Sitting of 16 May 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE
  The House being met, and the Speaker having leave of absence pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 3 (Deputy Speaker), SIR ALAN HASELHURST, The Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table.
PETITIONS

  Pharmacies
  9.33 am
  Linda Perham: I wish to present a petition signed by 237 residents of Ilford, North, entitled "Save Our Pharmacy Services". My constituents feel very strongly about the Office of Fair Trading recommendations, which they believe could jeopardise the future of local pharmacies, which provide an excellent service to the community in Redbridge.
  The petition states that the undersigned urge
  the Government to reject the proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions
  and
  to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  9.34 am
  Mr. John Greenway: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Ryedale, who are also very concerned about proposals from the Office of Fair Trading to change the rules with regard to pharmacies and the dispensing of NHS prescriptions. Throughout my constituency, whether in the suburbs of York or the remote rural villages and market towns, people value highly their local pharmacies and are very worried that this vital local service may be lost. The petition has been signed by almost 1,000 residents in the Kirby Moorside area—a significant proportion of the local population of that small market town.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of electors within the Parliamentary Constituency of Ryedale
  Declares that they are concerned about proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
  584
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject the proposals from the Office of Fair Trading on local pharmacies.
  And the petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table

Orders of the Day
  Sunday Working (Scotland) Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Sunday Working (Scotland) Bill
    Clause 1

      SUNDAY WORKING: SHOP AND BETTING WORKERS IN SCOTLAND
      9.36 am
      Andrew Selous: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
      '( ) at the end of subsection (1) add "; and in Scotland "shop workers" include estate agents and travel agents."'.
      The amendment would clarify and slightly extend the definition of "shop worker". I have had legal advice to the effect that the legislation as it currently stands can be construed not to include travel agents and estate agents. I know from a conversation that I had yesterday with the promoter of this excellent Bill, which we all hope will be passed, that he believes that travel agents are covered, but, as I said, I have received advice stating that that is a grey area, so it would be useful to clarify it. Adding travel agents would clarify the position and ensure that any unscrupulous owners of travel agencies would not be able to force their staff to open on Sundays.
      I understand that the position regarding estate agents is clear, as they are not currently included in the definition of "shop worker". Like any group of workers in shops, they need the protection that the Bill would afford them in Scotland. On visiting any high street on a Sunday, one will find that many estate agents are open. On Sunday mornings, my family and I go to church in Leighton Buzzard in my constituency. A number of estate agents are located next to the church; they are open on Sunday mornings and people go into their premises. The right of those estate agents to open would certainly continue and people would certainly have the right to go into an estate agency and pursue their business there, as well as to look at houses if they choose to do so. However, the amendment would give those who work in estate agencies a right allowing them not to be forced to work on a Sunday.
      I think that such a measure would take matters forward. Essentially, the Bill amends very slightly the Employment Rights Act 1996. I think that this is an opportunity for workers in Scotland to take the situation forward and perhaps improve matters there to a position slightly better than that in England and Wales. A general point can be made about that: why should Scotland come up only to the level of protection that exists in England and Wales? All that the Bill does is amend legislation that this House passed in 1996, but

      585
      the world has moved on since then. I imagine that hon. Members felt in 1996 that only people in shops were forced to work on Sundays, as general commercial and industrial activity did not take place on that day.
      My worry about the Bill in general, and the reason for tabling the amendment, is that times have changed and that pressure is applied to more and more workers in all sectors of the economy to work on Sundays. We need to recognise that, and the measure gives us an opportunity to make progress on the matter in Scotland. I hope that, in due course, we could extend the additional rights for Scottish workers to those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am therefore pleased to move the amendment.
      David Cairns: I pay tribute to the campaigning activity of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). We have held many discussions on the subject and he believes passionately that, in our busy modern world, space must be carved out for families, for the sake of the children, and that, if necessary, statute must enable families to spend time together as the pressures of commercialisation crowd in. He knows that I have enormous sympathy with that view. He has attempted to raise the matter in almost every measure that has come supported before the House. Indeed, his attempt to do that in the Local Government Bill, which applies to England and Wales and is now in another place. His track record is well established and the amendment reflects his sincerely held belief. It was tabled with the intention of improving the Bill, widening its scope and bringing more people into its ambit. I do not cavil about the intention.
      However, I have some reservations, which I shall explain so that the hon. Gentleman understands why I hope that he will not press the amendment. First, the Bill's underlying principle is harmonisation of the law in Scotland with that in England and Wales. Such a law also applies in Northern Ireland, albeit through a separate legislative route. The consultation took place and responses were made on that basis we may hear more about that when we discuss the next group of amendments. I presented the measure on Second Reading on that basis, and it was consequently not amended in Committee.
      Throughout the Bill's passage, there was general agreement that we were trying to harmonise legislation. In Committee, I quoted the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who said on Second Reading that
      "one of the reasons why the Bill has an excellent chance of succeeding is that it is a classic private Member's Bill—it is modest in scope, identifies a real problem and sets out in a succinct and uncontroversial way to solve that problem".—[Official Report, 7 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 572.]
      The shadow Leader of the House acknowledged that the Bill, with its modest scope, succinct nature and lack of controversy was the right way in which to proceed. On that basis, it has not encountered any difficulties so far.
      If we breached the principle of harmonisation, we would run into difficulties with those who have given the Bill a fair wind hitherto. Although the amendment
      586
      would be a good cause in which to breach the principle, I urge the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire not to take that route.
      I do not want to put words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth, but he may believe that current legislation in England and Wales is not entirely adequate and that it does not achieve what we hoped and what was intended when the Sunday Trading Act 1994 was passed. He may be right. I have spoken to employers and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and there is some disquiet about the way in which the law functions in England and Wales. Perhaps we should deal with that. The Department of Trade and Industry is conducting a review of employment rights and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could input some of his reservations. However, I do not believe that we can tackle the matter by amending the Bill. Once the measure has been passed, perhaps we could go back to the trade unions together and remind them that the Employment Rights Act 1996 is applicable and that they should ensure that all workers in the sector are aware of their rights. Perhaps that has been forgotten. I would be happy to join the him in such an endeavour.
      9.45 am
      Secondly, there is some dispute about the necessity for the amendment. When I spoke to the hon. Gentleman yesterday about the 1996 Act, I was clear that it covered travel agents, who are in the retail sector. I was not sure about estate agents, who appear to operate in a grey area between the retail and service sectors. Estate agents do not sell houses; people sell each other houses. Estate agents provide a service in the middle. In my constituency, places that resemble estate agents do not even provide such a service; they are simply mortgage brokers' premises. Mortgage brokers also work from shops. Would the amendment cover them if we begin to specify too much?
      After my conversation with the hon. Gentleman, which he recalled earlier, I checked again with the Department of Trade and Industry. It is the Department's understanding that the 1996 Act covers estate agents and travel agents. That has never been challenged, although he may claim that that would not happen because it contains no specific safeguards for those individuals. He may be right but no attempt has been made to prove that current legislation does not apply to estate agents.
      Thirdly, if the amendment were accepted, it could inadvertently create problems for England and Wales. If the law in Scotland specifically mentions estate agents arid travel agents, unscrupulous owners of estate agents and travel agencies in England and Wales could claim that the law did not cover them because we had explicitly included them in the law that applied to Scotland. Although it is generally understood that estate agents and travel agents are currently covered in England and Wales, the amendment, by explicitly mentioning them, could inadvertently create a problem. Someone could mount a legal challenge on the basis that the inclusion of estate agents and travel agents is merely implicit in the law that applies to England and Wales.
      For those reasons—the general principle and the implications of the amendment—I regret that I am not in a position to accept it, although it is well intentioned. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I confirm the interpretation of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) in his response to amendment No. 3. There is no obvious reason why existing definitions do not cover estate agents and travel agents. They could therefore opt out of Sunday working if they chose. The protections have been in place in England and Wales for seven years and we are aware of no challenge. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) will take my hon. Friend's advice and withdraw the amendment.
      Andrew Selous: I am especially grateful for the Under-Secretary's remarks. If there were any doubt about the law, I hope that her words from the Dispatch Box will clarify matters. Owners of estate agents and travel agencies will be clear that they are covered by legislation in England and Wales and that that will soon apply in Scotland.
      I shall not press the amendment. I told the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) that I would prefer to secure some advance in protecting workers' rights to a shared day off with their families to build sustainable relationships. It is important to have some advance, although, as I said earlier, many groups of workers are not covered. The House may recall that I mentioned on Second Reading the case of a worker who lost his job in January this year, because he was unwilling to work regularly on a Sunday. That shows that the issue is real.
      I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde for his kind words and I graciously accept his offer to examine the matter again together once we have secured the safe passage of the Bill. He will agree that the world has moved on considerably in the seven years since 1996. If the Minister can provide more information about the Government's intentions on the broader issues of Sunday trading, I would be interested to hear it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 2

      TRANSITORY, TRANSITIONAL AND SAVING PROVISIONS
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 7, at end insert—
      '( ) No Statutory Instrument shall be made under this section for three months after the Act has been passed.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 10 [Clause 3], at end insert—
      '( ) No Statutory Instrument shall be made under this section until a further Regulatory Impact Assessment has been undertaken.'.
      Mrs. Lait: Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on introducing the Bill. I assure him that we have no desire to stop it passing into law and we hope that it has an equally easy passage in the other place. Some
      588
      important issues arising from Second Reading, Committee—and, indeed, from the consultation—need to be teased out further, and they are embodied in the amendments that we have tabled.
      One of our main concerns—it is not a criticism of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde—was that the regulatory impact assessment came out later than usual. Some Scottish organisations made the point that, if the Government are committed to better regulation, a late regulatory impact assessment is unhelpful. When the time is compressed, it is difficult to secure responses in time for the Committee stage. We felt that it would help businesses to have more time to examine the issues more closely.
      Our amendments are focused on creating more time for employers to examine their practices and assess the impact of the changes. That applies particularly to amendment No. 5 on transitional arrangements, whereby no statutory instrument would be tabled until
      "three months after the Act has been passed".
      We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but it would be helpful to bracket statutory instruments with commencement of the Act—the main point of our amendments.
      Employers need more time to consider the impacts, which can be many and various. For example, employers in rural areas might find it much more difficult to replace people who decide that they no longer want to work on a Sunday. We are all aware that small shops are the lifeblood of many villages—thank goodness for all of us, they open on a Sunday. Suddenly, their core worker—for all sorts of good reasons that we all support—decides to spend Sunday with their family. It can be extremely difficult in rural areas to find someone else to replace that key worker. Once replaced, the new worker will require training.
      Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is at the heart of the debate. She has spoken about the tremendous usefulness to all communities, and particularly small rural ones, of having shops open on a Sunday. However, does she agree that none of us has an inherent right to goods or services on a Sunday for the sake of it? I am delighted that people are able to receive goods, services and leisure services on a Sunday if they want to avail themselves of them, and that people are able to provide those services if they choose to do so for pleasure or to earn more income. However, it is important to establish the principle that, when we avail ourselves of any goods or services on a Sunday, we should do so only if the suppliers are willing. No one has an inherent right to demand them at the cost of other people's lives and family relationships on a Sunday.
      Mrs. Lait: I Have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. We are all well aware of his concern that people should not be obliged—in any way, shape or form—to work on a Sunday. We are all agreed on that: it is the principle of the Bill. I am merely teasing out some of the practicalities. I wish to reassure my hon. Friend that I have no intention of insisting that people work on Sundays. Rather, I am trying to help employers

      589
      find replacements for people who decide not to work on a Sunday. It is crucial that that is by agreement between willing employers and willing workers.
      Mrs. McGuire: What does the hon. Lady believe would help employers to find alternative staff for Sunday working? Is it a matter of time, or some other factor?
      Mrs. Lait: I apologise to the Minister if I have not made it clear that the key point for us is time. That is why we tabled the amendment to prevent statutory instruments from being introduced until three months after commencement. If the Minister will concede that point, I will be happy to move on to other issues. We look forward to hearing from her, and hope that she will offer good news for employers. As I said, the difficulties are particularly acute for employers in rural areas, and that matter should be part of any further study if the regulatory impact assessment is rewritten, or part of any further consultation with employers.
      I should like to deal with the broad reason why we believe that the regulatory impact assessment should be in one shape or form, though I am not saying that it should necessarily be a rewrite of the consultation or the draft regulatory impact assessment sent out at the time of the consultation. There should, however, be further consultation on the impact on employers.
      The responses to the initial consultation revealed concerns, not so much from the Scottish CBI, the Institute of Directors or the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, but from organisations representing smaller businesses, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Retail Consortium. For example, the Federation of Small Businesses was concerned that a balance needed to be struck
      "between effective protection for workers and placing unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses in Scotland".
      It believed that the proposals would place an unnecessary burden on businesses.
      David Cairns: I am interested in the hon. Lady's case. However, the legislation has been in force in England and Wales for seven years, so, unlike most regulatory impact assessments, it is not theoretical. Before drafting the Bill, I had discussions with the Federation of Small Businesses, which expressed no concerns about the application of the legislation in England and Wales. The Federation of Small Businesses may have some concerns in Scotland, where the legislation does not currently apply, but the Federation of Small Businesses in England and Wales is effectively saying that those concerns have, in practice, proved groundless.
      10 am
      Mrs. Lait: I am delighted to hear that the FSB in England and Wales believes that the measure will not have a significant impact on Scottish businesses, but the Scottish FSB has said that it believes that there could be an impact on business. The Government's own impact assessment set out the number of employees who are employed by small retail businesses with fewer than five
      590
      employees. Most of us, on both sides of the House, know from our constituents the general level of concern that exists among small businesses with fewer than 50 employees—although in the present context we are talking about businesses with fewer than five employees—about the impact of extra regulation on those businesses. It is the employer, of course, who sits down in those useful two hours between 2 am and 4 am to deal with all the regulation—the form-filling, the response to consultations and so on—that imposes such a burden on employers and distracts them from running their businesses.
      Mrs. McGuire: Can the hon. Lady tell us what additional form-filling will be entailed when a member of staff of a small business elects not to work on a Sunday?
      Mrs. Lait: I was referring to the impact of all the regulations, not necessarily form-filling, in this case as a response to Government. It is up to the employer whether to change the rostering or whether it is necessary to employ somebody else to cover the Sunday. The measure should not have any impact on the outgoings in terms of salary, but it could well have an impact in terms of claiming national insurance and claiming tax credit for a new employee—all the implications of hiring a new employee or re-rostering.
      It is the sheer practicality of running a business that the measure will affect. It is so easy, when one is in Government, to say, "It will take only five minutes of somebody's time to do whatever the measure entails," but the five minutes add up. The CBI recently estimated that since 1997 the total impact of all the Government's new regulatory measures is costing the economy £20 billion a year—a sum that would buy an awful lot of schools, hospitals, teachers and all the better services that we all want. Meanwhile, businesses are paying less in tax, because they have to pay it out in a different way as a result of the costs of regulation.
      That is one of the Opposition's concerns. Another is the cumulative effect. The regulatory impact assessment is a good idea, but it tends not to take into account the cumulative effect of all the various regulations. We need to examine closely the impact of the measure on businesses. I have cited a few of the potential problems that could arise when employees are given the choice whether to work on a Sunday or not.
      I alluded earlier to the effect on small businesses of national insurance contributions, pension contributions and tax credits. Many of the employees in question may earn no more than the national minimum wage. One of the topics discussed briefly in Committee was the impact of the measure on people's pensions and national insurance. The Minister undertook to write to members of the Committee if she thought that there would be any impact on pensions. I have not seen any letter from her, but when I was thinking about the regulatory burden, one aspect that intrigued me was what would happen to part-time workers who decided, for all the right reasons, that they did not want to work on a Sunday. The employer is under no obligation to make up those hours for the purposes of contributions.
      Many workers are on the cusp of paying national insurance. As everybody knows, national insurance kicks in at the rate of the personal tax allowance. A

      591
      worker may work, say, between 16 and 24 hours a week, on the national minimum wage. The current national minimum wage is £4.20 an hour. People are eligible for national insurance contributions if they earn £77 a week.
      According to my dodgy arithmetic, a person would have to work only 18 hours a week to be eligible for imputed national insurance payments, and 22 hours before they started paying national insurance. If they decided that they did not want to work on a Sunday, they would suddenly fall below national insurance contribution level, which would mean that they had a gap in their employment record. As we learned in the past few days, the Inland Revenue has forborne for the past five years from alerting people to that problem. Regardless of that, there is still the problem in principle of people having a broken national insurance contribution record. If they cannot make up those contributions in the future, their state pension is affected.
      I think that I am right in saying that not only would that person's basic state pension be affected, but they would not be eligible for the state second pension, and companies with fewer than five employees have no obligation to offer a stakeholder pension. So we are speaking about a fair number of people on the cusp of having their pensions affected by the proposed change.
      As I have said all along, I have no intention of pressing the matter to a Division, but we need to work through such examples much more closely in this place or in another place, or as we suggest, in a further regulatory impact assessment or further consultation.
      Jim Sheridan: I welcome the hon. Lady and her party's conversion to the introduction of a national minimum wage. May I remind her that both the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI objected and actively campaigned against the introduction of a minimum wage?
      Mrs. Lait: The hon. Gentleman may well remember that we said some time ago that we supported the national minimum wage, provided it was at a reasonable level. I am working through the existing situation so that hon. Members realise that there is a potential problem for the sort of people who we are all concerned should continue to work and be rewarded for it, and in their retirement should have access to a proper state pension. Without getting too technical, we all know that with the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit, their income will be made up anyway, but most people would prefer to feel that they had earned their state pension, rather than having it imputed to them. The change would cause them concern, and we need to make sure that they are aware of it.
      Andrew Selous: The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) used the word "conversion" and my hon. Friend has also talked about conversion in relation to our party. Does she agree that, sadly, there seems to have been something of a conversion on the Labour Benches? Back in 1994, the Labour shadow Home Secretary was very much in favour of people not having to work on Sundays, but when I proposed a small and simple amendment to the Local Government Bill to prevent council employees
      592
      from being forced to work on a Saturday or a Sunday, it was robustly attacked by Ministers and not taken up. On this issue, the Government seem, sadly, to have undergone a conversion in the wrong direction.
      Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend would probably agree that a fair number of conversions on all sorts of subjects are taking place on the Government Benches, but, tempted as I am, we will not go into those, as I suspect that the Chair might become a touch twitched.
      I have covered pensions exhaustively, but the effect of the measure on tax credits is a related problem. It will be no news to anyone in the Chamber that the introduction of tax credits has been less than smooth. I have received complaints from constituents who cannot get through on the phone and who have not yet been paid.
      Mr. Peter Duncan: It is chaos.
      Mrs. Lait: As my hon. Friend says, the system is in chaos. Without going into detail about those current practical difficulties, there will be problems for people who decide not to work on a Sunday and cannot make up those hours, or for people whose income is reduced as, although they could make up the hours, they are not paid as much, because Sunday working may involve special deals, with double pay or time and a half. We should not, of course, interfere in their decisions, and I have no difficulty about that, but the employer could still be left with form-filling changes and the employee might have to reclaim tax credit and fill in the forms again.
      I am sure that in the best of all possible worlds, which we all want to see, the chaos would merely be temporary, but those of us who listen to our constituents in our surgeries week after week know that the problems are not temporary—they tend to turn up regularly.
      Mrs. McGuire indicated dissent.
      Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady may shake her head, but I have been a Member of Parliament for 10 years, representing two very different areas, and I can assure her that the same problems turn up week after week after week, because one or other state organisation cannot cope. For example, without reverting much to the subject of pensions, I heard this week from a constituent who has been trying to get her basic state pension for at least a year. She has received letters saying "We don't know your national insurance number" even though the number was printed at the top of the page, which leads one to reflect that the Inland Revenue's "temporary" problem with tax credits may not be solved in the short term.
      There is a fluctuating situation as regards tax credits and there are implications for the measure.
      Mr. Frank Roy: Did any of the constituents who visited the hon. Lady's surgery tell

