added my name to the amendments. The case for them was skilfully put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I want to put to the Minister the fact that I was originally attracted to this cause as the result of meeting a young black activist from one of the more troubled London estates. She told me enthusiastically about the impact that local access radio had had on that estate in terms of getting through to young people and getting across positive messages of community.
Listening to the advocates of these proposals, it seemed that I had heard some of the arguments previously. I say that in the ominous presence of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. In regard to community and access radio we seem to be hearing many of the hopes that we originally heard in regard to local
1058
radio. It is rather sad that in some ways local radio has been hoovered up by the conglomerates. Part of the debate that we had earlier about music, poetry and the spoken word from local communities has somehow been lost because of the commercial pressures and commercial amalgamations. The attraction of community broadcasting is that it gives us a second chance to use the technologies: to give local communities access to the technologies for local use, which may have been lost in the first round. One of my fears is that unless such a provision is written into the Bill, commercial interests will lobby against the greater proliferation of access radio—if they are successful, they will, make no mistake, take the audience from their commercial competitors—or they will work out some way of buying them all up because they were attracting audiences. We should then be into the same cycle of amalgamations and consolidations, which lose the essence and the attraction of that sort of broadcasting.
10 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Before the noble Lord concludes, I offer him a further avenue of collaboration between the commercial sector and community radio. I do not mean to sound cynical, but there is a grave danger that community radio and community media are set up for the producers rather than the consumers. Grant-giving powers will simply be a beacon of hope to everyone who cannot get a job in the BBC or commercial radio to the effect that the local rates will give them the job of setting up their own radio station even if they are broadcasting, frankly, only to themselves. That sounds terribly much like a put down but I do not mean it in that way. Some of those people do very good work.
However, there is another way forward. When the Annan committee was set up, I advocated to it that comparatively large stations such as my own at that point—Radio Clyde, which covered Glasgow—should be obliged to take rural areas under their wing. Radio Oban was a community radio service that covered Oban, which, as I recall, had a population of about 5,000 people and therefore, frankly, had no chance of being viable on its own. We offered a radio service to it as a sustaining service. We paid for it—for the land lines—but it could opt out of the arrangement whenever it wanted and could do its own thing whenever it wanted; it had a sustaining service for the rest of the time. That is a potential way forward. We had no vested interest in the matter whatever. The advertising revenue from 5,000 people is, frankly, buttons. It would not affect us one bit. We were happy to do that because we thought that it was worth while.
That might he the way forward. We should not get caught up in the idea that community radio is automatically a good thing. I can quote examples by the barrel-load in Scotland of public money being ploughed into community radio, which went bust in six months because, frankly, no one was listening, not even the person's mother.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I was involved professionally, 25 or more years ago, in setting up the first partnership radio in Cardiff between the

1059
commercial and the voluntary sectors. They bid for and won a licence. Unfortunately, that bold experiment ultimately came to naught. I ask the noble Lord to consider that precedent. There are real problems about co-equal partnerships. The partnership that the noble Lord may have referred to was one of dominance by the commercial entity—
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Not at all.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Well, if "not at all", the noble Lord should study the Cardiff example. It does not lend much encouragement to the noble Lord's idea.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: This matter is entirely trivial hut, purely for the record, Oban FM decided entirely on its own what it wanted to do. Radio Clyde had nothing to do with that. We were simply available, at no cost to it, whenever it wanted to fill gaps. The arrangement was entirely and quite genuinely altruistic.
Lord McNally: I believe that it is now my turn to speak. That exchange underpins the need for some protection for community radio in the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: We have had an interesting debate on this matter. There is a slight danger that community media may become a little like motherhood and apple pie—necessarily always a good thing. I was enormously grateful for the intervention from my noble friend Lord Gordon of Strathblane. He brought to the debate a touch of realism as well as a rather constructive and interesting practical way forward.
I do not want to suggest that the Government believe that opportunities for community media are not a good thing. We believe that they are. But I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, by saying that I do not support Amendment No. 30. Indeed, I am afraid that I am unable to support any of the amendments in this group. I do not support Amendment No. 30 because I do not believe that it is necessary. Powers already exist to licence local TV and radio services. Clause 241 provides for local digital television regime stations and Clause 258 will enable the Secretary of State to introduce a new tier of access radio. We believe that enabling powers of that kind are appropriate here.
Given that the powers will exist to license access radio and local TV, it is not clear what point is served by giving Ofcom an additional duty to promote those services. Ofcom already has a number of general duties that one would expect to encourage the development of local TV and access radio. I am confident that that will happen. Ofcom's duty in Clause 3(1) is to further the interests of consumers and the community as a whole. Put that in the context of Ofcom's duty in subsection (2)(c), to secure,
"a wide range of television and radio services which … are both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests",
1060
and one can see the relevance of Ofcom supporting and encouraging the development of community TV and radio. In the light of Ofcom's existing powers and duties there is not, in my view much, if anything, to be gained by adding yet another duty to promote community media.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, raised the issue of convergence. It is perfectly true that it has been argued that a duty to promote community media is necessary because of the increasing convergence between media. The Bill is certainly designed with convergence in mind but that does not mean, for example, that the provisions dealing with radio and TV can or should be merged into a single set of provisions. The main driver for convergence is the creation of a single regulator which is well placed to look at issues across the communications horizon. It is not necessary to converge the powers if the body that exercises the various powers is itself converged.
Turning to Amendment No. 175, I am unclear why this clause is necessary. We are committed to supporting local television, and existing analogue services are proving an important local focus for communities and a popular form of broadcasting. Ofcom will be able to licence local analogue TV as at present. And, as I have already indicated, Clause 241 provides for an effective licensing regime for local digital television which can come into force by order once digital spectrum becomes available. It is therefore not clear what the relationship is between the existing powers and the new clause. The new clause sets out criteria for award of such licences but these are not greatly different from those already in Clause 241. In short, other than cause a degree of confusion in the relationship between various licences, I do not think that this clause adds a great deal to the existing powers.
In regard to Amendment No. 176 we believe that it is important that the Secretary of State should be able to use the order to place limits on the amount of sponsorship and advertising that access radio stations can take. That view is backed up by the very thorough evaluation of the pilot stations by Anthony Everitt which was published in March. He concluded that access radio stations should normally be able to receive no more than half their funding from advertising and sponsorship. In areas where there is a small commercial station, an access radio licence should be offered only if the applicant can show that it will present little or no advertising sales and sponsorship competition.
No decisions have yet been taken on the funding of access radio, but it is clearly essential that the order should be able to place restrictions on the amount and type of advertising and sponsorship that such stations could carry.
I turn to Amendment No. 177. There is no need for the new clause because Clause 258 already gives Ministers the power to introduce access radio. We are still in the process of considering Anthony Everitt's report, but I am confident that we will bring forward an order later in the year for consultation. It will be debated in both Houses, subject to the successful passage of the Bill. So I am not quite sure why the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is opposed to dealing with this matter in secondary legislation.