      593
      her that they did not really want the tax credits and that they were a bad idea? If they did not, why did she vote against tax credits?
      Mrs. Lait rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need to explore that route further. Let us go back to the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait).
      Mrs. Lait: I am happy to take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I hope that you will agree that the general issue of tax credits is relevant to the amendment, as well as to the regulatory burden and the need for further exploration of the implications of what may seem a simple change.
      10.15 am
      As we are not all instant experts on these subjects, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde will be able to reassure us that he will take those points into account. They could affect not only employers, but also organisations such as USDAW. They, too, may want to be consulted further on the implications of the proposals. I am sure that anybody involved in wealth creation will be extremely concerned about the direction that we are, unfortunately, taking. With the lack of competitiveness of our businesses, we are all reliant on the retail industry. Despite the point made, rightly, by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that people should not have to work on a Sunday unless they volunteer to do so, nobody would want further burdens to be placed on businesses, either in rural areas or in town or city centres, whose existence may be marginal.
      The extra burdens produced by the change could precipitate a proprietor's desire to retire early and, suddenly, a crucial shop could close and we all know how much that can affect communities, wherever they are. Things could spiral down to a vision of dereliction and deprivation that none of us wants to see. As a law-making body, we should be wary of taking action that could drive businesses into closing down, with proprietors deciding to give up the game as it is no longer worth carrying on.
      The Government have put huge layers of regulation on to businesses. The implication even of the few issues that I have raised is that further regulatory burdens will be laid on businesses. I hope that the Minister will indicate not only that there will be time for the transition arrangements to be worked through, but that the issues that I raised will be teased out so that everybody is aware of the implications and can adjust in plenty of time, if they need to do so.
      David Cairns: I am in a slightly invidious position. Although I am steering the Bill through the House, the effect of the amendment would be to call on the Government to do various things, so I must await the response of my hon. Friend the Minister.
      The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) suggested that she did not wish to press the amendment to a Division, but is using the classic probing
      594
      amendment technique that I have come to know and love during the passage of the Bill. While remaining in order at all times, she showed remarkable ingenuity in covering such contemporary issues as national insurance contributions and pensions. I was wondering how she could get the euro, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) and whether Celtic or Rangers would win the premier league into her speech. I look forward to hearing whether the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) is backing Celtic or Rangers for the title—[Interruption.] He must answer.
      The narrow effect of amendment No. 5 would simply be to delay the commencement of the Act by one month, which does not seem to present a huge problem. If the Government are happy to give that assurance, I should be happy to agree to the proposal.
      With regard to the amendment proposing a further regulatory impact assessment, there is a slight irony in the position of Opposition Members; they want to spare businesses from form-filling and from having to respond to yet more Government initiatives by sending businesses even more forms to complete and consulting them yet again. It may take only five or 10 minutes but, as the hon. Lady said, those minutes add up. It is a peculiar wish to want to spare people from something by giving them more of it to do.
      The hon. Lady's points were well made, and I understood them. However, this legislation has one key element: the fact that it actually exists. It has been working since the passage of what became the Sunday Trading Act 1994. These proposals are not just theoretical. When we are thinking of introducing a new piece of legislation and are not sure of its effects, of course regulatory impact assessments are crucial. One makes assumptions, which may or may not be shown to be accurate, so it is necessary to probe the limits. But this legislation exists: it is up and running.
      The hon. Lady posited the hypothetical example of a person who, having worked for 22 hours a week, drops to 17 hours a week and falls below the national insurance threshold. She is concerned about how that will affect that person's pension. Presumably, that happens day in, day out in England and Wales. I should not have thought that it was as widespread as the hon. Lady implied, but it must be happening and it does not appear to be presenting insuperable problems for those individuals. At the end of the day, it is an individual choice. We are telling people, "You have the right not to work on a Sunday but there will be consequences to that right."
      Mrs. Lait: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the current problem has arisen because the Inland Revenue decided not to—as opposed to forgot to—write to people who had fallen into that position, to ask whether they wanted to top up their contributions. These things do not happen in isolation. Obviously, as it now appears that the Inland Revenue had decided not to write, it does not care too much. I suspect that most people do not realise. I am concerned about any increase in the number of people who will not have access to a full state pension.
      David Cairns: I do not wish to break the relatively convivial and non-partisan nature of today's debate, but

      595
      I could remind the hon. Lady of the decision taken by the previous Government to change the rules of the state earnings-related pension scheme, and not tell people who were going to lose out very badly that they had changed the rules on inherited SERPS—an extremely costly blunder, which the Labour Government had to make up. We did not go back to people who lost out arid say, "I'm afraid you will have to make it up." We inherited that disaster and we made it good. The hon. Lady must acknowledge that the Conservative party does not have an unblemished track record on changing rules and not communicating with people about the change.
      It would be out of order to discuss what did or did not go wrong, and whether it was planned, in terms of informing people about their national insurance breaks. My simple point is that a further regulatory impact assessment will not alter the situation one jot. It will make no difference to those people. That is the situation for everyone who is affected in this regard, whether or not they work in the retail sector, or are local government employees, or whatever. That matter must be dealt with separately. It does not impinge to such a degree as to render a further regulatory impact assessment necessary.
      I am not, as the hon. Lady suggested, an expert on all these matters and in every field. The draft regulatory impact assessment, of which I have a copy, which she has seen and which has been widely available, is extensive. It makes a range of assumptions, which are quite prudent, and contains a range of cost options. However, we can base the assessment on the practical reality of the legislation as it has been operating in England and Wales for several years.
      Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman said that the legislation was up and running and working in England and Wales. I wonder whether he would share with the House his more general thoughts as to the real effect and impact of the legislation in England and Wales. As far as I am aware, only one tribunal case in England and Wales has cited the 1994 Act since its provisions came in, in 1996. My worry is that the reality for most shop workers is that they are scared of losing their jobs and of the hassle of going to a tribunal and everything that is entailed in that process. They are scared of taking up their rights, particularly because, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, the norm in the retail trade is to have variable five-out-of-seven-day flexible contracts, which do not guarantee that any of the two days off will happen to fall on a Sunday. What are his thoughts on the effectiveness of the current legislation?
      David Cairns: I thought that I had partly addressed that issue in the previous short debate. The hon. Gentleman may have a point; I have not sought to deny that. When I said that the legislation was up and working, I was referring to the narrow point that the hon. Member for Beckenham made.
      On the general principle, when I spoke to USDAW, the union that represents most of the people that the hon. Gentleman mentions, its officials did not say, "There is no point in replicating this legislation across the border. It does not work and there has only been one tribunal case." They said, "This is exactly what we want." Obviously, when a case reaches a tribunal, the
      596
      process has gone beyond the stage where it can be settled amicably between the employer and employee directly. Perhaps—the hon. Gentleman does not know this any more than I do—many of these issues have been settled at a lower level and the fact that there has been only one tribunal case is not an indication that the legislation is ineffective. It may be, and perhaps we need to look at that, but I would not say that it automatically follows that it is ineffective.
      Malcolm Bruce: I agree that there may be a case for reviewing whether the lack of tribunal cases is an indication that the legislation is not working, but the fact is that because of the 1994 Act, many of the major employers have almost divided their work force and they specifically recruit some people for weekend work and other people for weekday work, so the issue does not arise for many individual employees. The choice is made when they are recruited. That would not have happened if that legislation had not come into effect.
      David Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that valid point.
      Although the hon. Member for Beckenham was right to table the amendments to probe the legislation, focusing on small shops with five or fewer employees, the majority of people who work in this sector on a Sunday work for larger businesses—businesses that have bases and operations in England and Wales. It would not be an enormous administrative burden for them to extend the practice, with one qualification, given their understanding of how things work in England as opposed to Scotland.
      The difference is that in Scotland, Tesco in Greenock can, and does, open 24 hours on a Sunday, whereas Tesco in England and Wales, because of the 1994 Act, opens for only six hours. That was one of the issues on which there was consultation. One issue that must be taken into consideration as part of the regulatory impact is that shops that open 24 hours on a Sunday must find more staff than those that open for only six. There is a clear difference there. When we were discussing the draft of the Bill and considering regulatory impact and consultation, I bore that point very much in mind. That is self-evident.
      The consultation went out to businesses, including the large companies, and as far as I am aware—the Minister may correct me—they did not make that argument in their response. I do not think that Tesco said, "We cannot apply the law in Scotland because we have a 24-hour operation as opposed to six hours in England and Wales." Tesco appears confident that it could make the provisions work in Scotland, should the House be pleased to grant the Bill a Third Reading. Such businesses do not appear to think that it will be an insuperable problem.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Peter Duncan: Surely the point is that, by its very nature, business is flexible and all businesses will adapt to new circumstances as they arise. The amendment would allow more time for them to arise. The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) suggested that

      597
      staff were recruited purely for weekend and Sunday working, so surely time needs to be given to recruit staff who want to work then.
      David Cairns: I accept that. The hon. Gentleman is actually saying that, because of the Government's outstanding success in lowering unemployment and because we have more people in work today than ever before, the economy—which is under the excellent stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—is growing at a faster rate than that of any other G7 country. However, there may be a relative shortage of available labour, so I take the hon. Gentleman's praise of the Government's economic policy in the spirit in which he offered it. [Interruption.] He may be naively optimistic in thinking that the policies that are emanating from the Conservative Benches would address that situation.
      We have a three-month window of opportunity before the proposals kick in, so I simply do not believe that shops cannot adjust to them and find the necessary labour. It may be that, when people realise that they have such a right, they will take it up, but I suspect that the vast majority will not. They certainly have not in England and Wales, so Tesco in Greenock will not suddenly have to recruit 1,000 people—would that they did. The hon. Gentleman is right to probe the issue, but I do not think that it will present the obstacle that he suggests.
      Jim Sheridan: Does my hon. Friend agree that both Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have concentrated only on the effect that the Bill could have on business, without mentioning the benefits to the workers? Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the rationale behind the Bill is to protect workers and stop discrimination and exploitation in Scotland?
      David Cairns: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was attempting not to goad Opposition Front Benchers into rash action, and I am pleased with their assurances hitherto. Although my hon. Friend will of course continue to make his case, I will not use his phraseology, other than to say that, in welcoming the Bill, all parties—it has received backing from all parties—acknowledge that the freedom to shop on a Sunday should go hand in hand with the freedom not to work on a Sunday for those who are employed in this sector. Those words were used by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the consideration of the Sunday Trading Act 1994. They are as true today as they were then, and they are as true in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. I accept the assurances that these are probing amendments, and I look forward to hearing the wise words of my hon. Friend he Minister.
      Mr. Mark FrancoisI rise to make one brief point. I assure the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) that I listened carefully to his argument. He was at pains to point out his belief that the Bill will predominantly apply to large businesses in Scotland. I assure him that I am mindful of that point, but I want to make a related point about the impact of regulation—the specific subject of the amendment.
      589
      In the two years since I was elected to the House, I have become increasingly aware of its tendency to place greater legislative burdens on business. The Bill is arguably regulatory. We parliamentarians sometimes make the mistake of assuming that whatever regulations we pass will affect only relatively large businesses with the resources, time and people to understand their implications and administer them across their businesses and for all their employees.
      We must remember that much of the business base in the United Kingdom, including Scotland, is made up of small and medium-sized businesses. Some of them are run by owner-managers, and they do not always have sufficient resources to deal with an increasing tide of regulation. They do not have personnel departments to administer all this stuff. In effect, they are the personnel department, as well as the finance department, the credit control department, the marketing department and the management department.
      I am mindful of what the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said, but as Members of Parliament, when we pass measures, we should avoid a mindset that thinks automatically of large businesses with personnel departments that can cope. Our mindset should include medium and small businesses, including owner-managers, for whom every measure passed by the House represents one more thing that they have to deal with.
      Mr. Peter Duncan: My hon. Friend has not yet visited my constituency—I greatly look forward to such a visit—but when he does, he will learn that 95 per cent. of all enterprises in my constituency equate to fewer than two employees. That shows the scale of the problem that we are talking about. The enterprise balance is heavily skewed towards those who employ only family or one other member of staff.
      Mr. Francois: I thank my hon. Friend for that point, and I sincerely hope to visit his constituency at some point. He reiterates effectively a point that I am seeking to make because I have seen the creeping tide of extra burdens on business in many areas.
      I understand the issue that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde wishes to address. I think that he will find from the debate that the Opposition are not necessarily antithetical to his view, but I feel that this is one of those occasions when one should stand up for the small business man and ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to remember that, when they discuss something that has an impact on business, the practical reality often boils down to someone who runs a business sitting in their study late at night, burning the midnight oil, trying to deal with the impact of what we have come up with. We as parliamentarians should bear that in mind more often, particularly as a number of hon. Members have no experience of running businesses before being elected; I did.
      Jim Sheridan: Listening to the hon. Gentleman is like taking a trip down nostalgia lane because I heard the same arguments used during the introduction of the national minimum wage, when it was said that it would have a disastrous effect on small businesses. It is time that Opposition Members took a leap in the dark and started thinking outside the box.
      Mr. Francois: I understand that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the national minimum wage; he has

      598
      reflected that in his comments this morning. He knows that Conservative party policy on the minimum wage has changed, but I caution him that a classical argument about the minimum wage concerns its effect during a recession as well as when the economy is doing well. Fortunately, the UK economy is not in recession, although the economy is not doing as well in Scotland as in the rest of the UK. The real test of the minimum wage is what happens when the economy is in recession, when its impact may bite more heavily at the margin. I do not want to see the United Kingdom in recession any more than any other Member, but in such economic conditions, the minimum wage tends to bite the hardest, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that counterpoint.
      Before the hon. Gentleman leads me too far down that alley, I should like to summarise my remarks by pleading with hon. Members on both sides to remember that, when we pass legislation that affects employees and employers, many employers, who create wealth for the benefit of the economy, have to deal with the stuff and that many of them do not have a big personnel department to cope with our bright ideas. It is incumbent on all of us as parliamentarians to have that in the forefront of our minds before we pass legislation.
      Mrs. McGuire: I will continue in this atmosphere of consensus. I must admit that I had to pinch myself, however, when the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) was creating an image of the ruination of rural and urban communities because of what her right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has accepted is an excellent little Bill going through the House this morning. I congratulate her on her ingenuity in managing to bring just about everything into her contribution.
      I also want to reassure the hon. Member for Raleigh—
      Mr. Francois: Rayleigh.
      Mrs. McGuire: I apologise. One of these days, I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to spell Milngavie. I reassure him that the Bill is intended to deal with a lacuna in a piece of legislation that was passed and whipped as Government business in 1996, under the Government whom I assume he would have supported had he been a Member at the time.
      I want to deal on behalf of the Government with one or two issues that were raised today. Amendment No. 5 seeks an assurance that no statutory instrument shall be made under clause 2 for three months after the Act has been passed. We recommend that the amendment be resisted. We welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Beckenham that it is a probing amendment, and, by convention, we would not normally commence within two months of Royal Assent anyway. I am happy, however, to give an undertaking that the provision will not be used in Scotland within the three-month period, which I hope addresses the point that she highlighted.
      I reassure the hon. Member for Beckenham that employers, whether urban or rural, will receive at least three months' notice of opting out of working on a Sunday if an employee wants to take that route. Taken with my commitment that we will not enact this Bill until at least three months after Royal Assent, I hope that that reassures her.
      600
      I want to echo some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on pensions and the knock-on effect on tax credits and other aspects of an individual's income. If somebody elects not to work on a Sunday, it is a personal decision. There will be implications for individuals as a result of taking that decision that will not come about only as a consequence of this legislation. That is something that anyone who decides to alter their working hours will have to factor in. It was appropriate that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) made the point that, nowadays, many employers adjust their recruitment practices to take account of the way in which people want to work. Although I know that some in this House would not want anyone to work on a Sunday—or at least would reduce the options for working on a Sunday, which is a legitimate positionfor many people, working on a Sunday fulfils their needs in terms of family or other commitments. I hope that the hon. Member for Beckenham will accept that any decision must be made with a personal responsibility for the implications.
      Andrew Selous: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady's remarks were directed to me; she looked at me as she spoke, so they may have been. To clarify my position, at no point have I said that I do not want people to work on a Sunday. The point that I have made consistently throughout this Bill and others is that many workers who are not covered by this Bill choose not to work on a Sunday. I could mention Mr. Copsey, who lost his job in January in Norfolk because he did not want to work on a Sunday. He had worked for the same employer for 14 years and was a model employee but was told that he had to work regularly on a Sunday and lost his job. I want the House to consider such people. When the Minister responds, will she say whether the Government think that we should consider the matter more generally to take account of people such as Mr. Copsey?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:
      Order. The hon. Gentleman must master the art of the short intervention.
      10.45 am
      Mrs. McGuire: I am sorry if, by looking at the hon. Gentleman—quite fondly, as I know that he is a real hon. Gentleman—I gave the impression that he wanted to be over-restrictive. As a result of consultation with some organisations in Scotland, we know that some would prefer that nothing happened at all on a Sunday. I hope that he will not feel embarrassed if I decide not to look at him again for the rest of my contribution, in case he intervenes. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde have a community of interests, and I leave it to them to determine how they want to pursue that. As the House will know, however, the Department of Trade and Industry is consulting on Christmas trading, and I am sure that that will provide opportunities if hon. Members wish to take advantage of them.
      On the regulatory impact assessment, like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, I am perplexed that the hon. Member for Beckenham spent so much time talking about regulations and red tape for businesses. She is asking for something that would tie up

      601
      businesses, even if only for the 10 or 15 minutes that it would take to answer an impact assessment. I reassure the House that the RIA was published on 7 February, and the closing date for comments was 14 March. An assurance was given to the House on Second Reading that any comments as a result of the RIA would be made available in time for Committee, which they were. There was no comment that the RIA was not adequate or that it did not cover all the relevant issues. Only one organisation raised concerns about the lateness of the RIA—the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. We are not aware of any other organisations that raised that issue.
      To confirm the point, the RIA is no longer a draft: it was published on 7 February and is in the House of Commons Library. It was not based on the situation in England and Wales but on the impact in Scotland. It contains the best estimates for business and the impact on business in Scotland. Of the businesses in the sector affected, 97 per cent. are defined as small businesses, as the hon. Lady said. They employ only 12 per cent. of the 264,000 employees working in the sector, however, which is approximately 30,000 workers. The cost for small businesses in total range between £212,000 and £797,000. We have given a generous spread of estimates, which is the equivalent of between £11.03 and £41.48 per enterprise, not per employee. The costs for the employer are predominantly transferable.
      As I am sure that the hon. Member for Beckenham will be aware, there is absolutely no obligation on employers to make alternative arrangements for hours and so on to accommodate a worker who decides not to work on a Sunday. Only one of the 139 responses raised regulatory burden as an issue. The only additional paperwork—I congratulate the hon. Lady on making rather a lot of this point—will be the initial changes to rotas and shifts, which are probably the stuff of organising a small business.
      On those grounds, we ask that the amendments be resisted. We do not think that a further RIA before commencement of the legislation would serve any purpose because more accurate estimates would still be difficult to produce. Clearly, however, in such a piece of legislation, we must estimate. It is not clear, and the hon. Lady has not made it clear, to what use a further RIA could be put after the Bill has been passed. With those few comments, I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde not to accept the amendments.
      Mr. Peter Duncan: It gives me pleasure to wind up for the Opposition in our short debate on amendments Nos. 5 and 7. I welcome the pleasure with which the Minister greeted the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Bedfordshire—
      Andrew Selous: South-West Bedfordshire.
      Mr. Duncan: I apologise. My thoughts automatically go to the north-west of anywhere. The Minister obviously recognises my hon. Friend as an honourable man and deserving of kind glances across the Chamber. I am beginning to get slightly offended that those glances always evade me, particularly as they were also
      602
      cast in the direction of my colleague when he diverted attention away from the Minister's mobile phone in Committee.
      Although I did not have an opportunity to say this earlier, I appreciate my hon. Friend's campaigning work on this issue. He speaks for a good constituency, not just geographically but in terms of interest groups throughout the United Kingdom. The issue is of great concern to many of my constituents, as it is to everyone in the Chamber and beyond. He speaks well for them, and long may he continue to do so.
      The amendments seek to amend what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) described as
      "a classic private Member's Bill".—[Official Report, 7 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 572.]
      I note that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) has recovered from that compliment. He has steered the Bill courageously through its early stages in the House.
      The Bill deals with what are essentially twin freedoms. The first is the freedom to shop on a Sunday; but it has to be right that the Bill confers also the freedom not to work on a Sunday if one does not wish to.
      These issues are important for the Scots economy. We have an important and thriving retail sector, and part of the reason for our tabling amendment No. 5, which would delay the implementation of the Bill, is that we recognise the importance of that sector. The Scots retail sector has had a dramatic effect in driving the Scots economy, which has been all but stagnant for the past 18 months. How much worse matters would be without a thriving retail sector that includes not only conventional businesses such as Marks and Spencer in Braehead but the sale of football tickets in retail outlets across Scotland and the retail exchange of sterling and the common European currency. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must have known that I would mention that somewhere in my speech.
      Amendment No. 5 on the transitional arrangements is important because we appreciate the importance of the retail sector and the seriousness with which representative organisations have responded to the consultation. We endeavoured to respond to their views in the amendment.
      The aim of the Bill is to equalise rights across the UK, and no one can quibble with that aim as far as it goes. However, the Bill will self-evidently add to burdens. I accept that those burdens are faced by businesses in England and Wales, and Scottish business can expect to have to meet them over time. But they are burdens none the less and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said, we do not take lightly the prospect of adding burdens to business, small or large. We will never do that lightly in considering legislation, whether we agree with it or not.
      The retail sector is particularly dependent on very small enterprises. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred at some length to Tesco in Greenock, an outlet with which I am all too familiar. In fact, my wife's credit card is all too familiar with it, too. A wide spread of businesses will be affected by the Bill,