1061
The amendment itself appears to want to bring access radio within the mainstream radio licensing regime. It seeks to do that by inserting a reference to "access radio" into Section 104 of the 1990 Act. However, Section 104 deals simply with the process of making an application. If the amendment were agreed, I am not clear how access radio would be treated in respect of other aspects of the licensing regime. The amendment is silent on that matter. In that sense, I think that it may be defective.
Anthony Everitt's report identifies a number of special issues which need to be addressed with access radio. They include funding, a matter which I have briefly mentioned. There are other issues; for example, how to deal with changes in the composition of the board and arrangements for evaluation, in particular with regard to receipt of government grants. Again, it is unclear how these matters are to be dealt with. The new clause does not tell us. They are questions that must be considered carefully.
We believe that access radio should be introduced in such a way to ensure that it has a good chance of success. That is through an order, on which we can consult, get people's responses and which Parliament will then have to approve.
Finally, I cannot support Amendment No. 302 as I believe that any fund should be limited to access radio. It is a prudent assumption that if and when we are able to secure funds they will necessarily be limited. If so, TV would almost certainly swamp the fund. The end result would be that the jam would be spread terribly thinly. So let us be realistic and try and make a success of access radio. We should not deliberately raise expectations that we cannot fulfil. A small, oversubscribed fund could damage, not help, the development of community media. We do not want that to happen.
On the issue of funding, there are certainly no plans to fund community media through broadcasting fees. That responds to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that were that to happen it would become an issue for other broadcasters. We are looking at the prospect of some Exchequer funding for access radio, but no decisions have yet been made. It would—as I always have to say on these occasions—on the availability of resources. Finally, on that note, I do not think it would be right in some way to top-slice the BBC licence fee. The BBC is universally available, whereas access radio will only be available in local areas. I believe that it would be wrong to use a fee paid by virtually everyone in the UK to support services that would be available to only small numbers of people.
In the light of the arguments that I have put forward, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: The Minister will not be surprised that I am disappointed with her reply. That does not particularly surprise me either. One is accustomed to being disappointed by ministerial
1062
replies. However, I am rather sorry that it was such a dispiriting reply because the community media movement comprises enthusiastic people who deserve more encouragement than that which came from the Government Front Bench.
However, in consolation, it was not a response without substance. Having listened to it, it mentions several matters that we shall all want to study to consider whether we want to make different approaches later. I am interested in what my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said about partnership with community radio in Oban, for example.
So we shall return to that matter, but I am bound to say that I am dispirited by the tone of the response. In a massive Bill dealing with great issues—such as the creation of a global industry of telecommunications and broadcasting and of international ownership, which in turn raises great issues about the quality and character of the broadcasting scene in this country—I am rather dispirited that such a modest, grassroots operation should receive so much cold water from the Government Front Bench. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 6 [Duties to review regulatory burdens]:
Lord Luke Lord Luke moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 33, at end insert "; and
(c) to seek the views of persons providing services and facilities in relation to which OFCOM have functions on which of these functions should be subject to review."
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. I suspect that the importance of ensuring that the regulatory regime keeps pace with advances in the industry will become a recurring theme in our discussion of the Bill.
Amendment No. 31 is designed to ensure that the regulator consults the communications industry on those regulatory functions that should be subject to review. It is most welcome that Ofcom is required from time to time to review the regulatory burden and to identify those aspects of the regime that are no longer necessary or applicable, but I am concerned that despite those welcome inclusions, there is still a danger that Ofcom may lose sight of the views of those whom it regulates.
From the experience of the Independent Television Commission and Oftel, we know that new developments in the communications industry can call existing regulation into question. The amendment would simply mean that Ofcom would consult the relevant service providers on those aspects of regulation that it believed should be subject to review. It would give business stakeholders confidence in the regulator's approach, while allowing them access to the detail and conclusions of the regulator's discussions. It

1063
would also allow businesses to plan ahead with a clear view of how future regulation would affect their industries—whether as suppliers or users.
It would not require Ofcom to act on the consultation, but to give network and service providers the opportunity to participate in the regulatory discourse would help to ensure that the industry's regulatory regime would more accurately reflect the needs of communication providers.
Amendment No. 32 is intended to enhance the industry's ability to co-regulate—to promote the maintenance of a self-regulatory function by the industry with hack-stop powers for Ofcom. I ask the Committee to note the use of the words, "offer adequate opportunities", and, "as appropriate". The last thing that I should want is to impose a requirement on a self-regulatory body to report to Parliament.
I understand the purpose of Clause 6 as being to promote a range of regulatory mechanisms, including co-regulation or, as the Joint Committee called it, accredited self-regulation. I further understand that to mean that any opportunities to expand the frontiers of self-regulation would be taken.
I presume that Members of the Committee who will speak to Amendment No. 33 will have more to say about accredited self-regulation. My point is that those involved in self-regulation are not necessarily free from obligations to transparency and accountability. It is reasonable to write those principles into the Bill to allow for any such future developments.
The amendment would merely allow Ofcom to consider what opportunities for accountability would be appropriate through it to Parliament and the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord McNally: Amendment No. 33 is included in this group. As the noble Lord indicated, it allows us to discuss the pre-legislative scrutiny committee's ideas on self-regulation. It is a matter on which we agree with the Government. The Government stated that they wanted self-regulation to be extended wherever possible. We think that that is a very good approach and that those are good guidelines so far as concerns Ofcom and the whole communications industry.
I noticed today that the new chairman of the Press Complaints Commission has put forward seven points to improve self-regulation in that area. It is sometimes said that this House has no power. Yet I read this morning that the BBC has suddenly started to think again about how its accounts might be subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee. Today the new chairman of the Press Complaints Commission has come forward with some bright new ideas about self-regulation. I cannot think that these new thoughts from those bodies are entirely divorced from the fact that we are busily working on this business at present. We should be very encouraged to find that our endeavours are causing rustlings in the undergrowth in various parts of the forest.
1064
On this amendment, we think that, for self-regulation to carry the credibility it needs. Ofcom should be able to set down guidelines on proper self-regulation, against which the public and the sectors concerned can measure themselves. Accredited self-regulation is certainly not what, I think, was termed "a slippery slope to state control" in any of the sectors. It is exactly as the amendment suggests. It sets broad guidelines by which both the industry and the public can judge how a self-regulatory body goes about its business.
The whole idea of this amendment is to try to push forward so far as possible the concept of self-regulation. Here we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Government. It is far healthier for all sectors of the communications industry, and for relations between the sectors and the Government. We already have a good example of self-regulation working. I see the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, moving in his seat. I hope that he will contribute to the debate. The Advertising Standards Authority, now chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has set a good example of how a body can be respected by the public and the sector. I understand that the ASA is in discussion with Ofcom, and I hope that it can conclude those negotiations successfully. That would set an example to other parts of the communications industry.
Lord Puttnam: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and to prove that the "Gang of Four" are as one.
As with so much during the work of the Joint Committee, the concept emerged from evidence. It was not dreamt up. Much of the evidence that we took was dispiriting, but, in this area, the evidence was overwhelmingly positive. We became very enthused. The purpose of the amendment is to say to the Government, "Please don't hope passively for self-regulation to emerge. Why not actively grab it? You have the ball at your feet". The idea of accredited self-regulation is neither odd nor particularly new. It is an idea in the wind, and it gives the Government the ball, so that they can get cracking with a new, more enthusiastic and determined form of self-regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right. We have the best possible example represented on the Benches behind the Government. My noble friend Lord Borrie and the Advertising Standards Authority provide a superb example of what is possible. What we say here tonight will be heard in places such as the Press Complaints Commission. The Government must evince determination to support forms of self-regulation and the sense that it is the way of the future. Whatever we say tonight—whatever the Government say—I guarantee that, 10 years from now, self-regulation will be the norm, not the exception. That is the direction in which things are going, and accredited self-regulation must be the answer.
We did a lot of work looking back at how, over the past 10 or 15 years, various professional bodies had, with enormous pain, come to terms with the fact that they had to get their act together and become more transparent. It is not surprising that professional