      603
      and Tesco at Greenock is at the top of that list. However, there are many small enterprises in Greenock and throughout Scotland that employ very few people.
      David Cairns: Such businesses are not open for 24 hours a day. My point was not about the size of an operation, but about the length of opening its hours. Tesco in Greenock opens for 24 hours, but the small businesses do not.
      Mr. Duncan: I take that point entirely. I simply observe that the hon. Gentleman focused many of his remarks on Tesco and that there is nothing to say that small enterprises could not open for 24 hours. A couple of petrol stations in my constituency—in Galloway and Upper Nithsdale that represents quite a large proportion—open for 24 hours, and they are small businesses. The point about 24-hour opening does not apply only to large businesses.
      A wide range of businesses will be affected by the Bill, and amendment No. 5 seeks to focus attention on how the most vulnerable of them will be affected. The issue is about the dissemination of information to small and medium-sized enterprises. That will require guidance notes to be issued, and owners of such businesses are already swamped with red tape, guidance notes and advice from Government agencies. The Bill will add to that general trend.
      There is a twin requirement as regards the passing on of information. First, the Government will have to send guidance notes to businesses in Scotland. Secondly, businesses will be required to pass on to their employees information about their entitlements. All that has implications for administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh pointed out, people often have to deal with such things in their studies late at night as they deal with their incoming and outgoing mail. That added administrative burden is not an issue that we take lightly.
      I am grateful that the Minister recognised that we are simply asking for time for businesses to adjust, to realise their new obligations and to make allowances for that. Sunday working places a burden on family businesses, and Sunday is traditionally the day for family gatherings. In passing, it is fair to point out that that is not necessarily the case for people of other religions, but I would not want to tempt you to call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by discussing issues that are outwith the amendments. However, it is worth pointing out, in fairness to the other religions, that the Bill does nothing to address the desire of those of other faiths who wish to exercise similar rights, in due course, on Fridays, Saturdays or other days. Although the Bill will make good law, it does not address all the problems of all faiths in the multicultural Scotland that we welcome.
      Working on Sundays can place a burden on families, but businesses of all sizes often roster ahead for Sunday working. Businesses recognise that Sunday is the family day and, as a result, more attention is often paid over a longer period to rostering for Sundays. That is why we suggest that we should have more time to implement these provisions.
      In previous debates, I have told the Minister of my experience in small business in the retail sector. In a small chain of retail branches, we rostered a long way in
      604
      advance for Sundays, because we recognised that working on Sunday was an imposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous knows, Sunday opening represents an imposition on people's family day and perhaps their religious beliefs—although, sadly, it seems from yesterday's figures from the Church of Scotland that the number of people who hold such beliefs is declining. In my work, we rostered ahead, because we recognised the imposition. In fact, Sundays in December, which have a particular focus in terms of family demands, were actually rostered year to year.
      The picture that I am painting shows that, whereas it is difficult to envisage that businesses will be hugely affected by the Bill, many of them will be affected to a significant degree. We want to recognise that fact by giving them slightly longer to adjust. Part of the reason for insisting on the extra time is the way in which the Government have enforced other regulations. I am afraid their track record on implementing regulations has left businesses poorly prepared.
      11 am
      Let me give an example of the sort of situation that we want to avoid. As the Minister knows, over the past six months, the Government have decided to regulate the sale and distribution of paraffin much more tightly. A business in my constituency that sells paraffin first received news of the new regulations with its VAT notes in the third week of February. The regulations were to be introduced as of I April but there was no guarantee that applications to register to distribute paraffin could be approved in time if they were received after 20 February. Although regulations are easy to introduce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh pointed out, due cognisance is sometimes not taken of possible problems with their implementation. The Government's sad track record shows that they have implemented regulations that do not take account of the administrative difficulties faced by the smallest of businesses.
      The amendment is also a response to concerns raised by those who were consulted on the Bill. The Scottish Retail Consortium in particular summed up the reasons behind the amendment when it said:
      "Smaller retailers may have different issues concerning the implementation of this regulation, so issues surrounding the transitional arrangements may need to be clarified. Transitional arrangements is an area that needs to be clarified. How long would employers have to write to employees notifying of them of their new rights? What guidance would employers, particularly small businesses receive on the new legislation? It is often difficult to communicate changes to regulation/legislation to employers, especially in the SME sector, so assistance in this regard would be beneficial."
      The Government all too often introduce new regulations without giving businesses sufficient time to implement them. The response by the Federation of Small Businesses concentrates on the effect of the Bill on smaller businesses. It says that the regulatory impact assessment
      "suggests that 'employers within these sectors will be able to adjust staffing levels in a number of ways i.e. by re-allocating duties, by increasing the number of hours worked by part-time workers, by adjusting rotas etc.
      We are concerned that this may not reflect reality for the smallest businesses, with only I or 2 employees"—

      605
      the very businesses to which I referred when I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh. The FSB continues:
      "To say that 'scope must exist' to identify new employees willing to undertake Sunday working does not take account of those areas where there may be a shortage of suitable employees, for example, in rural and remote areas. In this respect, we believe that the impact of these proposals upon small businesses may have been understated, particularly in terms of time lost to the employer."
      That is why we believe that more time is required for implementation and although the Minister will not accept the amendment, I welcome her undertaking to abide by our three-month suggestion.
      The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) pointed out that some workers are recruited to work on Sundays, and it is certainly my experience that there are people who want to work on Sundays. That desire might be payment induced: the income earned in four or five hours on a Sunday afternoon is equivalent to that earned for several more hours' work during the week. Alternatively, the desire might be connected to lifestyle. One developing source of labour is made up of students who have to work to pay their tuition fees and who may only be available for work at weekends. That requires businesses to adjust their rosters and recruit new people, and the extra time offered by the Minister will be welcomed in that respect.
      I shall reinforce my point in relation to remote areas. If businesses such as the garage in my constituency were faced with a person who did not want to work on a Sunday, finding a replacement for the opting-out employee might well take a considerable time.
      Amendment No. 5 reflects the concerns expressed by businesses during the consultation. The Scottish economy, and the retail economy in particular, is dependent on the smallest of businesses, so we should give them more time to adapt.
      I turn to amendment No. 7 and the Minister's comments on the regulatory impact assessment.
      David Cairns: That is not easy to say.
      Mr. Duncan: It will be easier for me to call it the RIA, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde suggests.
      The RIA was released before the end of the consultation, as was noted by one of the respondents. It is arguable that it was not published early enough to inform the consultation, yet not published late enough to be informed by the responses to the consultation—perhaps one or the other would have been more helpful. I understand that timings had to be moved owing to the deliberations of committees, but the timing of publication was still unfortunate.
      The RIA is deficient in several respects. For example, the word "rural" does not appear in it, and that is a surprising omission. That factor should have been taken into account, not least because it was cited in several responses to the consultation. The publication of another RIA would benefit the process.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said that the RIA examines the incremental effect of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh
      606
      said that the measures represent only one small step, but it is another small step that must be taken. Estimates of compliance costs taken from the RIA—before netting off the effects of reducing unfair dismissals—range from £34.59 to £129.80 per enterprise. I should point out that those are the costs before net benefits are taken into account because I see that the Minister does not have a fond look on her face—she always gives a fond look to my hon. Friends but not to me.
      Although the costs are small, they are further costs above and beyond the increasing number of costs, such as those incurred for processing data protection forms every month. Although registration costs only £35, all the costs are incremental and must be paid by real people running real businesses and struggling to manage their bank balance at the end of the week. The Federation of Small Businesses suggested that a balance should be struck between providing increased freedom and a genuine level playing field throughout the UK, and imposing administrative burdens on businesses of all sizes.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham made a well-disciplined point—and kept well withinorder—on the tax credit chaos and the marginal effect on pension and national insurance liability for those who opt out of Sunday working. She has a long-held interest in the matter and knows much more about it than me. The current tax credit chaos has meant that 160 of my constituents have contacted my office in the last couple of days because their tax credits have not been paid. We need to examine the Bill in the context of a system that requires reform.
      Mr. Francois: My hon. Friend makes, or rather reiterates, a valid point. These days, Government Departments regularly use computer systems and call centres to assess benefits. The software used is often bad at coping with anomalous situations. Anything that is slightly unusual and does not conform to the established norm throws the system. However worthy the anomaly, Departments may be thrown by it in calculating benefits such as tax credits. The Child Support Agency's attempts to calculate overtime also come to mind. That is just one example—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:
      Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a second speech.
      Mr. Duncan: I saw the look you were giving my hon. Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was certainly not the same as the look given by the Minister.
      My hon. Friend makes a good point. People will not opt out in huge numbers. Those people at the margin, who hold beliefs like those of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire, who prize their family time at weekends are most likely to opt out—and who are we to argue with that? There will be an effect at the margin for those people who work full-time on Sunday and a few hours one day mid-week. If they opt out of working on Sunday, there is no obligation on the employer to offer them another day, but if they are able to work instead on, say, Tuesday and Friday that may have an effect on their national insurance and pension entitlement. Given the Government's record on

      607
      advising people of the need to top up their national insurance contributions, we are concerned about the problems that that might cause. We do not think that they will have a cataclysmic effect on the British national insurance system, but as the benefit system gets more complex, the changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh mentioned will have an effect.
      I want to flag up one issue to the Minister. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said that marginal tax, pensions and national insurance issues will be dealt with separately. I do not know how or when that will be done. Perhaps he has received a guarantee or undertaking from the Government.
      David Cairns: None, other than the guarantees that were given in the Chamber that people will be written to later in the year. However, the problem of national insurance is not germane to the Bill because it affects people who work in every sector.
      Mr. Duncan: I accept that. The way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his comments made me think that he may have received a particular undertaking from the Government. I know that he has strong links with people in high places. I thought that perhaps he had more to tell us.
      We tabled amendment No. 7 because we thought that the regulatory impact assessment was deficient and did not do enough to address the issues that affect remote rural areas. We also thought that the timing could be better. The RIA was not early enough to inform the consultation nor was it late enough to be informed by that consultation, so we thought it reasonable to table the amendment. I accept that the Minister will not give way on that and we will not push the amendment to a Division. However, perhaps the Scotland Office could consider it in future legislation.
      We will not press amendment No. 5 to a Division either. We accept the Minister's word that she will hold true to a three-month period before the measure is implemented. That will give our smallest and most vulnerable businesses that bit longer to adjust. The measure is not groundbreaking. For many businesses, it will not be a matter of life or death, but for some it will have a critical impact. Those businesses that it will affect need time to adjust.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      11.14 am
      David Cairns: Given that it has been an interesting and illuminating debate, and given the general consensus that the Bill achieved on Second Reading and in Committee, I do not propose to dwell too long on Third Reading.
      It has been the most enormous privilege to promote the Bill and to have steered it thus far. When I visited the United States last year with colleagues, we met the newly elected members of Congress. One of the ways in which they refer to themselves is as lawmakers, which is also what the press and the body politic call them. Perhaps we do not think of ourselves in that way. We certainly do not use that term when we describe ourselves. As a
      608
      proud Back-Bench Member of a party that has formed an outstanding Government, the opportunity to initiate legislation is curtailed. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) is one of my friends in high places, but I welcome his support.
      To play the role of a lawmaker in this small but important regard is the most enormous privilege any Member of Parliament can have. I am extremely grateful for the support of colleagues in every department of the House, including Members and the Clerks office. It has been invaluable. I shall refrain from making further reference to Celtic and Rangers. I believe that I have thrown the valiant souls in the Official Report into utter confusion because they do not appear to know what I am talking about.
      Essentially, the Bill is simple. It extends the scope of legislation that was first enacted in 1994, consolidated in 1996 and applied to England and Wales. A separate legislative route was taken to apply similar measures in Northern Ireland. It was a quirk of history that the measures were not extended to Scotland in 1994, although as I have said throughout my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) predicted that we would have to do that at some stage. Unfortunately, his wise words were not heeded at the time, which is why we are debating the Bill today.
      Should someone who works in the retail sector not wish to work on a Sunday, they should not be discriminated against for making that choice. They should certainly not lose their job for making that choice, which happened in one case last year. I have not laboured that point, and the company's name has not been mentioned today, because I am clear in my mind that the Bill's purpose is not to punish a particular company, however unwisely it may have acted. Instead, the Bill is about extending legal protection to all employees throughout the UK so that everyone enjoys similar levels of protection. Whether those levels of protection are brilliant or whether the law is being enforced as the lawmakers intended back in 1994 when they framed the legislation are relevant considerations, but they are for another day. The purpose of today's debate is to ensure that everyone starts from the same basis and the same level playing field.
      I am pleased to inform the House that should it grant the Bill a Third Reading, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld has undertaken to steer it through another place. His experience, coupled with that of business and trade unions in that place, will ensure that its measures are probed, as the Opposition rightly did today to flesh out some of the issues that will arise.
      Andrew Selous: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he clarify one matter that I am not clear about? There have been many references to the fact that there is no obligation on an employer to offer hours other than those on a Sunday. Am I correct in thinking that if an employee starts a full-time, five-day-a-week job with a commitment to work Monday to Friday, and his employer later wanted to change that to include working on Sundays, the employee could effectively be

      609
      forced to take a 20 per cent. pay cut if he refused the change, even though he had started out believing that he would have to work only Monday to Friday?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:
      Order. That was far too long an intervention. If the hon. Gentleman wants to catch my eye later and develop an argument, that will be the appropriate time to do so.
      David Cairns: As a non-lawyer, I will take refuge in the traditional lawyer's answer, which is that it would depend on the contract. The initial contract signed by the employee would say whether the employer had the flexibility to extend that person's hours. Ordinary employment legislation and the tribunals that implement it—as opposed to those that consider unfair dismissals—continue to apply, irrespective of whether we are talking about Sunday working.
      The Minister made the case very well. If people choose not to work on a Sunday when that might be a reasonable option for them, they may have to pay a price. We cannot say that everybody will get consistent legal protection at absolutely no cost to them. There will be a cost, and people will have to make a judgment as to whether they want to pay it. Of course, the best way for employers to get people to work on a Sunday is to make it worth their while—to use pay to induce them to do so.
      During the passage of the Sunday Working Bill amendments were tabled that would have imposed a statutory obligation on employers to offer time and a half for Sunday working. The amendments were not accepted because it was thought that such decisions were best left to individual businesses. We are not attempting to revisit that argument now. The case posited by the hon. Gentleman would really depend on the employee's contract, but I am not denying that some people may have to accept a reduction in their wages if they opt not to work on Sundays.
      I repeat that it is fundamentally wrong that employees in Greenwich enjoy rights that those in Greenock do not. The Bill seeks to redress that wrong.
      Mr. Roy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill, which is important to many Scottish workers. Does he share my disappointment that the Scottish National party, which says that it speaks for Scotland, has not turned up for Scotland today, to help to protect those workers? This is a time when many SNP Members' ex-colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will be signing on and looking for a job, perhaps in a shop—or as a part-time worker, like their Westminster friends.
      David Cairns: If I see Lloyd Quinan stacking shelves in Tesco, I will pass on my hon. Friend's best wishes to him. I once said that if there were a working MPs tax credit, SNP Members, with their rates of attending and speaking in the House, would not reach the qualifying threshold.
      It is fundamentally wrong that employees in Wigan enjoy rights that employees in Wishaw do not. The Bill will redress that wrong, and I commend it to the House.
      11.24 am
      Mrs. Lait: I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on his masterly handling of the Bill, and I wish it all success in the other place. It is unusual to find someone for whom we have changed the law to allow him to become a Member of this place rapidly thereafter managing to create his own law, and we congratulate him on that.
      We welcome the Bill's intentions, but now that we are extending the protection of the law to employees in Scotland who may work on Sundays, I am waiting for English workers to ask whether they can work 24 hours, like those in Scotland, because we will have to have another private Member's Bill to accommodate that. In my part of the world there is significant demand for shopping on Sunday outside of the six hours that is currently allowed, and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), I am sure that people will have that choice.
      I congratulate everyone who has taken part in the proceedings on the Bill. I was about to make exactly the same point as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). On Second Reading, the only contribution from the SNP was a suggestion that the Bill become a European matter, which was really relevant to the proceedings—about as relevant as the party is becoming, as we can see since the Scottish Parliament elections of a couple of weeks ago.
      I congratulate and thank my hon. Friends the Members for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and for South-West Bedfordshire, who took part in the Committee proceedings. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger), who unfortunately is not here today because he is on constituency business, also did a sterling job in Committee. I thank all hon. Members from other parties who contributed to those brief proceedings and those who have spoken today to make sure that the Bill is properly scrutinised.
      Both in Committee and on Report we have raised points that are worthy of further consideration. I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale in thanking the Minister for accepting our argument about transition. It is important that there is sufficient time for everybody to adjust; that was argued by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the Bill's promoter accepted the force of that argument. We are grateful to everyone who has, in the course of the debates, improved the Bill, even if there have been no amendments.
      The interesting point that has emerged, particularly during today's discussions, is that there is a fundamental need for the Government to consider regulatory impact assessments. I entirely accept the argument of the promoter and the Minister that our amendment would have put greater burdens on employers. As Members are well aware, the amendment was purely a device to debate the subject. Although all legislation has an accompanying regulatory impact assessment, there is no reference—this may be an oversight—to the cumulative effect of such regulation as each assessment is made.

      611
      The Minister referred to the wide-ranging costs identified by this particular assessment. We can all cite the cost of other measures. During the proceedings on the Pensions Bill, we found that the cost of offering a stakeholder pension was £5 per employee. That is in addition to the cost to which my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale alluded. There is no assessment of the incremental effect of regulation that we pass in the House on so many occasions.
      If nothing else results from the proceedings, I hope that the Minister, whose Government say that they are committed to better regulation, will pass on to the Better Regulation Task Force the message that there is a need to keep a running total of the costs posed to business by extra regulation. At the margin, those costs can make a huge difference. The Bill probably operates at the margin, in regulatory terms, and I was grateful to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde for indicating how he thought the issues that we had raised would be dealt with. We hope that that will be so when the impact of national insurance changes on pensions and tax credits is considered more widely. We must make it clear that the Bill will have a marginal impact on regulation and will not have a huge impact on business, except at the margins.
      I welcome the fact that employees in Scotland will have the same rights as those in England and Wales not to work on a Sunday. I believe absolutely that anyone who wishes to opt out should do so. I entirely accept the point made by the hon. Member for Moray—
      Malcolm Bruce: Gordon.
      Mrs. Lait: My sincere apologies. How could I possibly accuse a long-standing member of the Liberal Democrats of being a Scottish nationalist. I apologise abjectly. I entirely accept the point, made by the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, about people's lifestyle decision to work on Sundays if they wish.
      The Conservatives welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde. We look forward to his continuing contribution in the House, and we wish the Bill a speedy, if thoroughly debated, passage through the other place.
      11.31 am
      Malcolm Bruce: I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) both on bringing forward the Bill and on gaining support for it across the House. It clearly was necessary; as I said on Second Reading, constituents of mine were directly affected by the lack of the protection that it provides. They will be grateful to him for bringing the law into line.
      I suspect that this debate is part of a process of steps. There is, though it is not central to the Bill, an anomaly, so far as the rights of people to shop are concerned, between the law, as it applies in Scotland, where it is more liberal, and as it applies in England. The Bill equalises the rights of employees to decide not to work on Sunday, and to accept the consequences, while their employers must accept their right to decide, but that anomaly may well be revisited in a different way.
      612
      We have heard arguments, which may need further investigation, about how effective legislation is. In my view—not just a hunch, but formed on the basis of discussion with major, though not smaller, employers—employers have said that they can have two separate work forces and that that is how the law applies. That reduces the circumstances in which anyone can take a case to tribunal because the contracts are, as the hon. Gentleman said, entirely separate.
      The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) used his personal experience usefully to highlight the fact that there may be problems of adjustment for some smaller businesses. I hope that he will none the less accept that if the law is about the rights of employees, it should apply to smaller businesses. Often, smaller businesses are the worst employers of all, because people employ themselves and their families, who voluntarily negotiate less favourable working circumstances than anyone would impose on a third party. That is the whole tradition of working all hours, and family businesses are about people working extremely hard for their own benefit. I certainly would not wish that to be prevented in any way, and the law should not intrude too much in that area.
      The Bill, extremely usefully, clarifies and extends the law to create parity. I commend the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde not just for bringing the Bill forward, but for the dignified way in which he has done it and for his recognition that it must be confined to bringing the law into line. If he had stepped beyond that, he might have opened up a can of worms, and it would have been more difficult to obtain unanimity. We shall probably have to return to some of the issues that have been aired, but he was absolutely right to confine the Bill to what it does. In so doing, he has, I think, guaranteed its passage through this House and the other place.
      11.35 am
      Mr. Boris Johnson: I add my pebble to the great mound of congratulations that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) has already had for a sensible measure that brings Scotland's law into line with provision already in force in England and Wales. He told us that he is pleased that he is about to become a lawmaker, and I congratulate him on joining the tradition of great lawmakers such as Hammurabi, Solon and Moses, who made laws on this very subject. That is the single point that I wish to stress: since the dawn of time, this subject has been a fit subject for law.
      One of the Bill's attractions, by the hon. Gentleman's own admission, is that it will not make much difference. It will not bite very hard on businesses or employees in Scotland, and that may be may be a good thing. In so far as it does make a difference, however, it will make a good difference, providing an important psychological condition. It will help to fix it in people's minds that there is indeed something special about our division of the week into seven days, and something special about Sundays. That hebdomadal structure, dividing into four the 28 days of the lunar calendar and allocating one day to be special, is an ancient thing, probably pre-dating the Hebrews, probably going back to the Sumerians. It was not only the Hebrews who had special days; every civilisation has always decided, by law, that some days should be special.

      613
      The House will be familiar with the introduction to Plato's "Republic", in which Glaucon and, I think, Socrates decide whether to go to Piraeus to take part in the pan-Athenaic procession, which was a regular festival, like the many that took place in ancient Athens that were times when the common people did not have to work and were protected by law from working. They could not be coerced into working in ancient Athens on those days, and those days were fixed in law.
      The House will also be familiar with the fasti of ancient Rome, the days that were kept holy. Now, the fasti were controversial. Cicero, a good conservative, did not like any monkeying around with the fasti. Important businessmen and powerful lawyers in ancient Rome sometimes wanted to transact business on the fasti, and it was important to decide whether business could, or could not, take place on the fasti. There was a sort of "Keep Fasti Special" campaign in those days.
      My point is that, since the dawn of human civilisation, some days, usually on some hebdomadal rhythm of the kind that we have in our Christian culture, have been reserved for holiday and have been kept special. The vital thing is that protections have been enforced by law. Since the dawn of time, those protections have not simply been cultural, but have been enforced by law and by politicians. In a way, Sunday, and the hebdomadal system, sanctify a human necessity. It is not just a question of devotion. In our culture we acknowledge that there must be at least one day when everybody can knock off and, above all, when our fellow wage slaves are not driven by someone else to try to get one over us on that day. Since the dawn of time, the importance of such measures have been commonly acknowledged as protecting people from abuse and oppression and preventing coercion.
      I was interested to hear the case adumbrated by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). It was wrong and shameful of Mr. Copsey's company to make him accept a contract that forced him to work a seven-day week. It is right that we as legislators should extend the protection that Mr. Copsey enjoys in England and Wales to the people of Scotland, and I am glad that the latter-day Hammurabi who has introduced this Bill has chosen to do so. I listened with great attention to the speeches of my hon. Friends, and marvelled at the tour d'horizon from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), who dealt dutifully with all the potential pitfalls of the legislation. I also admired the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I share their concern that we must guard against the danger of excessive legislation, and I speak as a Member of party that is successfully opposing a Government who are barnacling the British economy day after day with more and more legislation and regulation. We have slipped in the competitiveness league from ninth to 16th and, according to the CBI, £1.5 billion-worth of extra regulation has been heaped on this country since 1997. The micro-economic measures that the Government have introduced will not serve this country well when the economy starts to experience a downturn.
      614
      It is right that we should draw attention to those risks now, and I salute my hon. Friends for doing so. Their amendments, of course, were probing amendments, and I am satisfied with the explanation from the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde of the way in which the Bill will apply. As he said, employers will continue to have the right not to hire someone who says that they do not want to work on Sundays—that essential freedom will be protected. As the Minister said, people who decline to work on Sundays must expect a lower pay packet. I may be traducing her, but I believe that that was the gist of what she said.
      Andrew Selous: Suitably admonished by you earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall make my intervention as brief as possible. For the sake of accuracy in the Official Report, Mr. Copsey is not a shop or betting shop worker, so he would not be covered by the Bill if he worked in Scotland. We therefore still need to go further in that area.
      Mr. Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did not mean to imply that Mr. Copsey's case was concluded. He deserves the fullest protection, and let us hope that a future lawgiver, perhaps my hon. Friend himself, will find the means to give him the protection that he deserves.
      No one will be forbidden by the Bill from working on Sunday—that is an elementary point, but it is worth making. We should not forget that some people are only too happy to work on Sunday. We should provide protection for people like Mr. Copsey or fathers who want to stay at home, but many people want to go out and work on Sunday. Indeed, in my experience, many fathers are happy to get away from the house on Sunday and go to the office. The desires of those people are not impeded in any way by the new law.
      In conclusion, I want to reinforce the point that I made at the outset and emphasise the status of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde as a lawgiver and lawmaker. It is an ancient and hallowed custom in all civilisations that some days are preserved as special. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale was prescient in pointing out that in a multicultural society we must acknowledge that other communities and groups will want to preserve other days as special days. Anti-discrimination measures are to be introduced that will oblige us to protect those days too, and I see no harm in that whatsoever. Those things were protected by law in ancient Rome and Babylon, and have been acknowledged since time immemorial. It is right that we, too, should protect them.
      11.45 am
      Angela Watkinson: It is customary to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being called to speak, and I do so. However, I am in the invidious position of following my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), who was as entertaining as ever. You will have heard the term, "After the lord mayor's show", Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my offering will be

      615
      somewhat more prosaic. However, I must say that I had difficulty following my hon. Friend's reference to abdominal systems.
      Mr. Boris Johnson: Hebdomadal systems.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker:
      Order. May I just tell the hon. Lady that her hon. Friend got away with it?
      Angela Watkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      May I add my congratulations to those already given to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on introducing what he described as a small Bill? However, it must be gratifying for him to have introduced a Bill that will have such a happy sendoff to another place, and I am sure that we all share his pleasure. None the less, it with some regret that I support the Bill—as a Conservative I am a supporter of small or arms-length government, low regulation and minimal interference in people's lives. It is a great pity that the Bill will create more regulation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said, but it is necessary to deal with the anomaly or loophole highlighted by the dismissal at Argos of 11 employees. It is therefore necessary to regularise the law on Sunday working in Scotland and bring it into line with the rest of the country.
      The problem particularly affects the capacity of sole traders and small businesses, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who has experience of running a small business. Having to absorb yet another regulation will fall more heavily on the shoulders of such employers, but having agreed that it is necessary, we must move forward. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce has said that a voluntary arrangement has been working perfectly well for a long time, and regretted the need for a new law. It said:
      "Scottish businesses have seen no evidence to suggest that there is indeed an issue requiring action".
      There is therefore resistance from the body, which said that it would like
      "greater explanation… as to why it is felt necessary at this time to pursue this additional bureaucratic burden."
      However, having established that the measure is necessary, we must press on and look at the freedoms of businesses that we must protect, including their right to trade on a Sunday if they wish. There is enormous demand for a range of businesses to open on a Sunday. The matter of other religions has also been raised. Sunday is not a special day for other groups, including Muslims, Jews and people of many other faiths.
      There is also the right of shoppers to be able to shop on a Sunday. For some people, Sunday is the only day that is available to them to get to shops or other trading places because they work during the rest of the week. However, we must protect the freedoms and rights of workers, and that is what the Bill is about. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, problems arise when an employer wants to change the terms and conditions of an employee's existing contract, or the employee, for various reasons, wishes to withdraw his or her availability on a Sunday. The necessary arrangements need to be regularised for the benefit of both parties.
      616
      Others have spoken about a trip down nostalgia lane. I hope that I shall be forgiven for a small trip down that lane, in saying how different Sundays are today from the Sundays that I remember as a child. I remember dreading Sundays because they were so quiet and boring. To me, nothing seemed to happen. The highlight of the day was to be allowed to go to Sunday school in the afternoon. During the rest of the day I was expected to play quietly indoors and not be a nuisance or cause any disturbance.
      Sundays are very different now. The world outside is bustling almost as much as it is on every other day of the week.
      Andrew Selous: I am a little worried by one phrase that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) have used, and that is "the right to shop". I think that people should have the opportunity, not the right. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the philosophical difference between the two?
      Angela Watkinson: My own friend raises a tricky point.
      Andrew Selous: That is shopping on a Sunday.
      Angela Watkinson: Yes.
      I think that it should be voluntary on both sides. I would not like to see anyone coerced into working on a Sunday against their will, but, these days, the opportunity to shop on a Sunday is needed because it is often the only day that people have on which to do it. Indeed, it often becomes the family entertainment of the week, because, given that it is the only day when the family can be together, the supermarket trip is used to combine shopping and leisure.
      Lifestyles have changed almost beyond recognition, and not only in terms of working patterns. In most families both parents have to work; Sunday is often the one day of the week when one parent can stay at home to look after the children while the otherwise non-working parent can go out to earn a little extra to boost the family income. We must accommodate changes in lifestyle but at the same time we must protect everyone's interests.
      People taking on a new job need to examine carefully their contract or the terms and conditions being entered into, so that they know without any doubt whether they will be required to work on Sundays. If they are not willing to do so, they can make it clear at that stage. If the employer needs to have people working on a Sunday for the purpose of his business, that also needs to be made clear. The two parties need to be absolutely sure that the terms and conditions will meet the requirements of the other so that future problems are not stored up.
      It is a question of balancing the freedoms and needs of employers and employees while trying to minimise the burden of regulation on businesses, and protecting everybody's interests and ensuring that there is a fair deal for everyone.
      11.54 am
      Mrs. McGuire: I shall wind up the debate on behalf of the Government on this small but important piece of legislation. I advise the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) that they speak of nothing else in the

      617
      streets of Bannockburn but fasti. He is definitely a credit to Eton education. He also saves us buying The Daily Telegraph or The Spectator when he speaks.
      On a more serious note, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) for taking the Bill forward with dogged conviction, drive and determination. He has piloted the Bill in an exemplary way. He has co-operated with colleagues across the Floor, and has made sure that this significant but modest measure will, when it completes all its stages, change for the better the working lives of about 260,000 workers in Scotland in the retail and betting sectors.
      I shall comment on the activities of other hon. Members because we have had a very good response to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) deserves a special mention—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde will not object to that—because he took the case forward initially. If my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde has shown dogged determination, so, too, has my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North.
      I pay a special tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that many of us would have loved to be a fly on the wall when she had a conversation with the people from the company who breached the voluntary guidelines. Certainly she realised quickly that there was an injustice in that Scottish workers who thought that they had some protection under the current voluntary agreement had none. She made sure that the issue was highlighted.
      I know that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) contributed to the consultation early on. I mention also my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald). I am not sure whether you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that 5 per cent. of the population of the Western Isles signed a petition in support of the Bill. That may not seem a significant number because it comes to about 1,500 people, but it is of truly Chartist proportions. If we extrapolate that figure to the United Kingdom as a whole, it would mean that about 3 million people support the Bill. All credit to my hon. Friend.
      The Bill will allow employees in Scotland who wish to opt out of Sunday working, for whatever reason, to do so in the safe and certain knowledge that that will no longer mean losing their jobs. I should have mentioned another Member, but given some of the ribbing that I have taken this morning, I am almost reluctant to mention him. Perhaps the hon. Member for Henley will whisper in the ear of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that I wish sincerely to thank him for the positive contribution that he has made to the debate. Perhaps later we shall have a duet with "Some Enchanted Evening". If the hon. Gentleman works his way through the words, he will find out what that means.
      As we have heard, my hon. Friend's Bill will take its own place alongside Government policies aimed at ensuring fairness and dignity in the workplace. It is fair to say that we have had, on the whole, a very constructive exchange of ideas and information about Sunday working in Scotland and beyond, including the
      618
      likely benefits and impact of the Bill. However, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House exactly where the Government stand on the basic principles of this measure. As I think hon. Members will remember, the issue arose as a result of action taken by one company in Scotland that changed tack and breached the voluntary agreement to require its employees to work either regularly or occasionally on a Sunday, even where individuals had objected. Stores in north-east Scotland were especially affected, and, as I have said before, I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North in bringing the matter to the attention of the House.
      I make no criticism of the management of the company for seeking to arrange cover in its stores on a Sunday in a way that suits the needs of the business. Neither would it be appropriate for me to comment on any commercial considerations relating to its departure from the voluntary agreement that had existed in Scotland and prevailed until last year. However, the issue highlighted a difference between the rights of workers in Scotland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      We have rehearsed the background to the legal position during this debate and in others Upstairs, but it is worth stressing that it was necessary to act because doing nothing would have meant that, as competitive pressures increased, more employers in the Scottish retail sector would have reviewed their Sunday working practices. There was a risk that shop workers and betting shop workers in Scotland would be discriminated against in comparison with their equivalents in England and Wales.
      With those few words, I wish the Bill a fair passage in another place. I am delighted to hear that Lord Hogg will take the Bill through its various stages in the House of Lords. I was parliamentary agent to him when he served with distinction in this House, and I know that the Bill is in safe hands. I wish it well.
      12 noon
      David Cairns: With the leave of the House, I understand that it is the protocol for an hon. Member in my position to say a brief word of summing up and thanks.
      I thank sincerely all hon. Members who came to the Chamber today and made this a well-informed, interesting and good-humoured debate, like those in Committee and on Second Reading. In particular, I thank the Front-Bench contributors, who spoke well and with conviction, and highlighted the need for the Bill.
      I point out to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) simply that I wish to view myself as a lawmaker and not a lawgiver. There is an important theological distinction, which I shall not expand on here, but I do not aspire to become a lawgiver; a lawmaker will do.
      It has been an immense privilege to play a part in putting this measure together. As someone who does not have any children, I suppose that I see my Bill heading off to another place as a parent might see their child heading off to school for the first time. I am sure that it is in very good hands with my noble Friend Lord Hogg.
      I thank hon. Members who have come along today and supported the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been tremendously

      619
      supportive throughout, as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. As I have mentioned at every stage, USDAW has done a first-class job in representing its members and arguing very coherently that its Scottish members should enjoy the same protection as those elsewhere. I am immensely grateful to it.
      For the last time, I hope, I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Aviation (Offences) Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Aviation (Offences) Bill
  Clause 1

    ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT
    12.3 pm
    Mr. Frank Roy: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 9, leave out "or".
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 11, at the end add
    "or
    (c) a provision which prohibits specified behaviour by a person, being behaviour which is likely to endanger an aircraft, or a person in an aircraft,".
    Mr. Roy: I am pleased to bring this Bill back to the House. I gave notice of both amendments in Committee. They seek to close a loophole in the Bill regarding police power in Scotland. Clause 2 amends the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to raise the maximum possible penalty to five years for the specific offence of endangering the safety of an aircraft or a person in an aircraft, thereby allowing a subsequent change to the air navigation order.
    For England, Wales and Northern Ireland, raising the maximum penalty to five years carries the advantage of making the offence automatically arrestable, in accordance with section 24(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the equivalent provision in Northern Ireland. However, as there is no equivalent in Scotland, the offence would not be automatically arrestable in the north.
    In Scotland, a police constable has a common law power of arrest, which must be justified according to the circumstances in a specific case. Although it may be possible to justify arrest for such a serious offence, I have been advised that it would be preferable for legal certainty to create a power of arrest in statute. The amendments achieve that by adding the penalty to the list of offences in clause 1(3), which is to be inserted after section 82(3) of Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The offence would thus become automatically arrestable without a warrant in Scotland.
    The amendments are technical and ensure that the police throughout the United Kingdom have the same enhanced powers to tackle the alleged incidences of disruptive behaviour that are most commonly known as air rage. Members of the Committee and the Under-Secretary were kind enough to say that they supported the amendments in principle. I hope that hon. Members will accept them today.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I support the amendments and I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) on his excellent drafting. Hon. Members will recall my declaration of interests on Second Reading, to which they will be pleased to know that I have nothing to add.
    I sought assistance from the Library in preparing my response to the amendment. I want to record my disappointment that the annotated version of the Anti-

    621
    terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is not yet available. I am sure that that will be rectified as soon as possible.
    The amendments are eminently sensible and, as the hon. Gentleman said, flow from discussions in Committee. He gave us notice of them and we support them.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: We, too, support tightening the measure to ensure that it is effective in Scotland. Of course, we also support the principles of the Bill.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I indicated the Government's support for the amendments in Committee. Clearly, it is important that the police have the same power to deal with serious incidents wherever they happen in the United Kingdom. It would be unfortunate if an offence was tackled less effectively simply because an aircraft had landed in Scotland. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 11, at the end add
    "or"
    (c) a provision which prohibits specified behaviour by a person, being behaviour which is likely to endanger an aircraft, or a person in an aircraft,".—[Mr. Roy.]
    Order for Third Reading read.
    12.7 pm
    Mr. Roy: During the Bill's passage, I have been gratified by the amount of support from hon. Members throughout the United Kingdom. The aviation industry has also given me much support. It recognises the need to tighten the law and that the phenomenon called air rage is a modern-day problem that will unfortunately continue to plague many aircraft passengers who are travelling on business or on holiday.
    I tried to sum up the reasons for the Bill's importance on Second Reading. We have all witnessed incidents in pubs, clubs, streets or restaurants. For many people, the natural reaction is to stand back and get out of the way. That is easy in a taxi queue, restaurant or pub. However, it is totally different in a steel tube that is flying over 30,000 ft at more than 500 mph. The fear factor is vastly increased. There is nowhere to go or to take one's family.
    On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) described how she had witnessed an incident and said how frightening it was for her and her family, simply because of the dangers associated with being on the aircraft. That shows why the Bill is needed: air rage can be traumatic for the victims, so we need to take action against it. Fortunately, serious instances are extremely rare, but even lower-level antisocial behaviour can be unpleasant for passengers. Many passengers have a natural fear of flying and are already nervous, so air rage and disruptive passenger behaviour is the last thing that they need.
    622
    It is important to acknowledge that cabin staff, by virtue of flying so often, are more likely to encounter air rage. The cabin staff unions support the Bill. People trying to earn a living as cabin staff should not have to put up with such behaviour. If they have to put up with it, they need to know that it can be dealt with as quickly as possible. When an aircraft lands, the police should be able to deal with offenders as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, that is not happening now. Cabin staff have told me that they sometimes have to deal with offences in the air, only to find that, when the aircraft lands, the offender can walk away. If police investigations occur much further down the line, the action taken against the offender is often not serious enough. Cabin staff certainly welcome the Bill.
    The police also welcome the Bill. As the law stands, the police can waste vast resources following up the sort of air rage incidents that we have all read about in the newspapers. On Second Reading and in Committee, I mentioned the example of what happened on 13 December last year when a plane load of Celtic football supporters were returning from a European game in Vigo. The day after the game, an incident took place on the plane and the cabin crew were worried that they were losing control. The pilot decided to send out a mayday and divert the plane to Cardiff airport. When the plane landed there, the police took some statements but the men involved were allowed to return to their homes in Scotland and the north of England. The Cardiff police then had to travel the length and breadth of the United Kingdom to take further statements from them. I am sure that the Cardiff police have enough on their plate without having to travel to the north of England and Scotland to take more witness statements about the incident. Three or four people were finally brought to court just a few weeks ago and found guilty. The case illustrates how much police time was wasted and the Bill should stop that happening for ever.
    For the record, I do not want to be unfair to all the Celtic supporters on the flight. I have spoken to many of them, and they have read my remarks. This season alone, Celtic supporters have flown on aircraft to Basel, Lithuania and Stuttgart in Germany. They have even been to Blackburn and Liverpool, and, a few weeks ago, to see Celtic play Boavista. From today, they will form part of the biggest-ever exodus of football supporters from the United Kingdom, when about 50,000 of them travel to the UEFA cup final in Seville next Wednesday and I hope that they will be on their best behaviour. Indeed, I shall be there to monitor their behaviour—if for no other reason—like some of my hon. Friends whose names I shall not mention.
    It has come to my attention that between 8,000 and 10,000 of those supporters will leave from UK airports on Wednesday morning alone to fly to Seville, Faro or Jerez, returning immediately after the game. We need to be aware of the problems that could be caused by such a massive number of people flying from, for example, Glasgow airport at 6 am, being in the centre of Seville during the day, attending the game at night and travelling home at about 4 o'clock the next morning. As

    623
    hon. Members know, Glasgow people are not famous for partaking of tea and coffee when they attend sporting functions abroad—
    David Cairns: Or in Lanarkshire.
    Mr. Roy: Indeed. Many of those fans will take drink during the day and, unfortunately, some of them will be drunk by the time they get back to the airport. Regardless of how their team fares, they will have been out of their beds for 24 hours, they will be tired, they will have had a drink and could be intoxicated when they try to board the plane home. I suspect that when about 10,000 people are going through the doors of the Spanish airport in the space of three hours, they will be herded straight on to planes and returned to Gatwick, Manchester, Newcastle, Belfast or Glasgow. That could cause problems.
    I have constantly raised such problems and will continue to do so. The football authorities must ensure that they keep a grip on things.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Of course, we want to crack down on drunken football hooligans, but how does the hon. Gentleman define "drunk"? I am worried that people who may merely have had a couple of glasses of the in-flight booze could be caught under the terms of the Bill, and that we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
    Mr. Roy: I should have made it clear that the flights will not be selling drink. All the football clubs and the football associations run drink-free flights, which I welcome. There is nothing wrong with people having a drink; I am certainly not anti-drink. I am talking about people who are obviously drunk and who would be incapable of escaping quickly from an aircraft in an emergency. Someone who has been up for 24 hours, who has been drinking and who has been waiting for several hours for a flight that leaves at 3 o'clock in the morning is likely to go into a deep sleep when they get to their seat. If they are intoxicated that can cause problems.
    My fears about these problems began several years ago, when football supporters started going on away-days. Everyone—the clubs, the airport authorities and the travel agencies must ensure that fans are aware that they should act as responsibly as if they were going on holiday with their families or on a business trip.
    Mr. Mark Francois: To pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), we entirely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He used the example of football supporters who are obviously drunk. One could give similar examples in respect of holidaymakers coming home after two weeks away. However, the Bill merely refers to a provision
    "which prohibits a person from being drunk in an aircraft".
    Theoretically, that could apply in all cases, so the definition of "drunk" is important. How, precisely, does the hon. Gentleman intend that word to be defined?
    Mr. Roy: Before I came to this place, when I was a student, I worked in a bar at night, and I used to define
    624
    people as drunk who were not capable of making intelligible conversation or who did not have their faculties about them. If you are a barman and someone who is drunk asks you for a drink, you say, "I am sorry. Quite frankly, you have had enough and you are not going to have any more. It is time to go home." The two situations are comparable, and I want someone at the airport to say, "You cannot board the plane because you do not have your faculties about you."
    Mr. Beith: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is bearing it in mind, particularly in view of the news that we had last night of threats to flights to Kenya, that airport staff, aircrew and fellow passengers will have as their primary concern and anxiety the possibility that someone might have boarded an aircraft or be trying to board an aircraft who poses a security threat to that aircraft. In that situation it is very important that this legislation helps to deter anyone who, out of sheer irresponsibility, distracts cabin staff and has to have a lot of time and attention devoted to dealing with them, when there are serious threats from those who would imperil all the passengers on the aircraft. The legislation is important and valuable.
    Mr. Roy: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he puts that point very straightforwardly. People need to realise that the behavioural patterns of those who travel on aircraft have totally changed and that we expect people to behave in a certain manner nowadays because, unfortunately, we live in changing and dangerous times. I hope that the Bill will signal that we realise that there is a problem and are determined to go some way to tackle that problem, as the airline industry and the police have said.
    I do not want people to think that this is just a football problem; it is not. I highlighted that aspect because of events in recent weeks. The airline industry has told me that it is not only a holiday charter problem, or indeed an economy seat problem, because often the business man or woman in first class has proved thorny—and obnoxious, according to reports that I have had from the airline industry. The Bill is not aimed at just one section of the travelling public; the problem occurs on all types of flights, chartered or scheduled, and in business and economy class.
    To recapitulate, the Bill would introduce automatic powers of arrest for the three most serious existing offences of disruptive behaviour—that is, air rage—on board aircraft: drunkenness, acting in a disruptive manner and endangering the safety of an aircraft. It would also allow an increase in the penalty for the latter offence—obviously the most serious of the three—from two years to five years. These are modest measures but they would undoubtedly make enforcement of the law far more effective. The Bill commands the support of all parts of the industry and, of course, the vast majority of the travelling public.
    I place on the record my thanks to the hon. Members from all parties who have spoken in support of the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and today. I thank the police for their help, and the airline industry—the companies and the trade unions—that helped me to prepare the Bill and gave me fantastic background information.