1065
bodies go through that pain barrier, but here is an opportunity for the Government to help them by promoting the concept of self-regulation. We are not suggesting tonight who the accreditor should be. Different bodies could be accreditors for different industries. It is a great idea, and the Government would do themselves an enormous service by enthusing about it and promoting it. The important subsections are subsections (4) and (5). They make the point. Without those subsections, the clause is limp; with them, we can point out clearly the way ahead.
I must also say that the words "monitoring and" should be removed from proposed subsection (3)(d). That role already exists, and it would be inappropriate to the suggestion that we make to include the monitoring component. I urge the Government to take the rest of the amendment seriously. They would do themselves and the nation as a whole a great service.
Lord Borrie: I shall speak only to Amendment No. 33. I declare an interest as chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, which adjudicates—and has done so for a long time—on non-broadcast advertisements, to determine whether, because they are misleading or seriously offensive, they should be banned.
Amendment No. 33, put forward by the "Gang of Four"—if I may use that expression—for our deliberation, deals with guidance from Ofcom on standards for effective self-regulation. Generally, the objectives of those standards are set out in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause. They seem to me to be sound. I had some reservations about subsection (3)(d), but my noble friend Lord Puttnam said that the words "monitoring and" should not be included, so I shall read the paragraph without them. It says that the objectives are,
"that the person or body responsible for…enforcement of the method of self-regulation has an appropriate measure of independence from providers of the relevant service".
I trust that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will forgive my being pernickety. It was not the Advertising Standards Authority but a task force chaired and led by the Advertising Association, which has been in discussion with Ofcom over a period of time, that proposed to Ofcom a self-regulatory scheme for the control of broadcast advertising; that is, advertising on radio and television. The Advertising Association task force has included advertisers, agencies, broadcasters and so forth. As Members of the Committee have already said, the model it put forward is explicitly modelled on the existing Advertising Standards Authority.
This existing system, comprising an adjudicatory body with a majority of non-industry people, is independent. I am grateful for those Members who said that it is well regarded. It certainly has a good basis of finance, with the Advertising Standards Board of Finance levying a 0.1 per cent impost on advertising billings so that—although anyone in my position would say that we never have enough money to do our job—we have been well-resourced.
1066
My noble friend Lord Puttnam perhaps is withdrawing the word "monitoring" from the amendment, but "enforcement" under the non-broadcast system run by the ASA is partly done by the industry itself; namely, the Committee of Advertising Practice, a federation of trade bodies representing advertisers, agencies and the media. The ASA's adjudications are accompanied by publicity and by the requirement to withdraw the advertisement and not to repeat any advertisement which has been found to offend against the rules. If necessary, in relation to a recalcitrant advertiser, the ASA will report the matter to the Office of Fair Trading which, being a statutory body, has legal powers to take action for an injunction under the control of misleading advertisement regulations.
I have a reservation about subsection (3)(d) of the proposed new clause. However, the existing system for non-broadcast advertising also gives an enforcement role to the industry—to the Committee of Advertising Practice—working with its member associations, which includes media associations, in order that they are warned by so-called "ad alerts" that a particular advertiser and a particular type of advertisement should not be permitted. Similarly, the Royal Mail, which is a part of the Committee of Advertising Practice, will withdraw its bulk mail discount from an offender.
I am speaking about self-regulation of non-broadcast advertisements. It seems neither surprising nor a matter to be criticised that the industry itself takes a hand in the matter of enforcement. I do not know and would not presume to tell Ofcom what the best arrangements may be for monitoring or enforcing any self-regulatory control scheme which it devises or accredits for broadcast advertisements in due course. We may be a little unwise if we prescribe in this Bill who or what kind of body does the enforcement. Independence, referred to in paragraph (d), is vital for any adjudicatory body, but in terms of enforcement there could be a mix of ways in which this is done. If the phrase self-regulation means anything, it surely must mean that the industry itself helps to do the enforcing.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have built many measures into the Bill to ensure that Ofcom will not only be a good regulator but also a promoter of self-regulation. Clause 6 is an example of that, as it is about the obligation on Ofcom to review any regulatory burdens.
I shall begin with Amendment No. 31, which requires Ofcom to seek the views of business on which of its functions should be reviewed. It is important for Ofcom to have a strong dialogue with business, but it should be wider than that proposed in this amendment. Clause 6(2), which Amendment No. 31 would amend, is not about which functions Ofcom should keep under review—indeed, subsection (1) requires it to keep all of its functions under review so that it does not impose unnecessary burdens.