    625
    This is truly a United Kingdom Bill, and I am grateful to hon. Members from throughout the United Kingdom who have taken part in its scrutiny. I mention the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) and for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire), for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), the hon. Member for the Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who spoke at length and very interestingly on Second Reading, and the other Opposition Members who spoke today. I also mention, from the Scottish constituencies, the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) from the north, for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) from the south, for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) and for Ayr (Sandra Osborne), the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) from the west coast and, from the central belt constituencies, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). I also thank those hon. Members who have supported the Bill today.
    Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and his officials for their help in drafting the Bill. I was on the phone an awful lot, and they answered and got back to me very quickly. They were patient with me when they had told me the same thing two or three times and I asked them to tell me for a fourth time to make sure that I understood.
    The Bill is much needed. We have all been on flights and we all know how traumatic such incidents can be, although many of us have never witnessed them. I am pleased that the Bill has met with universal support, and I look forward to it being passed in the other place.
    12.25 pm
    Mr. Francois: I should like to declare something of a constituency interest in the Bill: Southend airport—a regional airport—is near my constituency. It is in the neighbouring constituency—Rochford and Southend, East—and the boundary is only a few hundred yards from my own, so I am not the MP for Southend airport, but I am what is often called a travel-to-work MP because a number of my constituents travel to work from that facility.
    Of course, as an Essex Member of Parliament, I wish to say that Stansted is in the county of Essex. I have sometimes heard Southend airport lightheartedly referred to as "Essex domestic" and Stansted airport as "Essex international". I simply enter that fact into the record.
    Turning specifically to the Bill, I understand what the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) is attempting to achieve. Overall, the thrust of the Bill is laudable. The events of 9/11, tragic as they were, show us that an aircraft is not merely a mode of transportation any more. In the most extreme circumstances, a passenger aircraft can become a weapon—those people in the twin towers were on the receiving end of that—so this is an important measure.
    626
    The United States has taken airline security so seriously that it now deploys armed sky marshals on a number of its flights to provide protection. There is also some debate in the United States—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman suggests this in the context of the Bill—about whether or not cabin crew should be armed to allow them some defence against anyone who, for whatever reason, seeks to take over an aircraft. A propos all that, it is interesting that a number of pilots in the US are ex-military, and I understand that, funnily enough, they have requested the right to be armed, in ultimate defence of the cockpit. So we need to acknowledge that the Bill touches on a very serious matter. Incidentally, the Israelis have legendary experience in airline security, and I might return to that a little later in my remarks.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned that bad behaviour on an aircraft can be antisocial, and he is quite right. I endorse his point, particularly about those who are nervous about flying. They find the whole experience difficult enough as it is, and they may even face that fear simply getting on an aircraft. Their fear is made worse if people on that aircraft behave in an extremely rowdy manner. Someone who is nervous can be made more anxious, perhaps even before the aircraft has left the runway.
    I am currently serving on the Standing Committee that is considering the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, by means of which the Government are seeking to introduce measures that can curtail antisocial behaviour in a variety of circumstances. In the experience of those of us who are serving on that Committee—I believe that this is germane to the Bill before us—such matters involve some interesting and difficult problems of definition. When using certain terms in legislation, how do we define them, particularly if it might ultimately lead to a prosecution? The way in which we define an offence may be important when the Crown Prosecution Service ultimately attempts to achieve a conviction for it before a court. It is for that reason that I asked the hon. Gentleman in my earlier intervention how he would define "drunk". I assure him that I am not attempting to be obtuse, but if we are to prosecute someone for being drunk, as the Bill implies, it is necessary to define what constitutes drunkenness.
    I take on board entirely the hon. Gentleman's point that if one has had his anecdotal experience of being a barman, one can tell quickly when someone has had one over the eight and ought not to drink any more. I see what he is saying, but in a pub situation a member of staff behind the bar can say, "You're obviously drunk. I'm not going to serve you any more alcohol." If one is trying to prosecute someone for being drunk on an aircraft, however, one will have to prove later in a court of law that that person was drunk. In that circumstance, my question to the promoter of the Bill—as I presume that one would want justice to play its part—is how would it be proven to the satisfaction of the court that the person had been drunk. He could say, "Well, I had had a few, but I wasn't actually drunk." It might then come down to the word of the captain of the aircraft against the word of the defendant. In relation to

    627
    clause 1, therefore, it is important to ask the hon. Gentleman how drunkenness would be defined for the purposes of the proposed legislation.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point, which was raised on Second Reading. An offence already exists in Scots law—I am not sure whether it is in English or Welsh law—of being drunk and incapable in a public place. In that case, the witness statement of the arresting officer is satisfactory to the court, and no measurement has to be taken of the blood alcohol level. I assume that a similar judgment can be made in this case.
    Mr. Francois: That sounds to me to be a relatively practical suggestion. In a sense, I ask the question because I want clarification. The right hon. Gentleman has been of some assistance, and I see that the promoter of the Bill wishes to intervene.
    Mr. Roy: To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I know that the Minister has a written definition of being drunk, and I know that he will say exactly what that definition is when he speaks.
    Mr. Francois: In that case, I certainly look forward to the Minister's summing-up speech.
    Mr. George Osborne: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister could intervene on him on this matter? Clearly, alcohol is liberally available on most commercial flights, and, depending on the definition, we could find that half the passengers were drunk.
    Mr. Francois: I know that my hon. Friend also has an interest in these matters because of the proximity of Manchester airport to his constituency. No doubt he has received correspondence on some of these matters, too. I would be willing to give way to the Minister if he would like to pop up and clarify this point beyond peradventure.
    Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify the point. I must say that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) sometimes looks as if he might be drunk on a couple of wine gums. Clearly, the hon. Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson) have led more sheltered lives than you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the legal context, in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 the words, "while drunk" have been held to mean,
    "while deprived of self-control by intoxicating liquor".
    I hope that that puts the lid on the issue.
    Mr. Francois: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I hope that he understands why I sought to gain it. It would be important in the context of the Bill that people realised that there was a real deterrent. There would not be a deterrent if they felt that they would be likely to get off on a legal technicality when the matter came to court.
    I said earlier that I would speak briefly about the experience of the Israelis in security screening. It is different from what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to
    628
    achieve, but were one to plot such measures on a spectrum, for obvious historical reasons, the way in which El Al deals with some of these issues is absolutely at the furthest end of the spectrum that one could practically contemplate. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to go that far.
    People travelling on an El Al flight are normally required to arrive two to three hours before the flight departs. They then go through a physical search and an exhaustive screening process in which the airline's security officers put passengers into three categories of risk. They will interview them depending on the risk category that they assess the passengers to be in. The people in the highest risk category—they meet certain criteria which experience has shown El Al might make them more likely to attempt to do something to disrupt the flight—will go through an extremely intensive interview that almost borders on interrogation before they are allowed on to the flight. If there is any doubt at all in the minds of the security officers, they will refuse a person the right to get on the plane. Under Israeli law, they have the right to do that.
    I do not think for a moment that the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw is suggesting that the Bill should go that far. Having to triage and interview extensively everyone at terminal 4 at Heathrow on a busy Saturday morning before we allow them to board an aircraft would cause massive disruption. However, it is an example of how far one can go. The hon. Gentleman has come up with sensible compromises in the Bill that would allow for greater confidence for passengers and improve passenger safety without necessarily being over-restrictive
    I commend the hon. Gentleman's efforts on the Bill; it is worthy. We may never know the overall effect of what he seeks to do. It is just possible that, in putting the Bill before the House of Commons, he may, in future, save the lives of people whom he has never met. He may have performed a valuable service. With that final word of congratulation, I shall conclude my remarks.
    12.37 pm
    Mr. Tom Harris: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) on introducing the Bill. I was present at Second Reading, but did not have an opportunity to speak. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to contribute now. My hon. Friend joins a long list of lawgivers from King John and Moses to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns).
    I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw on the experience and knowledge that he brought to his description of the combined effects of alcohol and sleep deprivation on the human body. He obviously spoke with some feeling on the subject and from personal experience.
    The Bill has clearly struck a chord not only in the House but among the wider public. When I worked as a reporter on the Paisley Daily Express between 1988 and 1990, one of my regular duties was to cover the local sheriff court. Almost every day I attended, cases were brought before the court from Glasgow airport, an area over which the court had authority. Day after day, business men and people from all walks of life were

    629
    brought before the sheriff and fined and jailed for some of the most appalling deeds of misbehaviour that one can imagine. That was not bad news for me, because I regularly sold the stories on to the national newspapers and made quite a nice profit.
    "Air rage" is one of the phrases much beloved of tabloid headline writers. It is made up of two very short words that fit into headlines. We seem to be complacent about the issue, but it has a number of causes. I understand and accept my hon. Friend's reluctance on Second Reading to introduce any ban on airlines selling alcohol on board flights. I completely understand the reasons for that. However, the House has to make a stand and make it clear to companies that if passengers who turn up to board a plane are clearly already inebriated and incapable of behaving themselves and of completely controlling their facilities, they should not be allowed to board.
    I can speak from personal experience. The first time I ever flew on a plane I jumped out when it reached 3,000 ft, although that is not entirely relevant to the debate. I can confirm that I was wearing a parachute, and I mention that experience only because I suspect that few people have done it. However, my first experience on a commercial flight was on a journey from Glasgow to London. I was employed as a press officer by the Labour party in Scotland at the time and I had to attend a meeting in London during my first week in the job. On my return journey, I was seated in front of a gentleman and as soon as he entered the plane and sat behind me, I could smell the stink of strong alcohol on his breath. Being a novice of airline flights I said nothing until, at about 30,000 ft, he threw up—mostly on the seat, the back of the seat in front of him and the floor, but a good portion hit me on the shoulder.
    That experience did not put me off flying, but it is ironic to note the response of the British Airways cabin staff. Although they first apologised and offered to clean my shirt and jacket, the compensation that they offered to try to cheer me up and to persuade me not to make a formal complaint was a large bag of miniature bottles of spirits—whisky and vodka. I did accept them, before anyone asks. Airline companies clearly have a failing because I could see that the man was clearly incapable of behaving himself as he walked down the plane corridor, so the staff must have been able to see that as well. We must ask airline companies why they do not prevent such people from boarding planes.
    We have to accept that alcohol will be sold on planes. My wife would never get on a plane without having at least one G and T beforehand because she is not a good flyer. We travel separately, of course, so I do not know whether she has ever been involved in an air rage incident—she probably would not have told me if she had.
    On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) talked about the type of passengers who cause such incidents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw referred to that today. My hon. Friend is right that such people are not only those who pay for economy seats. An incident occurred on a Virgin Atlantic Airways transatlantic flight a few months ago involving the rock star Courtney Love. According to all reports, her behaviour was truly
    630
    appalling. She swore at, and threatened violence against, the staff on the flight. The owner of the airline, Richard Branson, treated the incident as a joke and offered her four free first-class flights on the same route in the hope that the pop star, who is presumably well known by hundreds of people, would continue to use the company. Given his standing as one of the country's leading business men, such complacency and such an irresponsible attitude to his staff is entirely inappropriate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw hit the nail on the head when he explained the differences between such incidents and a drunken fight in a pub in Glasgow or Lanarkshire. One may leave the area in which such a fight is taking place, but being involved in a situation on board a metal tube that is 35,000 ft in the air must be a truly terrifying experience. I have not had to deal with such an experience but I know that many people have.
    The golden rule should be that passengers on any flight must do what they are told. They should not argue with the staff about whether using a mobile phone is safe or not. If passengers are told to switch off mobile phones, not to smoke in the toilets and to sit down when the seatbelt sign is on, they must do it. They should not enter into a debate with the staff on whether that is the most appropriate course of action. If a stewardess tells a passenger to sit down, he must sit down. There should be no question about that. The Bill kicks in if someone argues with the staff—and that is not before time.
    I am disappointed that a matter of such importance to people in my constituency and throughout the country is nevertheless not important enough to persuade members of the Scottish National party to bother to attend on a Friday. That is a disgrace, but it is exactly what we have come to expect from members of that ever-diminishing party.
    12.45 pm
    Malcolm Bruce: I support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). It is a useful measure.
    I spoke on Second Reading and appreciate the fact that the Bill is making progress. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) rightly said, it deals with bad behaviour by people who drink too much and are disorderly. The Bill is not about terrorism and security, but at a time of heightened tension because of the security risks and threat of terrorism, people should understand that any disorderly behaviour that could cause other people alarm or make them feel threatened is a much more serious issue. Such behaviour is antisocial enough in its own right, but it adds another dimension to the problem because it could divert the crew, be frightening and, in some circumstances, lead to an overreaction.
    I am slightly worried about the intrusion into the debate of the rights and wrongs of arming air crew. The idea of bullets flying around a plane does not enhance the prospects of security. That issue has to be addressed in a sensible, measured and practical way. The Bill has the merit of being specifically targeted at the type of

    631
    behaviour that has received a lot of media coverage. Eager young reporters are clearly anxious to get such stories disseminated.
    Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman picks up on something that I said earlier. For the avoidance of any doubt, I want to make it clear that I was not necessarily advocating that course of action. I was simply making the point that it is under active consideration in the United States.
    Malcolm Bruce: I accept that. In many ways, the US has much to do to catch up with airport and airline security.
    Like every other Scottish Member, I have an interest because we fly an awful lot. In addition, Aberdeen airport was in my constituency for 14 years. It is just outside it now, but will be part of it again under boundary commission proposals. People who fly are worried that they might confront disorderly behaviour.
    The Courtney Love incident, which I mentioned on Second Reading, is worth repeating. I am not aware that Richard Branson has apologised or retracted his comments. He has not shown the slightest regret or remorse. Quite the contrary, in fact. He said, "I have made my money out of the pop industry and, frankly, I don't mind how pop singers behave on my airlines." Whether Richard Branson minds or not is not the point; what matters is whether the other passengers mind and feel fear, alarm and concern. To my mind, that shows a proprietor of a business who has a high disregard for the vast majority of his fare-paying customers. He offers the privilege to misbehave to a few celebrities. That is an appalling example and I should like Richard Branson, who is happy to take accolades for his supposed business acumen—although not all his businesses are equally successful—to acknowledge that that behaviour was appalling.
    The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) said that rules are there to be obeyed and not argued about. He made it clear that when a plane is in flight, people should do what they are told by the crew and argue about it on the ground later. People must understand that if they are at all out of line, they face arrest or even imprisonment. That might make them realise that the regulations exist for a purpose.
    I recall flying with Balkan Airways shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union. As the plane was coming into land, I was more than a little astonished that people started to stand up, get down their bags and walk down the aisle to the front of the plane—we were still about 2,000 ft up in the air. The crew were remonstrating with them, saying, "Sit down. You shouldn't be moving about." Everyone was anxious to be the first off the plane, however, and they said, "We've had enough of these Communist regulations and we don't have to obey them any more." That demonstrated a lack of understanding that the rules were there for good reason, despite the fact that it was the bad guys who made the rules.
    That illustrates the serious point that the number of incidents has increased in recent years, and the lack of punishment has made people feel that such behaviour is a joke, a bit of fun. Yet there have been incidents in which crew and passengers have been caused serious
    632
    fear and alarm. Regrettably, many of these offences are committed by women—Courtney Love being a case in point—who seem to have the same capacity to imbibe and behave badly as the men. I suppose that that is just a matter of equality, but there is no apparent difference in the likelihood of misbehaviour.
    Reference has been made to the fact that some people like to have a drink or two to calm themselves and to relax because flying is stressful. We must recognise that having a drink or two in that scenario is quite different from getting completely drunk, to the point at which, in the Minister's definition, one cannot control one's behaviour.
    The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw has introduced a timely Bill that deserves the support of the House. I do not know whether it is by design or coincidence that we have a little package of Scottish-led Bills passing through the House today, but in those circumstances it is slightly surprising that the Benches behind me are completely empty. One would have thought that one of those Members could have found the time to be here, but that is a matter for them. Those of us who are here recognise that the Bill is worth while, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to the House.
    12.52 pm
    Mr. Boris Johnson: I, like other Members, rise in full support of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy). It is an excellent measure in so far as it is intended to crack down on louts and people who endanger the lives of others in aeroplanes. We have heard some vivid accounts of people who had clearly drunk too much, were the worse for wear and should not have been on the plane in that condition.
    We are paid to be precise in our use of language, and I want to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) in turning to the question of what constitutes drunkenness, not because I think that it vitiates the Bill, but because the Bill would benefit from some refinement and reflection. The Minister intervened on my hon. Friend and said that he would define drunkenness as being a lack of self-control caused by taking alcohol.
    We have to face the fact, however, that we are proposing to make it an offence for which one can be arrested, without a warrant, to be drunk—that is all on an aeroplane. We have to be very cautious about what we intend by that, because as I understand it, there is no intention to have any system of breathalysers on board aeroplanes, to verify a person's blood-alcohol level, or to demonstrate beyond peradventure that someone is drunk. No one seems to have thought about whether the airline itself will be accessory after the fact to making a person drunk on board a plane. After all, they ply you—not you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; they ply one—with alcohol from the moment of take-off.
    Mr. George Osborne: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point to which the Minister may wish to respond. If an airline or a steward or stewardess are aware that someone is drunk and continue to supply

    633
    that person with alcohol, how will they be affected by the Bill? Will they be guilty, as my hon. Friend suggests, of being an accessory to a crime?
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend amplifies the very point I sought to make. The legal position of the airline that supplies the alcohol to the passenger in flight is not clear.
    We must accept that people have different susceptibility to alcohol, particularly when they have not eaten. It depends on their body size, and all the rest of it. People may, to all intents and purposes, become drunk under the definition in the Bill without drinking before they board the plane.
    I recall a recent long flight to sub-Saharan Africa in the company of various representatives of UNICEF and a senior BBC figure, whom I shall not name.
    Mr. Osborne: Go on.
    Mr. Johnson: No, I shall not. He is a nice, distinguished man, and a passionate smoker, devoted to nicotine. He used to rely on nicotine to get him through the stress of a long flight, but, there being no possibility of smoking on our plane, he was driven to have a few, which calmed him down a great deal and was highly beneficial. I put it to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that one reason why people increasingly seem to be slightly the worse for wear for alcohol on board planes may be that so many flights are completely no-smoking flights. Might the Minister reflect on that, thinking whether, if there is to be a total ban on being drunk on a plane at any time, it may be necessary to consider some compensatory measure to bring back smoking sections on aeroplanes? Many people frankly find it difficult to put up with the rigours of a long flight without the sustenance and reassurance of a smoke. Indeed, one cannot even get peanuts nowadays on aeroplanes, because they have been banned. They will not serve me peanuts at all.
    Mr. Osborne: Really?
    Mr. Johnson: It is because of nut allergies. One cannot smoke, and one is now not to be allowed to be drunk, without there being any definition of drunkenness in the Bill.
    Mr. Osborne: An infringement of our civil liberties!
    Mr. Johnson: I do not mean to say that that is necessarily, as my hon. Friend says from his sedentary position, an infringement of our civil liberties, but it may be. Without adequate definition, and without a more rigorous approach to the language, there is a risk that good people, who are simply trying to calm themselves down aboard an aeroplane, may find themselves caught by the terms of what is otherwise an excellent and well-intentioned measure.
    12.57 pm
    Miss Anne McIntosh: It gives me great pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of Her Majesty's official Opposition. I remind the House of the declaration of
    634
    interests that I made on Second Reading, and I offer my heartfelt congratulations to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) as promoter of the Bill. I commend the extremely hard work that he has put in on the Bill, which is a welcome one.
    We have heard several excellent contributions today and at earlier stages of the Bill's passage. My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) served in Committee, and he would have liked to be here today, had he not had to be in his constituency. The same goes for all my colleagues who spoke on Second Reading, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). I very much enjoyed today's contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson), and the excellent interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne).
    I do not want to intrude on private grief, but we lament the absence of the Scottish National party even as we welcome the humorous contribution made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) and the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce).
    Our official position on air transport is that we want a fair deal for everyone. No passenger should be left behind and no plane held back because of air rage or any other condition. We enthusiastically welcome the Bill's creation of a serious, and potentially dangerous, offence, which needs to be tackled, not least in Scotland, which is why the amendments extending the provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to Scotland are so valuable
    It would have been difficult if Scotland had been left behind, as the promoter of the Bill and many other hon. Members have connections north of the border. It is therefore timely to make that behaviour an arrestable offence by increasing the penalty from two to five years. However, at some date, we should explore the implications of the change.
    I am delighted that the Under-Secretary is in the Chamber, as we enjoyed many happy hours discussing the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. He knows that I never miss an opportunity to ask why the provisions in the Aviation (Offences) Bill were deemed unworthy of inclusion in the railways measure. We obviously do not want to deprive the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw of his moment of glory, but these are pressing matters. Incidents reached a peak in the reporting period 2000–01, when there were 1,250 offences, up from 1,205 in the reporting period 1999–2000. Perhaps because not as many people are travelling by air post-11 September, the figure reduced marginally in 2001–02 to 1,055. It is noteworthy that 77 per cent. of incidents involve male passengers, and that figure has remained almost constant in the past three years. The majority of offenders are in their 20s, 30s or 40s, and about one third of incidents involve people travelling alone.
    In the context of comments by the promoter of the Bill about people travelling to support football teams, I should specifically like to mention the fact that in the most recent reporting period, 21 incidents involved groups of 10 or more. I am sure that the Government

    635
    will want to monitor that. About 5 per cent. of incidents occurred in business or first-class seating, in common with previous years. A huge amount of work has been done on the subject, largely because it was felt that some airlines and, in the past, the Government were not taking it seriously enough. I pay tribute to the impressive work in the field, not least by the Select Committee on Transport, on which I have had the honour of serving.
    Before I get carried away with our enthusiastic endorsement of the Bill, I should like to highlight issues that have been brought to our attention by the industry. In particular, there is nothing in the Bill relating to passengers being under the influence of drugs, and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would explain whether there is specific reason for that. Such a provision was not included in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, which dealt successfully with other matters. Indeed, it is gratifying that a number of our amendments were accepted by the Government, for which I thank the Under-Secretary. When we were dealing with the level of alcohol in the blood of aviation personnel, why was it not deemed appropriate to include provisions now incorporated in the Aviation (Offences) Bill? Will the Minister tell us whether there is a specific reason for the omission of drugs from the legislation? As the Bill is about to go to another place, perhaps schedule 1A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 can be amended to include the following wording:
    "a provision which prohibits a person from being drunk or under the influence of drugs in an aircraft, in so far as it applies to passengers".
    Such an amendment would be welcome throughout the industry.
    Like a number of hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley spoke about the need for a definition. I note that the Minister helpfully gave us a different definition of intoxication. We discussed what constitutes air rage on Second Reading. I wonder whether the Minister is convinced that the Bill is clear on that.
    I shall raise two or three other issues. One is the legal position, which was referred to this morning. of those passengers who take their own drink on board. About 40 per cent. of those involved in the offences that we are discussing do that. It is a rather alarming fact that 42 per cent. of passengers involved in aviation offences such as air rage were drinking alcohol heavily before boarding. The Bill remains silent on that, and we would like our disappointment in that regard to be noted. It would be welcome if the Government revisited the issue, given that the promoter has done so much excellent work in other regards.
    The unions and the workers involved—I am sure managers as well—tackled the issue vigorously with the Deputy Prime Minister when he was responsible for the Department in the year 2000. They requested that there should be an international aviation treaty on air rage in a global context.
    I welcome the fact that the House is legislating in respect of passengers boarding UK flights, or those flights departing from or arriving at UK airports. However, I have been asked to raise an issue, and I urge the Minister to take it on board so as to do proper justice to the Bill. The provisions in the Bill appear to solve the
    636
    issue of passengers arriving in the UK or departing from it. However, the extent to which the Bill tackles the issue of passengers on UK-registered planes en route elsewhere is not clear. Presumably the Minister will be able to confirm that reciprocal arrangements will be available with other countries, or that the Govrtment are negotiating an international treaty.
    I congratulate the promoter and thank everyone who has participated in an extremely interesting debate today, on Second Reading and in Committee, which I was unable to attend. With the proviso that we get some satisfaction on the points that we have raised, we wish the Bill a fair wind.
    1.7 pm
    Mr Jamieson): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) on the way in which he has conducted the passage of the Bill through the House, on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Report. He has spoken with quiet determination and resolve. I am aware of the persistence that is needed to take a private Member's Bill through the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way that he has done that.
    It gives me considerable pleasure to speak in this debate. Sadly, because time was running out, I did not have much time to speak on Second Reading. If I do not bear down too much on your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I might have an opportunity to make a few more remarks today.
    The Bill would reinforce the message that disruptive or drunken behaviour on board an aircraft is unacceptable and will be dealt with severely. I hope that I did not upset the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) too much. It seems that they have left the Chamber. I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Rayleigh, who is in his place. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is not present. It seemed from their boyish countenances that they did not know what drunkenness was. However, the hon. Member for Henley looks as if he has been about a bit, and seemed to be more familiar with the term drunkenness. In all seriousness, I think that anecdotally, and in an everyday sense, people might find it difficult to define the condition. However we all know drunkenness when we see it. To reinforce the point that I made in my intervention, it is held to mean that someone is deprived of self-control by intoxicating liquor. That would usually be combined with antisocial behaviour or behaviour that caused alarm or disturbance to other people, thus putting the aeroplane at risk. Equally, somebody who is drunk could be quietly sleeping on an aircraft and not drawing attention to themselves. I do not think that that would be a matter of concern. Indeed, some people might see that as a good thing and will have had a few jars beforehand to help them on their way. I appreciate that some people need that because they have a problem with flying.
    The hon. Member for Henley mentioned smoking, which is a danger in itself on an aeroplane and is also injurious to the health of others. We certainly have no intention of introducing any measure that would encourage or allow people to smoke on aeroplanes.
    Mr. Francois: The Minister implied that he appreciates that the definition is a relatively serious

    637
    issue. What would be the legal position of somebody working for BAA in an airport bar who sold someone sufficient alcohol for them to become inebriated before boarding?
    Mr. Jamieson: The position is akin to that of a staff member at a pub. Clearly, it is unwise to carry on selling or providing drink to somebody who is clearly already suffering as a result. Of course, the police exercise discretion in each instance, and I think that the same would apply to airport staff either on the ground or in the air. A steward on an aeroplane would be ill-advised to carry on providing drink to somebody who is clearly becoming out of control. I dare say that the airports and airline staff would be given guidance to ensure that that did not happen. It is sometimes a problem that disruption starts to happen when a person is denied access to further alcohol.
    The issue rightly became the subject of increased public concern following a particularly nasty incident in 1998 in which a stewardess was attacked and injured on board a United Kingdom aircraft. Following that incident, the Government took action in two ways. First, we set up a disruptive passengers working group chaired by my Department and including representatives from the Civil Aviation Authority, the Home Office, the police, airlines and trade unions. The group, whose remit is to advise Ministers on measures to minimise the frequency and potential impact of disruptive behaviour on board aircraft, continues to meet regularly, and it supports the Bill.
    Secondly, on the advice of that group, we introduced a standardised reporting scheme for incidents of disruptive behaviour on board United Kingdom aircraft. At the time, little hard evidence was available. It was agreed that statistics were necessary to establish the nature and scale of the problem.
    United Kingdom legislation on disruptive passenger behaviour on board aircraft is already recognised as among the most comprehensive in the world. In addition to normal criminal law, which applies on board all United Kingdom aircraft—I hope that this answers the question that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked me earlier—wherever they are in the world, a number of offences in United Kingdom law relate specifically to behaviour in aircraft. Powers also exist to act against offenders on board non-UK airlines whose next destination is the United Kingdom—a point that we covered fairly thoroughly in Committee—provided that the act committed is an offence under both United Kingdom and the law of the aircraft's state of registration. We have taken steps at an international level to encourage more states to enact such laws where they do not already have them, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation has passed a resolution to that end. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Lady.
    The Bill would complement existing legislation by ensuring that the police have the powers that they need to ensure effective prosecution of the offenders and that appropriate penalties are in place. The police have expressed concerns that their powers are not always sufficient with regard to some of the offences, and I can confirm that that sometimes prevents them from taking effective action. As my hon. Friend the Member for
    638
    Motherwell and Wishaw said, the cabin crew or passengers who have been victims of disruptive offences would find it unacceptable if the offender were not prosecuted because of difficulties in gathering evidence long after the incident had happened.
    I reiterate that disruptive behaviour on aircraft is not as widespread a problem as media reports sometimes suggest. It is right that such incidents should be reported thoroughly, but it is important that the attention that is rightly focused on tackling the issue does not lead to exaggerating the problem or spreading alarm among the travelling public. We all agree that the last thing the airline industry needs is another reason for passengers to avoid flying. I therefore take the opportunity to place it on record again that the chances of any passenger encountering a serious incident or disruptive behaviour are slim.
    By "serious", I mean incidents classified by the Civil Aviation Authority as threatening flight safety or personal safety or having the potential to do that if a situation escalated. In 2001–02, 52 of only 1,000 reported incidents on United Kingdom aircraft were classed as serious. That equates to one serious incident for every 2 million passengers, or one serious incident for every 22,000 flights. Figures for 2002–03 should be available next month and will be published on the Department's website. We hope that they will show such incidents becoming even rarer.
    Although serious incidents are rare, that does not undermine the rationale for the Bill. If only a handful of incidents occurred each year, it would be important that the police could effectively follow up every one. Although drunkenness or being abusive to the crew may not be classified as serious, such incidents are more common and it is right that the police should follow up such offences.
    The police have identified several practical difficulties that result from their lack of powers that can sometimes prevent them from taking effective action. That should be tackled as soon as possible. Any antisocial behaviour, however serious, on board an aircraft can be unpleasant and frightening for those affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said in his opening remarks, the cabin crew are at much greater risk of harm than the average passenger because of flying more frequently and the nature of their responsibilities.
    Any sort of disruptive behaviour is unacceptable and we want to ensure that such incidents become rarer in the future. By allowing an increase in the maximum penalty for the most serious offences and ensuring that the police have the powers to prosecute offences more effectively, I hope that the Bill will deter such behaviour and lead to a reduction in the number of incidents.
    I have not yet covered the point that the hon. Member for Vale of York made about people who are clearly drunk before they board an aircraft. When airline staff see such people, who could cause difficulties, trying to board, it is not unusual for them to prevent them from doing so. They have the powers to do that and I hope that they would use them effectively for the safety of the aircraft and the comfort of passengers.
    Again, I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill and for all his work in ensuring its passage. It is eagerly awaited by the police and those who work in the airline industry, and I hope that it will receive a

    639
    favourable hearing in the other place. I also want to place on record my thanks to the officials in my Department who have provided such effective help in preparing the Bill.
    I commend the measure to the House.
    Mr. Roy: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members who have taken time—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman needs to ask the leave of the House.
    Mr. Roy: With the leave of the House, I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all hon. Members who have turned up on what is normally a constituency day. The Bill is important and it has been a privilege to introduce it. I wish it a fair tail wind in another place.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Marine Safety Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Order for Third Reading read.
1.20 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: I am pleased to reach this stage of the Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) on their success today, and I hope that my Bill will be similarly successful to complete the hat trick and give the other place some more work.
The Bill is greatly needed, as I shall explain. In the past 20 years or so, three major sea disasters have shaken the nation, resulting in the Government having to sit up and take notice and introduce legislation. The first was the disaster of the Torrey Canyon in the western approaches. The nation heard about that disaster, which polluted many beaches and caused havoc for a long time, for weeks on end.
That took place in March 1967 and was followed by a second major disaster, which involved another oil tanker, the Braer, in the Shetland islands in 1993. It resulted in a report by Lord Donaldson, which was followed by legislation. Various measures were taken, including the establishment of four emergency towing vehicles around the coast of Britain. Our coastline is 10,000 miles long: for a small island, we have one of the most extensive coastlines in the world. Following the Braer disaster, a key recommendation of Lord Donaldson's 1994 report, "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas" was the provision of year-round emergency towing vehicles for the UK coast. They were initially provided only for the winter months in some areas.
Following the subsequent report, "Review of Emergency Towing Vessel Provision around the Coast of the UK", published in 2001, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency now has four tugs on standby all the year round. The risk-based approach in the report identified the need for emergency towing vehicles in the northern isles, the Minches, the south-west approaches and the Dover straits, which, incidentally, is run on a joint management and finance basis with the French authorities. So ETVs are now on standby 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to respond to shipping incidents in their areas.
The Sea Empress disaster occurred in Milford Haven sound in 1996. That led to a second report by Lord Donaldson—"Review of Salvage and Intervention and their Command and Control"—with many recommendations, which were taken up in successive legislation. The important legislation that ensued was the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997. One of the most important recommendations of Lord Donaldson's second report was to establish a Secretary of State's representative—SOSREP—based in Southampton in the offices of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Lord Donaldson had recommended that, when a major disaster occurred at sea, one person independent of the Government should take control, if it proved necessary, of the major incident, bringing under his control all the agencies that are involved in dealing with disasters at sea—the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, local

641
authorities, ship owners and so forth. That post was established in late 1999. The first occupant, Robin Middleton, was appointed in October 1999 and is still in post.
Mr. Middleton has provided me with some data of incidents that he dealt with up to 31 December last year. The regions where those incidents occurred cover the entire British coastline. Obviously, in the south-western approaches and the main shipping lanes of the English channel, there are, pro rata, more incidents than round the rest of the coast. In the south-east region there were 42 incidents in the period of the SOSREP's report, in the southern region 34, and in the south-west region 33, out of a total of 262 incidents that he had dealt with up to the end of last year.
The SOSREP, independent of the Government, has the power to direct the ship's owner, the harbourmaster or whoever he needs to direct in dealing with the incident. There are various directions that he can give. In the 262 incidents with which he has been involved, he has given 30 directions. The incidents occur in both summer and winter. During the period that I mentioned, there were 134 incidents during the summer and an almost equal number, 128, in the winter.
The incidents put lives at risk, and can also result in pollution. All ships carry bunker oil, which if they are holed or otherwise damaged on rocks or cliffs can result in an oil pollution incident. Of course, oil tankers are at greatest risk of polluting the marine environment. Of the 262 incidents, 30 resulted in oil spillages greater than half a litre. The vessels involved include every type of vessel imaginable—53 general cargo vessels, 23 bulk carriers, 45 fishing vessels, 34 oil tankers, as well as aircraft carriers, factory vessels, salvage vessels, timber carriers and yachts. Almost every type of vessel that sails the seven seas has been involved in those 262 incidents.
The types of incidents included 52 groundings, the most recent being the Mulheim, which ran aground a few weeks ago off the coast of Cornwall, resulting in the spillage of plastic chips into the sea. Mr. Middleton has been dealing with the Mulheim incident for six weeks. There have been 38 collisions, 65 engine failures, 25 fires, 16 sinkings, a number of explosions, some steering problems and incidents of ships taking on water. The SOSREP has dealt with every kind of incident imaginable.
I shall give one or two examples. On 7 November 1999 the Dole America was carrying 10,000 tonnes of fruit cargo when it crashed into the Nab tower, which is a pretty big obstruction, and ran aground, prompting fears of heavy pollution as oil gushed from the stricken vessel. The vessel had 440 tonnes of heavy fuel oil and 70 tonnes of diesel on board. Five tonnes of lubricating oil were lost from the vessel and the SOSREP had to establish a 500 m temporary exclusion zone, and all salvage and passage plans were authorised by him.
On 29 October 2000, the MV Havlys, a chemical tanker, was involved in an incident. The vessel was known to be leaking hydraulic fluid from her steering machinery and there was concern that that could lead to a reduction in her manoeuvrability. She was on passage from Houston to Hamburg carrying a cargo of propylene but in view of her problems she proceeded to
642
Falmouth. The SOSREP instructed one of the coastguard emergency towing vehicles to stand by in case the vessel got into greater difficulty. As I pointed out earlier, there have been 262 incidents.
Clause 2 deals with fire risks, which can be especially great for oil tankers. In the 10 years between 1991 and 2001, a total of 340 ships have been involved in fires at sea, within the 12-mile maritime limit for which we are responsible.
The introduction of the post of SOSREP has met with worldwide acclaim. I have several newspaper articles on the subject. Hans van Rooij, the managing director of Smit Salvage, a major Dutch salvage firm, praised Lord Donaldson's recommendation that there should be a Secretary of State's representative. Britain is the only country to give such powers to an individual. So far, the SOSREP has dealt successfully with 262 incidents.
Most countries are keeping a close eye on what Britain is doing. We are setting a model for maritime safety that will, hopefully, be adopted by many other countries, resulting in a huge saving of life, as well as minimising the risk of pollution when ships are involved in collisions.
One could speak for two or three hours about the impressive performance of our Secretary of State's representative, Mr. Middleton and about the whole jigsaw with which he is involved. However, two small pieces still need to be slotted into place, and then our procedures will be excellent. That is what the Bill is about.
One difficulty for the SOSREP is that he has no powers over the riparian owners of wharves, jetties, piers and other items. For example, on the Thames—the closest navigable water to the House—all those facilities, from the estuary to the limits of navigation, are in private ownership. If a ship of any size got into difficulty in the River Thames, perhaps through catching fire, the SOSREP would have no power to park it at a wharf or at the end of a jetty without the permission of the owners who might not be readily available in an emergency. The same is true of harbours and along the entire 10,000 miles of our coastline.
Obviously, it would be preferable for the SOSREP to have power to instruct riparian owners to allow him to deal with incidents, especially a major disaster; for example, to bring an oil tanker with engine problems to a jetty and unload the oil, rather than risk the disasters that we have seen off the French and Spanish coasts. I refer, of course, to the Prestige.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that the Bill will not go far enough to prevent a Prestige-type disaster occurring in this country? Is he satisfied that the powers exercised by Mr. Middleton would be sufficient?
Dr. Iddon: That is a good point. The master of the Prestige asked the Spanish authorities whether he could go to a place of refuge from the gale to unload the oil before a major disaster occurred. The wrangling that occurred between the Spanish authorities and the ship's master, and presumably the Spanish Government, did not enable the Prestige to berth in a place of refuge, so it had to go out to sea, where it split in two, shedding thousands of tonnes of oil, affecting not only the

643
Spanish coast but the French coast. That incident is continuing. The SOSREP told me only last week that thick oil is still coming out of that ship and polluting the whole of the marine environment.
If my Bill is enacted, the Secretary of State's representative in this country could ensure that a ship of that kind could be brought into a safe place of refuge and dealt with, hopefully by unloading the oil and preventing a huge marine disaster. Clause 1, with its associated schedule, is an important clause.
There is also a difficulty with firefighting at sea. The legal limits for a fire authority are the county boundaries for that authority and the low-level mark of the sea. Beyond that, the fire authority has no legal jurisdiction. There have been one or two cases where a fire authority has been airlifted on board a ship and fought the fire successfully—one fire was on a passenger ferry crossing the English channel not that long ago, and that was dealt with by the Suffolk coastal fire authority—only to be unable to recover costs.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: My hon. Friend has described clearly why the Bill is so important to the maritime industry and to seafarers, but is he aware that Kent fire brigade has a proud record of service for protecting not just the Dover strait but the whole area of coastal waters around it, and that only yesterday its chiefs were saying how appreciative they were of the Bill because it was becoming more and more difficult to maintain that flying squad of trained firefighters to protect our coasts?
Dr. Iddon: My hon. Friend has much greater experience of the sea than I will ever have, and he is absolutely correct.
Because of the difficulty that the Suffolk fire brigade had in recovering the costs—it failed to recover its costs in court, because the judge ruled that it had been outside the limit of its legal jurisdiction—clause 2 extends that legal jurisdiction to enable coastal firefighting authorities that have dealt with major disasters of that sort to recover their costs.
Only 10 fire authorities around the coasts of Britain—my hon. Friend mentioned one—are willing to do that very dangerous work now, and I understand that without clause 2, their number is likely to decrease further, because the cost of fighting fires at sea is obviously much greater than on land. First, the men and women of the fire brigade must receive specialised training. They must be lifted on to the ship, which is extremely costly, with all their equipment—fighting a fire on a ship requires equipment specially designed for the purpose. That clause is desperately needed, to put in place the second of the two jigsaw pieces that will give the Secretary of State's representative in Britain—the first in the world, let us remember—the complete paraphernalia to deal with major disasters at sea. I hope that that will result in the saving of life and, equally, prevent major pollution disasters at sea, of which I have mentioned only three of many.
I commend the Bill to the House.
1.39 pm
Mr. Mark Francois: The Bill has two factors in common with the Aviation (Offences) Bill, which we discussed a few minutes ago, from my
644
perspective at least. First, again, this is an essentially laudable measure in what it seeks to achieve and, secondly, I declare that I have something of a constituency interest, which I shall explain for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), the Member in charge of the Bill.
On the River Crouch, which is part of the northern border of my constituency, there is still a wharf in commercial operation. [Interruption.] If the Minister will allow me, I shall say why I refer to it. Ships still regularly come into that wharf to unload their cargo. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that those vessels are normally in the 500 to 1,000-tonne class, so I am not talking about major supertankers being brought into the River Crouch. I say that straight away to reassure my constituents.
Nevertheless, some commercial seafaring traffic comes in and out of my constituency by virtue of that facility, which is located at a place called Hullbridge on the southern bank of the Crouch. If one looks across the river into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), one sees Burnham directly on the other side. Burnham has powerful connotations to anyone in the yachting community, not least because of the wonderful festival, Burnham week, which is sometimes referred to as eastern England's answer to Cowes. So I have something of an interest.
Having looked at schedule 1, in particular, I am gratified to note that the hon. Gentleman has taken considerable care in drafting the Bill. He makes specific provision so that, if a direction is made that orders a vessel to come into a berth or a wharf, perhaps carrying some form of dangerous cargo, and damage is done as a result of that direction to the detriment of the wharf's owners, they can be compensated for any damage done, perhaps in an emergency. Even if the wharf's owners were reluctant to accept that vessel, they would have to comply with the direction that they were given. In such a hypothetical scenario, at least the owners or operators of that wharf would have a right to compensation when the emergency has died down and the dust has settled. That is a valuable provision.
Dr. Iddon: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I omitted to say that the Bill contains compensation rights for the riparian owners, to whom I referred. If an oil tanker came in and had to be dealt with for several days, that might prevent several other oil tankers from unloading. That would put the owner of that jetty or wharf at serious financial loss. My Bill will enable the Government immediately to compensate owners for the kind of incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and the Government would then deal with reclaiming the compensation from the ships' owners at a later date. I hope that that will encourage riparian owners to cooperate with the Secretary of State's representative.
Mr. Francois: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. Given the way in which the maritime industry operates in the 21st century, he will no doubt be aware that a lot of ships, particularly tankers—the example that he uses—operate on tight schedules. Their operators want to transport and unload their cargoes and to turn round their ships as fast as possible, and then get straight on to the next contract.