1067
We do not expect that Ofcom will be able to fulfil its duties under subsection (1) without input from a wide range of stakeholders. Clearly, that will also involve business. However, the interests of business are not necessarily the same as those of other people to whom Ofcom will be talking. What appears to business as a burden might be a necessary protection for other people. Therefore, singling out business in the way suggested is not necessarily the right course of action. The amendment requires Ofcom to take the views of business, but not those of other interested parties.
The Bill puts in place formal consultation, impact assessments, and, under Clause 6(4), publication of a statement setting out how Ofcom proposes to secure that regulation does not involve imposition or maintenance of unnecessary burdens. I believe that to be more practical than the restricted obligation on Ofcom contained in Amendment No. 31. It will allow Ofcom to decide how it will comply with the duty.
Ofcom can use what we expect to be both formal and informal systems to build a clear view of what business and other people have in mind, not only in respect of regulatory burdens—the subject of Clause 6—but also other issues. We expect Ofcom to be listening to business right across the range of its activities, without the need for Amendment No. 31.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, straightaway that the Government are not in any way reluctant about self-regulation. We specifically provide for self-regulation in respect of premium rate communications services, in codes of practice for dealing with customer complaints, and in the public service broadcasting provisions. Indeed, self-regulation is referred to specifically in Clause 3(3)(c) and, as I said, in Clause 6.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 relate to references to self-regulation in Clause 6. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, will recognise, those references were inserted in the Bill in response to the recommendations of the Joint Committee. So both he and the Government can take credit for their inclusion.
We considered different models for self-regulation and decided not to mandate processes or codes, or, as suggested by Amendment No. 33, to lay down in statute the factors that Ofcom should consider—other than the question of whether there is sufficient independence and adequate funding. Of course, Ofcom will be able to consider other matters as well as assessing the effectiveness, or possible future effectiveness, of self-regulation.
We decided against accreditation—or what has been called "accredited self-regulation"—not because we believe, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that somehow this is a matter of going down the slippery slope to state control, which was not in our mind. We took that decision because accreditation is associated with defined standards. I should be interested to hear arguments on the other side, but we find it difficult to envisage a single standard that would apply to all the situations in which self-regulation could be used. The duties and considerations that are placed on Ofcom by the Bill provide a more practical and flexible framework.
1068
We are not so much laying down the process of selfregulation—the aim of Amendment No. 33—we are looking at the outcomes. I think that this is what my noble friend Lord Currie called "co-regulation"; in other words, it is an option for Ofcom.
The point to make here is that there are varying degrees of self-regulation or co-regulation. It will be for Ofcom to balance the degree of accountability, reporting, involvement and how hands-on it will be against the extent to which it will be able to remove or reduce regulatory burdens. However, while I have a great deal of sympathy for what has been said by my noble friend Lord Puttnam and the noble Lord, Lord McNally—as they both pointed out, we are on the same side on this issue—I think that it would be a mistake to lay down strict guidelines or objectives for Ofcom.
In itself, the amendment would not make self-regulation any easier. Indeed, there is a danger that it might add to the bureaucratic burden. Where there is self-regulation or co-regulation, it will be only where Ofcom has powers. I listened carefully to what was said about the Advertising Standards Authority and, while I agree with much of it, I rather suspect that praise for that authority is a surrogate for criticism of the Press Complaints Commission, which was not mentioned. Indeed, the innocent look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, confirms me in that view. We have repeatedly made it clear that Ofcom will not regulate the Press Complaints Commission, so I do not see how it could accredit that organisation.
For these reasons, which are entirely sympathetic to the purposes behind the regulations, but which seek to explain the thoroughness with which the Bill addresses these issues, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Luke: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Although he spoke mainly to Amendment No. 33, which I shall not mention, it appears that everyone is keen on self-regulation in one form or another. No doubt we shall return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"ADDITIONAL DUTIES IN RELATION TO EFFECTIVE SELF-REGULATION
(1) In considering for the purposes of section 6(2)(a) the extent to which matters which OFCOM are required under section 3 to further or secure are already furthered or secured, or are likely to be furthered or secured, by effective self-regulation, OFCOM shall have regard to the guidance prepared under subsection (2).
(2) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to prepare, and from lime to time review and revise, such guidance on standards for effective self-regulation as appear to them best calculated to promote effective self-regulation and the self-regulation standards objectives.

1069
(3) The self-regulation standards objectives are—

(a) that the method of self-regulation offers protection or other benefits for members of the public in respect of a particular service beyond or in addition to those offered by the general law;

(b) that a proper degree of responsibility is accepted and exercised by all participants in the method of self-regulation;

(c) that the participants in the method of self-regulation, so far as practicable, include all providers of the relevant service in the United Kingdom;

(d) that the person or body responsible for monitoring and enforcement of the method of self-regulation has an appropriate measure of independence from providers of the relevant service;

(e) that adequate funding is available to the person or body undertaking functions in accordance with paragraph (d); and

(f) that the operations of the person or body undertaking functions in accordance with paragraph (d) are transparent and accountable.

(4) OFCOM shall make such arrangements as they consider appropriate for the accreditation of methods of self-regulation complying with the standards set out in guidance prepared in accordance with subsection (2).
(5) The Secretary of State may lay before Parliament an annual report giving an account of activities under a method of self-regulation that has been accredited in accordance with subsection (4)."
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was quite right to point out that it is the Advertising Association which is in negotiation with Ofcom about extending the ASA system to broadcast advertising. I also take the point made by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about the words "monitoring and" in subsection (3)(d).
I mentioned the Press Complaints Commission only to praise the speech made earlier today by its new chairman, Sir Christopher Meyer. However, a challenge I find almost impossible to resist, but which I had not thought of at the time, was that made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he said that it was not possible to apply accredited self-regulation to the Press Complaints Commission. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that; I said that accredited self-regulation required a degree of defined standards. However, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is perfectly free to draw that conclusion if he so wishes.
Lord McNally: That is what I am doing. Bearing that in mind, we may come back to this matter on Report. I am most grateful to the Minister for making the suggestion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Duty to carry out impact assessments]:
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
1070
"( ) An assessment carried out under this section shall include an assessment, as appropriate, of the impact of the proposal upon the general duties of OFCOM and, in particular, the furthering of the interests of consumers through competition as set out in section 3(1)."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment addresses the situation where Ofcom deems it necessary to carry out an impact assessment into the effects of a particular proposal it is planning to implement. The amendment states that such an impact assessment must include reference to how the proposal relates to Ofcom's general duties, and in particular how it would further the interests of the consumer through competition.
We welcome the impact assessment as a measure that will strengthen Ofcom's transparency. The wording of the Bill, however, provides Ofcom with a high degree of flexibility as to the form and content of such an impact assessment. Hence subsection (4) states that an impact assessment,

"(a) may take such form, and

(b) must relate to such matters, as OFCOM consider appropriate"

So while Ofcom may choose to set out how a proposal impacts upon its general duties there is no requirement to do so. Surely it is important, for the sake of transparency, for Ofcom to include reference in any impact assessment to how the interests of consumers are affected. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: The clauses in this section of the Bill were not made available to the Joint Committee when it submitted its report. That is perhaps why there is no amendment on this occasion from the "gang of four". While I welcome my noble friend's amendment, I take the opportunity of noting what the Joint Committee said on the subject of impact charging when we agreed with the argument advanced by NTL and Telewest that,
"regulatory impact assessments must review the impact of proposals on markets as a whole, not simply on the companies that are the targets of the regulation".
Prompted by the fact that the amendment has been brought forward, I have for the first time, I fear, read this clause. As my noble friend said, it is extraordinarily widely drafted to give the ultimate possible discretion to Ofcom as to what constitutes a regulatory impact. In the light of the fact that the Joint Committee did not look at this issue previously and that particular recommendation, we may need to examine the clause more thoroughly than simply in regard to the point raised by my noble friend.
Lord Puttnam: I support the amendment. It makes an important general point that will no doubt be raised later. I was delighted that the Government showed enthusiasm for an impact assessment but I am puzzled even more today than at the time of the Joint Scrutiny Committee when we asked the Government to

1071
commission impact assessments on cross-media ownership, changes in media ownership and cross-media and cross-platform promotion—issues which are tremendously important and, for the most part, not fully understood. The Government, I rejoice to say, have made almost an obsession of evidence-based policy, but they are making very significant changes to long-established policy without any attempt to create any evidence whatever.
Baroness Blackstone: I can be helpful in regard to the amendment. We shall resist it because, as drafted, it does not properly reflect the relationship between Clauses 3 and 7. In carrying out all its functions, Ofcom must comply with its general duties. The duties can apply only where Ofcom has functions; they are not free-standing objectives or principles.
Amendment No. 34 inverts the relationship between Clauses 3 and 7. An impact assessment can relate only to one of Ofcom's functions—which is subject to its duties—and not to the duties themselves. We cannot therefore require Ofcom to assess the impact of a proposal on a general duty.
We can consider, however, whether impact assessments should state how a proposal will fulfil the general duty. I am not promising that we shall bring forward an amendment on Report because I want to be clear that requiring Ofcom to include a reference to its general duties would be helpful to those who would benefit from an impact assessment. We shall look at the issue.
I also want to see what the amendment would add to subsection (4), which already enables Ofcom to consider what form an assessment should take and what matters should be included in it. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister. At this late hour, to have such heartening news is a lovely way to end the evening, for me at any rate. I thank my noble friend Lord Crickhowell for his unexpected support, and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. After the Joint Committee supporting our Front Bench and the Minister almost giving me my amendment, I am not sure I shall sleep. However, I thank the Minister very much; I greatly appreciate the response and the offer of a rethink. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland
10.50 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission. I should like to make a Statement about political developments in Northern Ireland. I reported to the House last Thursday on our assessment of the state of Northern Ireland political dialogue, and our regretful conclusion that the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, due on 29th May., must once again be postponed. We thought it right to announce that decision to the House as soon as possible, given that the election campaign was beginning. But the result was that many honourable Members from Northern Ireland or interested! in its affairs were unable to be present.
"I said, therefore, that I would return this week to say something more, giving those honourable Members who wished to participate in discussion a chance to come here. I am now also able to report on the discussions in Dublin today between the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and colleagues, including myself.
"In my earlier Statement, I recalled that, since the suspension of devolved government in Northern Ireland on 15th October last year, we had made a great deal of headway in discussions between the two governments and the parties there, aimed at completing the implementation of the Belfast agreement, including full restoration of the institutions. A comprehensive and detailed set of proposals had been drawn up by the governments, capable, we believed, of achieving broad support among the parties.
"We published those proposals last Thursday. They consisted of a joint declaration by the British and Irish Governments setting out a vision of the full implementation of the Belfast agreement, with detailed annexes on security normalisation, devolution of policing and justice and human rights, equality and identity.
"There was also an agreement between the two governments on how to monitor the parties' and the governments' honouring of commitments set out in the agreement and joint declaration, along with arrangements for remedying breaches of those commitments.
"Finally, we set out a scheme for the handling of the cases of those on the run for terrorist offences.
"But from the start, both governments had made it clear that, as the Prime Minister and Taoiseach put it on 14th October,
'it must be clear that the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, which has been ongoing since the Agreement, and indeed before, is being brought to an unambiguous and definitive conclusion.

1073
"Unfortunately, a draft statement by the IRA and subsequent comments by Gerry Adams were neither clear nor unambiguous. And without clarity, there could be no trust between parties—and no early return for devolved government in Northern Ireland.
"The question that the Prime Minister—and the people of Northern Ireland—wanted the IRA to answer was a simple one. Will the IRA call a halt to all the activities listed in paragraph 13 of the joint declaration? Will it stop the so-called punishment beatings? Will it stop the targeting and the procurement of weapons? Will it stop inciting people to not on the streets of Northern Ireland? Those are simple questions, to which there should be a simple answer—yes or no.
"The IRA has tonight published its statement. As the two governments acknowledged at the time, it represented some progress. But Members of this House and the people of Northern Ireland can read it and judge for themselves whether it answers the fundamental question posed by my right honourable friend: does it mean the definitive end to all the paramilitary activity referred to in the joint declaration?
"The view of both governments is that it does not. It is not a clear and unambiguous statement. Without that clarity, there can be no trust and, therefore, with great regret, we concluded that elections should be further postponed. We shall introduce later this week, and propose to debate next week, a Bill to authorise this postponement. We hope that the election will be held in the autumn.
"I know the concern felt by many at this further delay and at the late stage at which it was announced. There is also a frustration on the part of many members of the political parties who had geared themselves up for a mighty effort, which is now abruptly halted.
I well understand these feelings.
"This was for us a very difficult decision. But, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland and the unique form of government established by the agreement, we believed it was the only course to take. It is clear that, as the political dialogue stands at present, there would not have been the willingness to participate that is necessary to partnership government under the agreement.
"We are planning to bring forward a Bill that will allow us to hold an election as soon as it is clear that the necessary trust between the parties has been reestablished. We hope that that can be in the autumn.
"The Government's course for the future is clear. We will go on seeking to build trust between the communities and hence the foundations for political advance.
"We have had a great deal of success so far: what we are now experiencing, I believe, need be no more than a temporary setback. We are indeed in a position of great strength. Most of those foundations
1074
are already there. We have the agreement, and that must be the bedrock of any future progress. It is not something that is open to renegotiation. Indeed, a vast amount of progress has already been made in implementing it, especially in the vital areas of policing and criminal justice. However, it is a further strength that the joint declaration published last week represents a shared understanding between the governments and the pro-agreement parties of how we can proceed to the full and final implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
"That too has been the subject of discussion with all the pro-agreement parties and agreed by the governments. That also is not open to renegotiation.
"As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated this evening in Dublin, we shall proceed to implement many elements of the joint declaration which are not conditional upon action by others, for example in the areas of policing, criminal justice, equality, human rights, and some aspects of normalisation. We will also introduce the legislation necessary to set up the Independent Monitoring Body, which will, among other things, report on paramilitary activity.
"But the joint declaration package also contains a number of measures which can only be implemented if there are acts of completion by the IRA. It is a strength of the present position, I believe, that there is such widespread recognition of the benefits that devolution has brought to Northern Ireland, and a wish on all sides to return to a local administration.
"In the coming weeks, the Government will be consulting with all the parties—whatever their position on the agreement—about the best way of bringing devolution back to Northern Ireland as soon as possible.
"Finally, I should remind the House that a key element in the progress that has been made is the close partnership between ourselves and the Irish Government. Without that relationship and the unstinting support of successive US administrations, the transformation that has already occurred in Northern Ireland would not have been possible. In fact, the reason for the late hour of this Statement is that I wanted to report to the House the results of this afternoon's meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, in Dublin. That was an important opportunity for the governments to reaffirm the centrality of their partnership to continuing political progress in Northern Ireland. There was agreement about the implementation of aspects of the joint declaration to which I have already referred.
"I shall continue to work closely with the Irish Foreign Minister, Brian Cowen, to ensure that the political parties in Northern Ireland are encouraged to engage with each other to resolve current difficulties and to re-establish trust.
"We have faced many challenges and setbacks in the five years since the agreement was reached and I will not pretend to the House that the current impasse is not serious. However, we are determined