645
Therefore, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, the scheduling times are quite tight, particularly for some of the larger facilities—larger than those in my constituency, I confess. If, as he posits, an emergency were to throw that timetable out of kilter for some unforeseen reason, the owner of the berthing facility or wharf could suffer considerable financial loss and therefore might, understandably, object to an order.
I highlight that part of the Bill because it is very important that the hon. Gentleman has included that compensation facility. I hope that, in an emergency, people would not quibble over money—to put it bluntly—and that they would do whatever was practical and necessary to try to alleviate that emergency as best they could, particularly if there were a risk of loss of life or an environmental disaster. Wherever a financial bottom line is involved, people sometimes tend to be a bit sticky—that tends to be human nature. So that provision is a very important.
Mr. George Osborne: Clearly, safety is paramount and the safety of people's lives is paramount, but we are also sent here by our constituents to protect the interests of taxpayers. Has my hon. Friend seen any analysis of the kinds of costs in terms of compensation that may be have to be forthcoming out of the public exchequer as a result of this Bill?
Mr. Francois: I have not seen such analysis, and my hon. Friend is correct that we have a responsibility to the taxpayer at all times. I should have thought, however, working purely from first principles, that this might be the kind of example in which the Government could compensate from the contingency fund—[Interruption.] I appreciate that that is still taxpayer's money, but this is an example of a contingency, almost by definition. I see that the promoter of the Bill wishes to intervene, and I suspect that he has an answer.
Dr. Iddon: Those matters are indeed covered in the Bill, so the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) need not have any fears.
Mr. Francois: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.
That leads me to the second area that I wish to explore. Clearly, the whole Bill touches on matters relating to insurance. I wonder whether there is some way in which the House can be given some feel for what negotiations and discussions have been undertaken, and in what depth, with Lloyd's, which, clearly, has an important interest. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a member of Lloyd's or of a syndicate, but, clearly, it would potentially have a significant interest in this legislation. Its view and advice on such a technical matter would be important. I would therefore be interested to know what liaison or consultation there has been with Lloyd's of London in relation to this piece of legislation. That information might be valuable to the House.
The third area that I wish to raise relates to rescue and evacuation. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is talking about fire safety in certain clauses of his Bill, and
646
also about the recouping of costs for fire authorities that are involved in fighting fires on vessels, either offshore or when they have been brought into berth in the United Kingdom. With all the other budgetary pressures that there are on fire authorities—I do not wish to stray out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—all Members will be aware that a number of our fire authorities, for various reasons, are not exactly flush with cash. Again, therefore, it is important that the hon. Gentleman has provided in the Bill that fire authorities that must undertake these perhaps unexpected tasks might be given adequate financial compensation.
There is also a related issue of rescue. Before I go any further, I declare an interest as a member of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Has there been much consultation with the RNLI about whether the hon. Gentleman's Bill will have any implications for its operations? Those are the people who will, and who do, day after day and in all weathers, to their immense credit, go out to sea and rescue seafarers who are sometimes in the most tremendous peril. We must be aware whenever we touch on these matters, that there is a history of volunteers giving their lives for the cause of maritime safety. It is to the immense credit of the RNLI that it has that proud tradition, down the centuries. As it will be part of its business, sometimes, to go out to sea, perhaps at night, and in awful weather, to rescue people, perhaps from a ship that is on fire, what liaison and discussion has there been with the RNLI in terms of its input into this Bill? It occurs to me that it would have a legitimate interest in this area, and that it might have some beneficial experience to offer to the hon. Gentleman.
In summary, I welcome the point about provision, not least as it might one day affect a relatively modest operation in my constituency. I wish to reiterate the point about liaison or otherwise with Lloyd's of London, as it may have experience to offer. I would also be grateful to be advised regarding any liaison or discussion that may have taken place with the RNLI, as it has the potential to offer valuable experience. With those three points, I draw my remarks to a close.
1.49 pm
Malcolm Bruce: I rise to support the Bill. Several of my colleagues represent constituencies that could be directly affected by it, and I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) is a sponsor. The Isles of Scilly get a specific mention in the text.
One point about the recovery of the charges of fire services requires clarification. Under clause 2, the ability of fire services to charge will be confined to England and Wales. I take it that that is because provisions for such charges in Scotland will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Minister clarify whether there is or is likely to be such a provision? If the Bill comes into force, fire authorities in Scotland might be disadvantaged. However, if it is just a matter of devolving the issue to the Scottish Parliament so that it can deal with it in due course, that will be fine. However, clarification would be helpful.
The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has provided a comprehensive record of the incidents that have happened over the years and that have

647
damaged or threatened our coastlines with pollution. He specifically identified the role of the Secretary of State's representative and the unique value of that. In the hon. Gentleman's speech, he made it clear that the value of having someone with such power is that it will enable an immediate response to take place at times of crisis and will not require for negotiation with different Departments, agencies and authorities when a disaster is unfolding by the hour and by the minute.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Braer incident off the Shetland islands several years ago. We were fortunate that nature took care of the consequences of the incident rather better than we did and rather better than many people feared. The wind and the flow of the sea took the oil deep off the continental shelf and did not lead to the pollution that people had anticipated. Nevertheless, people recognised that that was a matter of good luck and not of good management given that the incident occurred at all and given the difficulties of dealing with it.
Some of our coastal areas are remote and extremely exposed, and the weather conditions there can be severe. I do not demur from the view that having someone to tackle such incidents is desirable, but the circumstances are often such that it is difficult to find a resolution to them. However, when there is a fire or the threat of major oil pollution, having the opportunity to mobilise all the available facilities to take a ship away from our waters and from where it can do damage or, alternatively, to bring it in to deal with the fire or potential pollution in a controlled manner has much to commend it. In that sense, the Bill adds a dimension to the existing regime to enable the Secretary of State's representative to operate with greater efficiency.
We have had a short debate on the implications for insurers and commercial interests. Although such markers should be put down—the Bill should deal with them directly—we must recognise that time is not on our side when incidents occur. The owners may not be available or face a clash of commercial interests. As long as they understand what the law requires of them and there is proper compensation, there will be recognition of the greater good.
I notice the reference in the Bill to the European convention on human rights. I have a particular interest in the issue, as I am a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. However, I am persuaded by the reference that the interference with the right of owners to the possession and use of their property—a fundamental right in article 1—can be derogated if greater good can be achieved by using their facilities to prevent damage to the wider community. On that basis, I commend the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on the detail addressed by the Bill. He has clearly thought through the implications of the provisions, no doubt in consultation with the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State's representative, and on the basis of experience over the years.
The Bill would increase our power to respond to the disasters that inevitably threaten the shores of an island community with so much coastline, much of which is exposed to severe weather and around which there is so much traffic. The Bill is not a definitive solution and I know that people who live in Shetland and other
648
exposed areas would like more agreement among those involved in merchant shipping so that risks can be avoided. I must say, with regret, that too many ship owners operate to standards of seaworthiness and seamanship that fall well below what reasonable society has the right to expect. The incident involving the Prestige showed the problem of an unseaworthy vessel being compounded by the inability of relevant national authorities to respond quickly and appropriately, which led to an ongoing disaster of major proportions.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East does not pretend that the Bill is a definitive solution to such problems, but it would allow the United Kingdom to deal with the threat of disaster around our shores. The Bill would be practical and effective and deserves the House's support because it would save lives and avoid pollution.
1.56 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: We, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on promoting the Bill and on stimulating such a genuine and timely debate. We heard interesting contributions from hon. Members this afternoon, in Committee and on Second Reading. I must note the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who cannot be present. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on their notable contributions.
The Bill would confer powers on the Secretary of State to give a direction to a person in charge of land next to, or accessible from, United Kingdom waters or to a person in charge of facilities used by ships such as berths, wharfs and jetties. That direction could require the person in charge to allow persons to land and/or make facilities under their control available, with the object of reducing or preventing risks to safety and risks of pollution. Secondly, it would allow fire authorities to make a charge for firefighting services at sea outside the area of every fire authority. We support both measures, and it is a tribute to the excellent work of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East that no amendments to the Bill have been tabled. However, I shall briefly raise several issues.
We welcome the implementation of Lord Donaldson's main recommendation that one person should take control of all incidents—an appointment was made in October 1999. I declare an interest in that I served for six days on HMS Cumberland as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Three lady Members made the visit, which was the first visit to such a warship made by any hon. Member. We were told that fire is the biggest risk faced by any merchant or naval ship. We were asked to dress into firefighting equipment, in its various shapes and forms, which took us a considerable time—I do not think that we managed it. If one thinks that a firefighter on a ship can do that in minutes and seconds, one pays tribute to firefighters and fire brigades serving throughout the country and at sea for being prepared to undertake such responsibilities.
Mr. George Osborne: I agree with my hon. Friend and enjoyed her recollections of her brief stint as a Wren. As

649
someone who comes new to the Bill, can she tell me how it affects the Navy's military vessels, or are they covered by previous legislation? Do they have the right to dock at any facility if they are in trouble? If not, does the Bill include them in its scope? If she does not know the answer, perhaps the Minister could clarify that in his response.
Miss McIntosh: It is an interesting point. We found a loophole in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill in a similar regard. I shall leave it for the Minister to respond to my hon. Friend's excellent question. If the Navy does not have such rights, the Bill will need to be amended.
I join the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East in recognising and paying tribute to the excellent work of the SOSREP, Mr. Middleton, who has powers to direct the ship owner, harbourmaster and others. I declare an interest in that I have close friends who were involved in the Prestige disaster, one of whom now runs the Spanish fisheries department. They have had a monumental task to recover from that disaster. In addition to the environmental damage to the coast and the effect that that had on wildlife, those who sustained their livelihood from fishing in that area suffered a dramatic, and regrettable, economic loss. There are serious lessons to learn from the Prestige disaster. I welcome the confirmation by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East that the Bill's measures will go far enough. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that if such a disaster occurs in our waters, the Bill closes any possible loopholes.
The British coast has a number of environmentally sensitive areas. Spillages and other pollution would have a devastating effect on the fish and birds in those areas. It emerged from the debate in Committee that there is a problem with the legal limits of the fire authority. I seek confirmation that those will be broadened and the jurisdiction extended. I also hope that the provisions address the difficulty of recovering costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge asked in Committee whether a vessel in French territorial waters could ask for the Kent or any other UK fire service to deal with a fire on board. Could UK fire brigades fight a fire outside our territorial waters, and would they be compensated for that? That is fundamental to the Bill's success. I am alarmed to read that in Committee the Under-Secretary said only 10 firefighting authorities provide a maritime service. We want that closely monitored. He also explained that from Essex to the highlands and islands in the north of Scotland, which covers my region, only two authorities—in Lincolnshire and Humberside—provide fire cover. That is very worrying.
Fire authorities have no duty to fight fire at seas. I do not know to what extent such a duty is imposed by the Bill. It would be helpful to find out. The Under-Secretary said in Committee that in light of the distances involved, the specialised training and equipment that is required makes it an expensive firefighting service. If it is increasingly likely, as he said, that fire authorities will not engage their brigades at sea unless they can recover the costs, does the Bill sufficiently extend the provision
650
to recover those costs in full? If so, from which budget will the recovery of those costs be paid? Is new money being made available for that?
Mr. Boris Johnson: Further to that point, may I ask another question to which my hon. Friend may have an answer? If there were a fire on a boat in international waters, and the captain had to decide whether to take his stricken vessel to Britain or France, what would be the state of the law in that situation? Might we not, by our excellent law in this country, encourage stricken vessels to come to our walls and jetties, where we are enjoined to make provision for such incidents, whereas that may not be the case in France? Should we not find out the state of the law in other countries?
Miss McIntosh: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. The Minister has chastised me on a number of occasions for seeking to perform not only the role of the official Opposition but that of the Government, so with the Minister's permission, I draw his attention to my hon. Friend's remarks and invite him to respond when he sums up the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on securing a place in the ballot, and I pay tribute to him for his hard work on Second Reading, in Committee and today. I repeat that we broadly welcome the Bill's main provisions and the role that it may play in complementing the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
Mr. George Osborne: Like my hon. Friend, I support the Bill's general provisions, but I have still not had a satisfactory answer about the costs that may flow from it to the public Exchequer. It has been made clear that in some cases, such as those mentioned in the debate, we may be looking at millions of pounds of compensation. Is my hon. Friend aware of any assessment by the Government of the possible impact on taxpayers?
Miss McIntosh: My hon. Friend repeats a question that I asked earlier, and he reinforces my point. I am sure that the Minister would want to give us both satisfaction on that, so I welcome my hon. Friend's helpful intervention.
I recognise the tremendous role that shipping plays in this country; after all, Great Britain is an island nation. Ninety per cent. of our overseas trade and 7 per cent. of our internal trade is carried by sea. As the Minister is aware, I am particularly wedded to the concept of short sea shipping. That, too, may be worthy of mention in his summing up of the debate. [Interruption.] Indeed, in our fair deal for everyone, we hope that coastal shipping will not be left behind.
The Government must do everything possible to protect our environment from damage caused by pollution that falls within the terms of the Bill. Clause 2 will allow fire authorities to charge for firefighting services at sea, outside the area of every fire authority. I ask again which budget that money will come from and whether new money will be allocated. I pay tribute to the extensive, thorough work currently being done on the role of fire brigades in marine incidents. The Minister might have waited for the results of those research projects, and the findings, having become clearer, could have been incorporated in the Bill. He may want to give the House a brief overview of that research.

651
We must ask again why these provisions were not deemed suitable for inclusion in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, which deals with certain maritime provisions. In the Minister's view, does this Bill sufficiently cover the problem of pollution that has reached the coast? A key recommendation of the Donaldson inquiry into the Braer disaster of 1993 and the inquiry into the Sea Empress disaster of 1996 'was that local authorities should have a statutory duty to plan to undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge made a positive, skilful contribution in that regard on Second Reading and in Committee. He also asked whether the role of the local authority in cleaning up after a maritime disaster will be recognised and what funds will be made available. I am mindful of the fact that the responsibilities of local authorities are increasing while their budgets seem to be reducing. There seems to be no recognition of additional responsibilities, and that is especially true for emergency planning—the so-called national contingency procedures. I recognise the role played by Hawkhills college, near Easingwold in the Vale of York, in that regard.
What will happen to emergency planning funding under the Government's forthcoming national contingencies legislation, particularly as regards maritime disasters? I understand that ring-fenced grants currently provided by the Government to local authorities will cease. How will emergency planning for marine disasters be financed by local authorities in future?
I pay tribute to SOSREP, welcome his appointment by the Secretary of State and welcome the fact that he can act independently. I also pay tribute to the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, whom I recently visited to receive an excellent briefing. He will shortly retire, and I pay tribute to all his work in many capacities, most recently as chief executive of the MCA.
I want, finally, to raise the role of the MCA. On what advice will the Secretary of State make the directions cited in the Bill? Will it be on the advice of the chief inspector of marine accidents or will it be on the advice of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? How will we know what directions have been issued by the Secretary of State? Will they be reported to Parliament, perhaps through the new tool of the written ministerial statement, and will they be subject to debate?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, and I wish the Bill a fair wind.
2.12 pm
Mr. Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on the way in which he has handled his Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and today. He spoke with considerable passion and commitment in prosecuting his powerful arguments. He has, I know, worked hard to secure the Bill's passage, and it is a tribute to him that it remains unamended from the form in which it was introduced five months ago. I am grateful for the positive and constructive support that the Opposition parties have given it.
The Bill is small but very popular. In certain instances, the changes that it brings about in our legislation may be significant. As my hon. Friend said,
652
the United Kingdom has 10,000 miles of coastline, and it is adjacent to some of the busiest sea lanes in the world. For example, the straits of Dover lie off the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), who is present, where there are 400 vessel movements a day. Because of that, we have always placed maritime safety and prevention of pollution among our top priorities.
Ten years ago, we suffered the Braer incident in the Shetlands. The Braer was fully laden with 84,000 tonnes of crude oil when she went aground on the rocks of Garths Ness, off Shetland, after losing power. She also had some 1,600 tonnes of heavy fuel bunkers. Oil began to escape in large amounts as soon as she went aground. She eventually broke up a week later, spilling all her remaining cargo and bunkers. Nine beaches and other sites had to be cleaned, and one fifth of salmon farms were threatened with closure. Salmon from affected fish farms, even when healthy, were tainted, and they had to be destroyed.
After the Braer incident, we all saw pictures of dead birds covered with oil—in fact, 1,500 sea birds were found dead, and I am sure that many others were never found. Otters and seals were also treated for contamination. I give those details because we must not cannot underestimate the damage that incidents of that sort do to marine life and the environment. A pollution incident of such magnitude inevitably caused major hardship for many people. Some of the oil was blown off the sea on to houses. It is a tribute to the resilience of the people of Shetland—I had the pleasure of visiting it last year and talking to some of those who were affected 10 years ago—that they coped so well with the traumatic consequences of that devastating incident on their small community.
On the sad anniversary of the spillage 10 years ago last January, I made a written statement outlining all the measures that have been put in place since then. I will not run through them today, but they are available in the statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East has previously outlined the provisions of the Bill in detail. At present, the necessary powers are significantly lacking—a damaged vessel may be directed into a port area, but if there is a refusal by private owners and facilities to offload the vessel or bring it alongside so that a fire can be fought from the shore, the risk presented by the casualty will remain. Such delays could result in precious time being wasted and the situation deteriorating, thus increasing the risk to the coast and the community.
There are two cases in which vessels have been refused access to port facilities in the past three years, one of which involved the MT Framness. Last July, she was refused access to her privately owned discharge facility in the port of Milford Haven, when it became known that her engines had stopped and may have needed repairs before they could be restarted. In that condition, she returned to sea in worsening weather, thus risking becoming a casualty and producing massive pollution. The SOSREP, to whom my hon. Friend referred, was powerless to prevent that situation, and had to rely on his powers to require the provision of tug support for the vessel so that repairs could be effected.
The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) who is now sitting on the Front Bench—he has promoted himself—asked about fair compensation for facility

653
owners. The Bill ensures that in the first instance the Government pay compensation which, if necessary, will be reclaimed from ship owners through insurance. The hon. Gentleman also asked about Lloyd's of London. I can assure him that it was consulted in Lord Donaldson's review of command and control, on the recommendation of which the Bill was introduced. It is important to recognise that the cost of compensation for riparian owners is small in comparison with any pollution and loss of life.
Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: No, because the hon. Gentleman was not here at the beginning of the debate.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) made an interesting point about Scotland. Merchant shipping issues are reserved in Scotland, but the legislation is UK-wide, as that is necessary for the international nature of merchant shipping. However, fire service issues are devolved, and the Bill's fire provisions apply only to England and Wales—the geographical area covered by the Fire Services Act 1947. I hope that is helpful for the hon. Gentleman. As for naval vessels—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is not listening to my answer, so perhaps he would break off his conversation with the hon. Member for Rayleigh. We do not give any directions to naval vessels, but harbours and riparian facilities could be directed to accept a naval vessel if that was deemed necessary.
The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked about extending the jurisdiction of fire authorities. UK legislation extends only as far as UK territorial sea and applies to UK ships wherever they
654
are. The Bill does nothing to extend that jurisdiction or the statutory duties of the fire authorities, but it gives them an incentive to provide a service to fight fires at sea by allowing them to recover costs.
The hon. Lady asked also about budgetary provision. In any instance where money is paid out by the Government in compensation, we shall seek to recover that money from the ship owners or their insurers. We shall have to make provision available so that there are proper contingency funds, if necessary, for an emergency response. I would anticipate that most of those funds would come from the owners of the ships.
This has been a useful debate. It is a worthy Bill, and I thank the officials for their hard work and commitment in preparing the Bill and for giving advice to myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East in helping us to introduce the measure. I commend the Bill to the House.
2.20 pm
Dr. Iddon: With the leave of the House, I wish to thank various people, including the sponsors, those who attended consideration of the Bill in Committee—it was an excellent attendance—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the representative of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has been very helpful to me, officers of the Department for Transport, who have also been extremely helpful, and the person who drafted the Bill. It has been drafted in an excellent manner because no one has found a significant loophole, and it has not been amended.
Finally, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have attended this debate. I hope that eventually the Bill will be enacted after its passage through the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Disabled People (Duties of Public Authorities) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2.21 pm
Ms Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful for the time to debate this important Bill. I am thinking of adding to the modernisation process of the House of Commons a procedure whereby we slot in Bills in a 30-second or 10-minute slot at the end of each week.
I hope that the Bill has the support of all right hon. and hon. Members. It certainly has the support of my sponsors, the Disability Rights Commission and the organisations of and for disabled people who have involved themselves in this work. All the help that I have been given in putting the Bill together has convinced me that it is right to promote the Bill.
The Bill is not about political correctness, nor is it about individual rights for disabled people. It is intended to plug a gap in the Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Act 2002 and to tackle discrimination and equality of opportunity from a different perspective—at source.
The Bill is about a practical need to put and keep disabled people in the mainstream of the development of public sector policy and practice. It is about the needs of disabled people, making them part of everyday thinking, not just an afterthought. It is about tackling discrimination before it becomes an individual problem; improving the opportunities that are available to disabled people in the public sector, whether in employment or in the way that the public sector provides its services; reducing social exclusion and social isolation; and giving disabled people the confidence that, when they deal with the public sector, their needs and aspirations will have been taken into account.
Mr. George Osborne: I think that the Bill has the support of right hon. and hon. Members in many parts of the House. Will the hon. Lady give some practical examples for those of us who are not so familiar with the proposed legislation that she is introducing of how the laudable aims that she has talked about will work out in practice on the ground? How would the Bill affect people in their day-to-day life?
Ms Prentice: I am grateful for the opportunity to give the simple example of a local authority swimming pool. Blind and disabled people may feel a bit fearful if there are lots of other people in the pool, with children splashing about and so on. The local authority could, for example, organise a quiet time, when disabled and blind people could use the facility on their own. That is a practical example of how the Bill would work.
The general duties set out in the Bill have regard to two principles in the discharge of public functions: eliminating disability discrimination and harassment, and pursuing equalisation of opportunity for disabled people. Further progress on the Bill is important. It will show that this House and society at large believe in building a diverse and inclusive society in which
656
Disabled people can participate on increasingly equal terms. That will be good for our credibility and that of our public services. I commend the Bill to the House.
2.25 pm
Angela Watkinson: The Bill was introduced on 11 December 2002 by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), whom I congratulate on her efforts. It seeks to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 so that public bodies have a duty to have regard to these principles:
"unlawful discrimination against and unlawful harassment of disabled persons must be eliminated"
and
"equalisation of opportunity for disabled persons is to be pursued."
Her Majesty's official Opposition do not object in principle to the Bill. Public authorities should of course promote good practice and encourage the inclusion of disabled people.
Angela Eagle: I am pleased to hear that the official Opposition welcome the Bill. Will she therefore make a brief speech so that it can be given its Second Reading?
Angela Watkinson: The Bill is welcomed by the Disability Rights Commission, which has done good work in this area. Of course, there will be cost implications for authorities within the Bill's remit, and they need to be explored. The Bill falls into two major parts. It deals with discrimination and harassment on the one hand, which are distinct and separate from equal opportunities on the other.
I should like to indulge in one brief personal anecdote relating to one of the first occasions when I ran a polling station for a local government election. I arrived at the hall that was to be used to find that the key holder was nowhere to be seen. I used up time that I had allowed for preparing the hall for voters in trying to find the key holder. By the time the hall was opened, there was a queue of voters. To my dismay, one of the first people to arrive was a lady in a wheelchair. One of my duties had been to set up a ramp to allow wheelchairs to enter the hall, but that duty had been overlooked and I was mortified to have been responsible. That is a small example of the sort of inconvenience that disabled people face in going about their everyday lives.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which the Bill seeks to amend, was introduced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who was Minister for Social Security and Disabled People at the time. Part I of that Act sets out the definition of disability under the Act and explains who is protected by it. Part II prohibits discrimination against disabled people in employment and requires the employer to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled person or employee if they are at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with a non-disabled person. The 1995 Act also makes it unlawful to discriminate in the provision of goods, facilities and services. Currently, discrimination occurs if a disabled person is treated less favourably for a reason that is related to their disability. Such treatment cannot be justified. Further stages will be implemented in October 2004.