1075
that this obstacle will be overcome—as others have been in the past. The critical issues of trust—over commitment to exclusively peaceful means, and about the stability of the institutions—can be addressed with clear statements of intent from all parties.
"Events in the past few weeks have been deeply disappointing for everyone concerned—but they should not obscure the great progress that has been made. The publication of the joint declaration represents a major step towards the complete implementation of the Belfast Agreement. That agreement remains the only sustainable basis for a fair and honourable accommodation between nationalists and Unionists. It remains the only possible basis for peace. In the coming weeks and months we will work openly and transparently to further fulfil our side of the bargain struck in 1998.
"We call upon the IRA to find the clarity—in words and deeds—to convince the people of Northern Ireland that they are ready to fulfil theirs".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
10.59 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement, which I think is being made in parallel in another place. What a sad day. I think that this is a terrible time of the day to take a Statement. When I heard some time back that there was to be a Statement tonight, I was looking for something momentous—a real happening and exciting news. However, as we have just heard, there is virtually nothing that has not been in the public domain for some time. The fact that we have the Statement now is not, I accept, directly the fault of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal. However, it is a rather sad Statement.
The Government have again got themselves in a mess with Northern Ireland. They are going to need some support from all of us, which I suspect that they may ultimately get at some stage. However, I have a few questions on the Statement, the first of which concerns the actual decision-making process and the communication of it. Why did the Northern Ireland public hear that their elections had been cancelled from an Irish Minister making a statement in Ireland? It was pretty clear to those of us on the outside that this was another prime ministerial decision. In the Corridors I have heard it said that even the Secretary of State himself was not aware that the decision was being taken until it had been, and indeed that he was not thinking on those lines himself. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give us a little enlightenment on the Corridor-speak.
The Statement talks about elections in the "autumn", which is a very loose term. I suggest that the Government do not really know where they are in relation to elections. I do not blame them for that. They are waiting, quite rightly, for a response from the IRA. The Statement makes it quite clear that such a response is expected. Of course I strongly support the Prime Minister in his stance on that. However, I
1076
should like the noble and learned Lord to confirm that this will be the very last postponement of any future elections; that elections will not be called on the off-chance that the IRA might deliver something that is vaguely satisfactory; and indeed that they will not be called until such time as the pro-agreement parties are in a position of trust and understanding among themselves, which will allow the formation of a meaningful and workable Executive and government process. I suppose that it is always easy in hindsight. However, I do not think that it should have taken a lot of thinking and understanding of Northern Ireland affairs for that decision to have been taken some months back.
The Statement raises one other big issue: the mention of the joint declaration. I purposely do not wish to go into it tonight, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords will not expect us to. The joint declaration is a sizeable document which is now in the public domain. I do not feel that now is the time to debate it. However, I should like the noble and learned Lord to assure the House that the Government will continue to negotiate from strength and not drift back into giving away hits and pieces in the hope that they might get a titbit from the IRA's table in response. Noble Lords will understand that that will never happen. The Prime Minister is to be congratulated on finally taking a serious stance, digging in his heels and saying to Sinn Fein/IRA, "Do it first". I ask the noble and learned Lord to ensure, and assure us, that that will continue to be the Government's policy.
My final topic concerns detail. Many human beings, civil servants, candidates who were members, Ministers, chauffeurs, drivers and secretaries are involved in this matter. Where do they stand in relation to salary, costs, future, insurance, pensions and so on? If there is to be some form ofcompensation, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give us some idea of how that will be worked out and the cost that might be incurred.
11.5 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for making the Statement available earlier.
Last October I predicted a very long suspension of the Assembly. I regret that that has turned out to be the case. We reluctantly agreed to one month's extension before the calling of the election. We were assured time and again by the Government that elections would take place this month. Last week, without any consultation within Westminster, the Government peremptorily announced that there would be no elections until the autumn or even beyond.
There is another way one could look at this. The mandates of the Northern Ireland parties are now past their sell by date. Those mandates desperately need to be renewed. If the elections had been held as planned, the parties could have negotiated between themselves as to whether an executive could be formed. It is far preferable, and possibly more productive, for them to

1077
deal with one another directly. The two governments have used their best offices so far but have manifestly failed to bring about an agreement. Put the onus now on the Northern Ireland politicians to address the matter head on between themselves. Sinn Fein would have to demonstrate its commitment to the full processes of democracy and the rule of law, as it should have done unequivocally long before now.
I know that the English element of new Labour has little or no understanding of coalition or power sharing negotiations which are a commonplace in many European democracies and which, it should be stressed, are taking place at this very moment to form a new Scottish executive. It is not unknown within the United Kingdom. Westminster new Labour needs rapidly to improve its knowledge of the democratic dynamics of coalition building.
The Belfast agreement provided for a review of its own workings. I suggest that if the Assembly had been elected, it could have been given a month to see whether an executive could be formed. If it could not—that may well be the result—the Assembly should be charged with reviewing the Belfast agreement. The agreement provided for its own review. It stated that,
"the two governments and the parties in the Assembly will convene a conference 4 years after the agreement comes into effect, to review and report on its operation".
Next December is the latest date for that review. Let it now be brought forward. To do it convincingly the parties must renew their mandates. The people should be invited to speak through the elections as planned.
For those reasons it will be difficult for these Benches to support the Bill that the Government will seek to rush through next week. As my honourable friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said in another place last Thursday,
"we shall wait and see the contents of the Bill, but I foresee no circumstances in which we would support it".—[Official Report, Commons, 1/5/03; col. 463.]
That said, at the very minimum the Bill must fix a firm and final date. The policy of manana cannot carry on. Northern Ireland elections must not be given the euro referendum treatment—some time now, some time never. First, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to confirm that the Bill will contain a fixed and final date.
Secondly—I reiterate in part what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said—what financial compensation will the political parties be paid to reimburse the moneys already paid out in preparation for an expected May election? Thirdly, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that in future Her Majesty's Government will properly and fully consult with the parties in Westminster, with whom they share legislative responsibility at the moment for Northern Ireland, and not simply rule by diktat? Not only is that offensive but it is highly likely to be counter productive.
The Statement tonight says that the Government will continue discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland. I hope that they will extend the courtesy and
1078
discuss matters with the parties in Westminster. The longer the Assembly is suspended, the greater are the chances that it will not be restored.
11.10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I take the feeling of disappointment. I do not disagree that this is a sad occasion, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said. All noble Lords who have an interest in Northern Ireland affairs will know that I wrote to them as soon as I knew of the timetable today, as I always try to write to everyone with an interest. I explained that the Statement would be late but that it was preferable to try to deliver it today. I pointed out, I think accurately, that I normally do my very best to get prime time.
Because the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State did not return by aeroplane until well into this evening, it simply was not possible to have the Statement earlier. I came to the conclusion with the Secretary of State that it was better to inform Parliament as fully as we could of this disappointing news rather than put it off until tomorrow. I think that that was the right judgment.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that the Government had got themselves into a mess. Nothing could be further from the truth. A particular section of political view, or paramilitary-connected view, in Northern Ireland has got itself into a mess, in my opinion. The question resolves itself to this: were the three questions that the Prime Minister put proper and legitimate questions to be put to Sinn Fein/IRA'? If any noble Lord disagrees with the proposition that they were, I should be extremely surprised.
That having been a conclusion, were the answers to those three questions sufficient to justify embarking on elections? Two questions were reasonably fully answered, and one was not. The Prime Minister pressed again for an answer to that third question, and the answer was not sufficient. It was insufficient not simply for a Westminster government, but to safeguard the legitimate interests of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister made his decision in full conjunction with the Secretary of State—they work very closely together, to my certain daily knowledge—and of course having consulted our colleagues in the Irish Republic's Government. He came to the conclusion that there was no prospect at all, if the elections took place, of an effective government being set up in Northern Ireland. I do not know of any commentator on Northern Ireland who would reasonably come to a different conclusion. That being so, the decision was plain. Do we have elections on the basis of delusion of the electorate that there is a sensible prospect of a workable executive, or do we not? The difficult decision was the one that was come to.
"Autumn", is a loose term. It is almost like "soon" or "shortly", and I cannot define it any better than that. I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Glentoran, whether I could say that this was positively the last postponement. After 600 years, however modest my reading of recent Irish history and

1079
politics, I do not think that anyone will invite me to say that. If they did, I would say, "No, not today, thank you".
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right: the joint declaration is a sizeable document. Today is not the occasion to discuss it. It explains perfectly plainly the thinking of the two governments and the enormous opportunities available. The word tragedy is over-used but it will be a tragedy, after all this compromise, which is necessary, and all the achievement since 1998, if the opportunity is allowed to slip away. It would be grossly irresponsible, and I use those words with as much care as I can.
Will the Government negotiate from strength? I believe that the Government do not simply negotiate from their own strength, but from the strength of what has been achieved since 1998. There have not been Provisional IRA bombing attacks on security personnel or police officers. That is nothing to boast about in what we hope to be a democracy, but that was not the history before 1998 that we all know too well. We need to be cautious when we are disappointed and saddened that we do not overlook the very significant achievements that have been made. They are not enough, but they are of great significance.
It is suggested that the announcement was made by my former colleague, as Attorney-General, in the Irish Republic, Mr. Michael McDowell, now the Minister for Justice. Alarmingly, I did take the trouble to read his words. He was not making an announcement; he was stating what was possible as an outcome. He said that this is a potential outcome.
The noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith, asked where the candidates stand, and developed the point further. There are people whose lives and livelihoods—both are important—depend on these decisions. Having attended substantial meetings in terms of length with the Secretary of State this morning, I can say that those decisions are being carefully looked at. It would be foolish to pretend to be able to come to those conclusions today. I can assure your Lordships that every care and consideration is being given to those matters—not simply in terms of those who are presently MLAs and who will be wanting to know where they stand. Not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, rightly said, people have expended substantial amounts of money on election campaigning, a matter that is foremost in the mind of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, is right. The happiest phrase in the English language is: "I told you so". He did say that he feared, with reluctance, a long suspension, and he is quite right. I was more optimistic than he. He was right and I was wrong—at that time.
There was no prospect of an executive being formed. I think I have dealt with that point. I cannot say yes or no to a fixed and final date.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, urged consultation. I think I can reasonably say that the previous Secretary of State, Dr Reid, and the present Secretary of State have been as careful as they possibly could be in keeping all your Lordships fully informed. In the letter
1080
that I sent out today I reminded your Lordships that there would be a Peers-only meeting tomorrow, which the Secretary of State is determined, other matters being equal, to honour as a commitment.
It has not been a matter of diktat. One cannot work in Northern Ireland in that way and one ought not to try to. We consult as fully as we can. This is a disappointment; it is not a terminal conclusion and we should not allow ourselves to be overcome with gloom—even at seventeen minutes past eleven.
11.17 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. I thank him also for clearly putting the guilt for the dreadful situation that we are in at the steps of Sinn Fein-IRA. Rather than being here tonight, I had been looking forward with my colleagues to being on the hustings in Northern Ireland—an experience of which I have been deprived this spring, unlike other Members of this House, who have experienced elections over the past few weeks in other parts of the United Kingdom.
It is sad that this is where we have arrived today. It is sad that democracy has been turned on its head. I accept a great deal of the reasoning of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal concerning the activities of the IRA. There has been a breakdown in trust. We in the Unionist Party feel that very strongly.
The future for the island of Ireland is about trust and understanding. It is on that basis that the major tenets of the Belfast agreement were set up, including the north-south implementation bodies—the whole business of "north-southery". It is only on that basis of mutual trust and understanding that they can be successful. The two peoples on the island of Ireland must be involved in all decision-making processes before the process itself is finished. That was the cornerstone, the bedrock, on which the Belfast agreement was not just put together but was endorsed by the electorate in Northern Ireland.
Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal agree that if, for whatever reasons, no elections take place in the autumn, the whole area of north-south machinery may have to be looked at, and that it cannot continue if there is no Assembly and no Executive. The two items are very much interwoven. It is a case of the Belfast agreement or nothing.
Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal give an undertaking that in all future decisions taken by both governments and the North-South Ministerial Council about the implementation bodies will be done through the fully correct and legal procedure? Will he also confirm that all decisions must include both administrations and unionists and nationalists?
On this sad day, there is not much I can say on behalf of my party except that we will look at the joint declaration very carefully—we have done so—and we will follow very closely developments in discussions in

1081
Dublin or elsewhere over the next few months. We will make our assessment of that and report back to this House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with his usual courtesy, the noble Lord gave me some pre-knowledge of the ground he would cover. He dealt with what might happen in the autumn. I am reluctant to be led into speculation because our genuine, abiding hope and belief is that we shall have elections in the autumn. I must reflect on one or two of his questions and will write to him. I can confirm that decisions taken in relation to the implementation bodies under the agreement, which he mentioned, have been and will be taken in accordance with its provisions. I believe that the noble Lord used the phrase, "in accordance with correct and legal procedures". I am happy to reaffirm that.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I ask these questions as someone who presumed to write to the Prime Minister and my successor, Dr Mowlam, to congratulate them on the Good Friday agreement. Does the noble and learned Lord recall the words reported in today's Irish Times from Sinn Fein's chief negotiator, Martin McGuinness? He said that,
"the suspension of the Assembly elections was nothing but a betrayal of the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process by the British Government at the behest of the Unionist leaders who find it difficult to come to terms with change".
If those words, despite their outlandish character, are tested dispassionately against the published position of Her Majesty's Government, is it not plain that it is the IRA that is refusing to fulfil its part of the agreement and to come to terms with change by refusing to say unequivocally that republican beatings—and even crucifixions and exilings—will henceforward cease?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have not read the text of what Mr McGuinness said but I have no reason to disagree with what the noble and learned Lord recited. I cannot see a betrayal by the British Government or the Irish Government of the Belfast Good Friday agreement. That was certainly not done at the behest of the Ulster Unionists, if it was the consequence of anyone's behaviour.
I return to my original question, on which I believe the noble and learned Lord and I will agree: were those three questions from Prime Minister Blair legitimate to be asked? Was there any ambiguity in their terms or purport? If the answer is that they were legitimate and plain, why—this is not a rhetorical question—are we not entitled, entirely consistent with the Belfast agreement, to request, on behalf (I repeat) of our fellow citizens of Northern Ireland and our citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom, plain answers to those simple questions? We do not need any biblical scholarship any more. It is perfectly plain. If there was betrayal, that cap must be worn where it properly belongs.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord consider that the formula "peace with honour"
1082
could help paramilitary groups of all kinds to cease punishment attacks, intimidation and exiling? Does he agree that such things are far more obnoxious than the retention of unused weaponry? Would he further accept the need for some kind of transitional arrangement between the status quo in many ghetto areas and the extension of normal policing to all parts of Northern Ireland?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not regard any of those activities as consistent with honourable behaviour. I do not regard them as consistent with the Good Friday agreement. There are different aspects of the 1998 agreement and I do not believe that it is fruitful to say which is the most disagreeable of the activities that contravene it.
If one looks at the declaration and at what has already been achieved by the Police Service of Northern Ireland, one sees that despite great difficulties they have been working towards "normalisation". It seems to me that all the steps that have been taken are not partisan steps; they are for the benefit of the whole community. I repeat that the benefit of the Belfast agreement is undoubted in a civil society. Heaven knows, this Parliament has taken matters on trust. We have passed things with which we have not immediately been content and many noble Lords have worried and troubled themselves as to whether they were doing the right thing in every appropriate circumstance. It seems to me that the British and Irish governments and large sections of political opinion in Northern Ireland have behaved not only honourably, but also generously. What is rightly looked for now by Prime Minister Blair and Taoiseach Ahern is a decent reciprocity of response.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I want to pay the warmest tribute to the Government for the way in which they have handled this matter. It is absolutely right that they have stood up for the needs of the people and I believe that the people will recognise that. I very much respect the way in which further equivocation by the IRA has not been accepted. That is entirely reasonable and proper. I pay tribute to that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness. All noble Lords can usefully look at those three questions and at the answer. I shall not offer the answer to my next question: is that a mealy-mouthed answer or does it have the candour that we are reasonably entitled to seek?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, two positive points have come out of tonight's events. It is a very sad night and I am sure that all noble Lords who have a concern for Northern Ireland feel that, but two positive things have emerged. The first one, paraphrasing what my noble friend Lady Park said, is that it is wonderful to see such complete solidarity between the two governments. Both governments have decided that they have not had the unambiguous and clear statement from Sinn Fein/IRA that would answer the questions. The fact that there is that solidarity is good.

1083
Secondly, I was absolutely delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord refer to Sinn Fein/IRA rather than to the I RA. I now believe that at long last people believe that there is complete cohesion between Sinn Fein and the IRA and that there is nothing—not even a cigarette paper—between them. We have just arrived at those two points and we have to accept them. My question is whether we believe that we shall ever receive a clear and unambiguous response from Sinn Fein/IRA.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I hope so because that is what history, politics and morality require. However jaundiced one's view is, I believe that two of the three questions were answered in a satisfactory way, as Prime Minister Blair pointed out. The third question was there for the answering. It is not simply a matter of playing with words, as has been claimed; a commitment is required. When others have made a significant commitment we should not overlook the degree of anguished compromise to which some Unionists have had to put their hearts and minds. As I said earlier, we want a decent reciprocity of response. I am grateful to the noble Baroness because I looked at the responses of the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister in Dublin this afternoon before our Prime Minister returned here and both governments said that not enough had been done.
1084
We are tantalisingly close. It is a great shame sometimes that the obituaries of people such as Mr Sissulu in South Africa are not read with more care.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for both the Statement and his courtesy. It is impossible to tell from this Statement whether the IRA would have been forced or faced with the need for the clear and unambiguous statement now demanded from them prior to new Assembly elections if the Assembly had not, for causes we know, been suspended last October.
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that the two governments' expression of the need for this clear and unambiguous statement now is a good product from a bad business, and that the decision now to postpone the Assembly elections in current circumstances enjoys support among some in your Lordships' House, even at this mildly inconvenient hour after ten o'clock?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think the outcome is a required outcome which comes from disagreeable decisions made by others. Those decisions having been made by others—I ought to say, having failed to have been made by others—made the position of the Irish Government and the British Government quite inevitable if they wanted to discharge what they saw as their duty and to honour their commitments.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.

  Interpreters: Spoken Languages and BSL
  Interpreters: Spoken Languages and BSL
  Home Improvement Agencies
  Home Improvement Agencies
  2004 Local Authority, GLA and European Parliamentary Elections
  2004 Local Authority, GLA and European Parliamentary Elections
  International Human Rights Instruments: Interdepartmental Review
  International Human Rights Instruments: Interdepartmental Review
  Iraqi Prisoners of War
  Iraqi Prisoners of War
  EU Institutions
  EU Institutions
  EU: Forthcoming Business
  EU: Forthcoming Business
  Honorary Knighthoods: Foreign Nationals
  Honorary Knighthoods: Foreign Nationals
  Byways and Unclassified Roads
  Byways and Unclassified Roads