657
Part IV of the 1995 Act relates to education, which was initially excluded from part III, with some exceptions. However, a new amendment will shortly be ratified and will include education under the Act. Part V deals with transport and gives the Secretary of State powers to establish minimum access criteria for new transport vehicles, which will be phased in over time.
Part III excludes transport vehicles such as buses, trains and aeroplanes, but covers infrastructure such as railway stations and airports. I have tremendous problems with my station at Upminster. I have been fighting for a lift there for as long as I can remember. The station has steep steps and people who need access to it have to phone in advance and ask a member of staff to be available to let them use the goods lift.
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 13 June.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

  GOVERNMENT POWERS (LIMITATIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 13 June.

  EQUALITY BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be read a Second time on Friday 20 June.

  Council Tenants (Hammersmith and Fulham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  2.30 pm
  Mr. Iain Coleman: I am pleased to have secured today's Adjournment debate to highlight an issue of great interest to many thousands of council tenants and leaseholders in my constituency. It relates to the publication of a report entitled, "Our Community—Our Homes—Our Choice", the launch of which I was delighted to host in the House of Commons on 8 April this year.
  The report was produced by the Hammersmith and Fulham housing commission, which the council established in October 2002 to hold an independent inquiry into the future of the 14,000 council homes in the borough, including how best to achieve the decent housing standard. The commission, which comprises 19 tenants, one leaseholder, one councillor and an independent chair, has been a remarkable experiment in tenant participation. I am delighted that many commissioners are present to hear the debate.
  Commissioners underwent intense training and spent an estimated 1,500 person hours between them gathering evidence, commissioning independent financial and legal advice, cross-examining in Select Committee style and agreeing their report. The commission studied in great detail. It considered comprehensive financial appraisals of the three main options for the future management of their homes. They were: retention under democratic management; an arm's-length management organisation, known as an ALMO; and a large-scale voluntary transfer and mix-and-match solution—LSVT.
  Two important pieces of information are crucial to understanding the context of the commissioners' deliberations. First, Hammersmith and Fulham council's housing management and caretaking service has received the top Audit Commission award of three stars with excellent prospects for improvement. Only one other of the 32 London boroughs received the same award. Secondly, the council and its tenants have worked in partnership for many years to build a comprehensive management service and highly effective tenant participation arrangements.
  After six months of consideration, the housing commission was unanimous in all its recommendations. The first, strongly held preference is retention under the direct management and democratic control of the local authority. I shall outline the principal reasons for that decision. First, the local authority provides an excellent service to tenants, as the independent award of the three stars for the caretaking and housing management service recognised. I repeat that that is the highest possible accolade for the service. Secondly, there is a clear, coherent and agreed plan and policy in place to achieve the decent housing standard, subject only to the availability of the necessary resources. Thirdly, it is the commission's clear view that the uncertainty and disruption of an unpopular and unnecessary change will inevitably undermine current focus on service improvement.

  659
  The tenants' view was not based on a dogmatic or doctrinal position. There have been direct and indirect stock transfers in Hammersmith and Fulham in recent years. However, despite constant Government soundbites and spin that tenant participation should be the key driving force behind policy, they will not allow tenants to follow that option, which the commission clearly and unanimously selected.
  It appears, and this has been confirmed in a letter from Lord Rooker, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration, dated 8 May to the independent chair of the commission, that the Government have decided that councils keeping their stock without making use of an ALMO, LSVT or private finance initiative option will not receive any additional resources to allow them to meet the Government's own decent housing standards. Indeed, any council that cannot produce a plan showing how it will achieve that standard will be deemed to be failing.
  Without those additional resources, it will be necessary to make cuts of 25 per cent. in service to provide enough spare revenue to finance borrowing for the investment required. In practice, therefore, the Government are in my view blackmailing the council and the tenants to go down a route of change in the management of their homes that I am convinced they do not wish to undertake.
  So why did the commission reject the other options that were available? The housing commission argues that by far the least worst of the other options available to tenants, other than staying with the council as they wish, is to agree to set up an arm's-length management organisation—an ALMO. Although it is the clear view of the tenants that they will lose some democratic accountability, run the risk of unnecessary disruption to the high quality of service that they get, and spend money unnecessarily in setting up the machinery of an ALMO, it will still allow them to attract the necessary investment to meet the decent housing standards keep their homes in the ownership of the council, and preserve as far as possible the close relationship with the council and its wider strategic functions.
  If, as it seems from Lord Rooker's most recent letter, the Government are not prepared to listen to the representations of the tenants, the ALMO is the commission's preferred option. The tenants rejected out of hand the option of a large-scale voluntary transfer, not least because it was their clear judgment, as experienced tenant representatives living locally for many years, that there was no prospect that their fellow tenants in Hammersmith and Fulham would vote for one in the ballot that is currently required by legislation.
  The tenants believe that the set-up costs for an LSVT would be unacceptably high. They also recognise that new tenants would be granted an assured tenancy, not a secure tenancy, and that an LSVT would place a barrier between tenants and the council's renewal and regeneration strategy.
  I had the privilege of giving oral evidence to the commission, as did 20 other witnesses. Tenants failed to understand why the Labour party, which the overwhelming majority of them have supported loyally in good times and in bad times, is treating them in such a fashion. Many of them feel betrayed and do not understand the reasoning behind the Government's policy and actions.
  660
  In their communities plan published in February 2003, the Government proposed new and bold policies for housing, especially in and around London. The plan set out the increased financial incentives—or bribes, as several commissioners have described them to me—for going down particular routes of housing management. In paragraph 1.3 of that document, the Government state:
  "tenants must be at the heart of plans at all stages in the process, starting with drawing up options for investment".
  In paragraph 1.5 they go on to state that authorities that do not use the option of the private finance initiative, LSVT or ALMOs cannot expect any increased investment in the stock above that from the housing investment programme. Commissioners believe that the policy set out in the communities plan is irrational and discriminatory.
  The housing commission report points out that there are a number of reasons why the logic of the Government's own policy should allow tenants a genuine choice based on local factors where there is clear evidence of a high-performing council. The Government are constantly declaring their pragmatic approach to the provision of public services, characterised by the saying, "What matters is what works", yet in Hammersmith and Fulham it is beyond dispute that the current democratic arrangement for the provision of the management of council housing works well.
  The Government constantly reiterate their policy of rewarding good performance. Through democratic management, Hammersmith and Fulham has achieved the highest possible standard, as evidenced by its being awarded the highest score in the country in its comprehensive performance assessment, as judged by the Audit Commission, an independent body.
  No authority in the UK is better placed to decide for itself, having consulted its customers, whether to retain its housing stock under direct management or to go for an alternative option. However, the Government are, in effect, telling the council and the tenants of Hammersmith and Fulham, "It does not matter about your record on the quality of your service provision. It does not matter what local people want to happen to their homes and their communities. You will go down the route that we dictate or you will lose subsidy. If you lose that subsidy, you will not meet the standards for decent housing, and if you do not meet those standards you will be deemed a failing authority, with all the implications of that assessment."
  In his 8 May letter to the independent chair of the Hammersmith and Fulham commission to which I referred earlier, Lord Rooker said that he was pleased that the commission had conducted an appraisal of the options available for the long-term future of council housing stock in Hammersmith and Fulham. He also said that he was pleased that there had been high tenant involvement in the process. However, Lord Rooker went on to say that he did not think that the meeting with him that the housing commission had respectfully requested would be helpful, as the Government were not prepared to consider any exception to the blanket policy set out in their communities plan.
  Lord Rooker's refusal to consider the option unanimously agreed by the 19 tenants and leaseholders in the report and, indeed, his refusal even to meet a

  661
  delegation from the commission came as a shock and confirmed the worst fears of the members of the commission. Local people undertook a huge exercise, in terms of time and commitment. They gave up their time freely and, as I said earlier, an estimated 1,500 person hours have been ignored by the Government. I should like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the commission and to congratulate them on their hard work and commitment.
  Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to think again and to agree to reconsider their position, based on the excellent report that has been produced by the housing commission.
  On 3 July 2002, in a speech to the annual conference of the Local Government Association, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
  "The most important performance assessment is, as we know, at the ballot box. The judgment of those we serve is the ultimate test for all of us."
  I agree with those sentiments. I fear the consequences for my party at the ballot box if the Government fail to take seriously the clear and stated views of local people, especially when the matter involves one of their most precious assets—their homes.
  Local people in Hammersmith and Fulham will not easily forget or forgive the manner in which they have been treated on this occasion. It must surely be right that the voice of the local community, so coherently expressed in this excellent report, should be listened to and respected, so I await with interest the response of the Minister.
  2.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) for this opportunity to discuss the important issue of council housing, which is of great significance, not only to his constituents but to all social sector tenants in the country.
  At the heart of the issue is the Government's determination to deliver major improvements in the quality of life of tenants throughout the country. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that there is a clear need to transform homes and communities blighted by years of neglect.
  Of course, the challenges vary across the country. My hon. Friend represents the fourth smallest inner-London borough in terms of both area and population, but the fourth highest in terms of population density. I know that he represents his constituency assiduously and is one of the most hard-working and dedicated constituency MPs.
  Much of the borough's housing stock was built in the 19th century and needs extensive repair. Like many inner-London boroughs, the larger, older council estates suffer from poor environments that exacerbate the social and economic problems of those who live there. The local authority owns just over 14,000 dwellings. A further 11,600 are owned by registered social landlords, and another 49,000 are privately owned, of which more than 31,000 are owner-occupied.
  662
  More than 5,000 council homes were classified as non-decent in 2001. That is a significant problem—but a range of effective solutions is available.
  As my hon. Friend has said, Hammersmith and Fulham has a very impressive recent record in housing issues. I am delighted that the borough is showing leadership and imagination as it faces up to the housing challenges confronting it. The borough was, as my hon. Friend said, rated excellent in the Audit Commission's first national comprehensive performance assessment—CPA—of local authorities, and scored four out of four for its housing service. Its housing management and caretaking service received a three-star rating from the housing inspectorate, which said that its service had a strong customer focus and excellent prospects for improvement.
  If that is the picture in Hammersmith and Fulham, what is the picture nationally? At 1 April 2001 there were 1.6 million non-decent social sector homesa reduction of 700,000 from 1996. An analysis of the 2002 local authority business plans and information from the Housing Corporation shows that we are on track to meet the target of a one third reduction in non-decent homes nationally by 2004 but that we shall fall short of the 2010 target on current projections.
  The Government carried out a review to improve the delivery mechanisms and put us back on track. The revised trajectory, based on expected implementation of the recommendations from that review, shows that we are back on track to meet the 2010 target, which was the purpose of the review. The question for all of us is how to continue to build on the success so far and take forward the outcomes of the review to ensure that we remain focused on our objectives of decent homes and sustainable communities.
  The Deputy Prime Minister recently announced a communities plan, as my hon. Friend said, to map out how we can achieve a step change and ensure that we have quality housing in the right place, of the right type and at the right cost throughout the country. We are backing up our plans for improving social housing with cash—nearly £2 billion for arm's length management organisations and £685 million of private finance initiative credits over the next three years towards our target of making all social housing decent by about 2010. The communities plan makes it clear that the right strategy must be chosen for meeting the decent home target. By July 2005, every local authority with stock must produce for Government sign-off an objective and rigorous appraisal of invesment options for meeting the decent home target if it has not already done so.
  My hon. Friend referred to the report by the Hammersmith and Fulham housing commission, "Our Community—Our Homes—Our Choice". As he said, I am more than aware that Professor Steve Hilditch, the independent chair of the commission, wrote to my colleague Lord Rooker on 4 April, seeking a discussion on that report. The commission's main recommendations support an alternative model for managing the borough's housing stock to those available under national policy and suggest that the Government should provide the borough with some additional funding that it would qualify for if it set up a high-performing arm's length management organisation.

  663
  As my hon. Friend has said, Lord Rooker explained why the Government could not accept that proposal. I have already mentioned the review of the ways of delivering decent homes. A clear recommendation of that review was that it was necessary to end uncertainty about the options available for delivering decent homes. This we did by setting out the options in the sustainable communities plan.
  The plan made it clear that, as my hon. Friend said, local authorities seeking additional investment in their housing stock may choose from three options: stock transfer, PFI and ALMOs. Each option brings about a separation of the landlord function from the wider strategic housing responsibilities of a local authority, which is important in ensuring that each has proper attention. The options provide different devices, two of which leave the ownership of the stock with local councils but change the management arrangements.
  We have made a number of changes to the way in which the options work, to make them more accessible to local authorities. Although authorities must undertake rigorous option appraisal to demonstrate which option or combination of options is most appropriate for their own specific circumstances, the plan also made it clear that authorities that do not pursue those options cannot, as my hon. Friend said, expect increased investment above that provided for in the housing investment programme.
  That clarity has been broadly welcomed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not possible to make exceptions for particular authorities in the context of a national and declared national policy.
  Mr. Coleman: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend and I am grateful for the kind remarks that he made about me and about the borough. He says that he is sure that that I will understand why it is not possible to make an exception, but I am afraid that I do not, particularly in the context of a high-performing local authority, and particularly in the context of a report like this, when it is clear to everyone that the desire of the overwhelming majority of the tenants who have been consulted in relation to this—I have no doubt that the same result would be obtained in a ballot—is to remain with the council, which they have known for many years and with which they wish to remain. I do not understand why it is not possible to make that exception.
  Mr. McNulty: My hon. Friend will know that, in the context of national policy, the commission says very clearly in its review of the option that
  "Retention under democratic control would fall a long way short of achieving the decent homes plus standard: unless additional subsidy was made available to support borrowing; or the government relaxed current rules, for example to allow the major repairs allowance to be used to support prudential borrowing; or",
  as my hon. Friend has already said,
  "there will be very major revenue cuts and reductions in service."
  Whereas,
  "ALMO would probably enable the council to achieve the decent home plus standard on the basis of current estimates of the likely availability of subsidy to support prudential borrowing".
  The Government have to operate and to make such decisions in the national context, not on a borough by borough, housing authority by housing authority basis.
  664
  So I am glad that the commission has taken a pragmatic approach in examining the options for delivering decent homes. I am pleased that the commission's analysis identifies the ALMO option as possibly suitable for Hammersmith and Fulham. I am glad that the commission recognises that the council should follow
  "the ALMO route as the best obtainable means of improving homes and protecting services."
  I fully accept that it takes that view in the light of no positive response on its first preference.
  We must always remember that ownership of the stock remains with the council, that the tenants remain secure council tenants and that an ALMO would involve greater and more development tenant participation. Currently, 25 ALMOs are in operation and responsible for managing and improving about 360,000 properties—one in eight of all council stock.
  I am aware that the commission met representatives of Hounslow Homes and, I think, Kensington and Chelsea council. Between them, those round 1 and 2 ALMOs are considering investing an extra £1.8 billion to bring all their stock up to the decent homes standard. That is a huge investment and, in many areas, tenants are already seeing the benefits: in physical improvements and, perhaps even more importantly, in an improved relationship with the housing managers.
  We recognise the wider importance of community renewal—communities are more than simply homes—so from ALMO round 3 onwards, we will allow up to 5 per cent. of the funding to be used for environmental or other regenerative works not immediately directed to the decent homes standard. It is right that ALMOs should remain focused on the task that they have been given—making homes decent—but that must not preclude local authorities from taking every advantage of all the money and programmes available to ensure that decent homes sit in decently maintained and confident communities.
  My hon. Friend raised the issue of tenant involvement in the decisions that will affect them. As I have said, the review made a number of recommendations, but perhaps the key one involved putting the tenant at the heart of decent homes. I am glad that Hammersmith and Fulham council has taken that on board and, again, I recognise its record. It is evident that there has been a high level of tenant involvement in setting up the housing commission and in developing the options to deliver decent homes. I very much welcome that and would encourage it to continue. An integral part of tenant involvement, which was recognised by the commission, is in having a real say in how their homes are managed, which is why we have tenant places on the boards of ALMO—I believe that the commission looked at the Kensington and Chelsea model of 50 per cent., minus one tenant on the board. Experience shows that when tenants are involved from the start and have a sense of ownership of a proposal, they will support it. I am pleased, too, that the commission's report recognises, on page 43, that under the first preference, or under the second preference of establishing an ALMO, the council and tenants will be able to consider whether and how far to extend the level of tenant involvement in the management of council homes.
  What is the way forward for Hammersmith and Fulham? In one sense, it is in the borough's hands, within the context of national policy. The borough has

  665
  been through a process in which it has worked closely with its tenants and other stakeholders and has analysed the options carefully. The commission's conclusion is that, of the options available within the national policy framework, it would consider looking further at the ALMO option. It is for Hammersmith and Fulham to put that into practice. If the ALMO is the most suitable route for Hammersmith and Fulham, I am sure that the Government office for London and the community housing taskforce will work closely with Hammersmith and Fulham on the further development of that option, not least in the context of the 10 additional points that the commission makes on page 39, which are items for discussion that Hammersmith and Fulham would like to pursue were it to take the ALMO route, to get the ALMO model as close as it can to its first preference.
  In many regards, many of the 10 options that the council has put forward, which the council would develop further were it to pursue a bid, are more than
  666
  worth talking about in greater detail with the Government office for London and the community housing taskforce. Given the borough's recent record in housing, I am sure that it will have no trouble in making a great success of that option should it be pursued. I would certainly wish any subsequent bid a fair wind.
  As I said, the commission determined that the ALMO option was appropriate to pursue if the first option were not pursued, and I would strongly encourage the council to talk further with the Governtment office for London and the community housing taskforce in that regard. Ironically, I suspect, as we have found in other models as they have been developed, the strong record of tenant participation and involvement in the key area of their lives—their homes—has been all the more pronounced in ALMOs than in some other models. That will continue rather than lessen, and I look forward to seeing how Hammersmith and Fulham takes its housing plans forward.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met Lord Stevenson to discuss the work of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. [113593]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals on a wide range of subjects. As with previous administrations, it is not my practice to provide details of confidential discussions, under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Iraq
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has made to President Bush for(a) the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq and (b) for other means of international verification of future discoveries of Saddam Hussein's alleged stocks of weapons of mass destruction; and what reply he received. [113013]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye arid Inverness West (Mr. Kennedy) at Prime Minister's questions on 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 307.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he invited the then Secretary of State for International Development to comment in writing on the draft UN Resolution on Iraq, tabled by the UK and USA, before 8 May. [113594]

  The Prime Minister
  As with previous Governments, it is not my practice to provide details of confidential discussions, under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications were received from(a) Roman Catholics and (b) Protestants for the most recent recruitment intake to the Police Service for Northern Ireland; and how many (i) Roman Catholic and (ii) Protestant applicants have been accepted for recruitment to the PSNI in this intake. [113785]

  Jane Kennedy
  Application and appointment numbers to date from the Police Service of Northern Ireland's recruitment competitions 3 and 4 are as follows.438W

  Protestant

  Roman Catholic

  Non-determined

  Total

  Competition 3

  Applications

  2,971

  1,640

  63

  4,674

  Appointments

  79

  83

  0

  162

  Competition 4

  Applications

  2,817

  1,477

  74

  4,368

  Appointments

  30

  37

  0

  68

  Further appointments remain to be made from both Competitions 3 and 4.

  Competition 5 was launched in March 2003, and has attracted over 6,000 applicants, of whom 36.6 per cent, are Catholic. The selection process is ongoing, and appointments will not commence until the autumn.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Payment
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the future take-up of direct payment of benefits in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [113581]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]: The huge numbers of customers involved in the conversion process mean the changes will be phased over a two-year period which started earlier in 2003.

  We have a published target in our public service agreement to pay 85 per cent, of customers by Direct Payment by 2005.

DEFENCE

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what undertakings the US has given on waiving bilateral export licensing requirements for unclassified information for exports to the UK. [113060]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom and United States Governments are in the process of negotiating a waiver from the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). This would provide for export licensing requirements to be waived in the case of certain unclassified defence items and technical data to Her Majesty's Government and qualified companies in the UK.

  We look forward to the successful conclusion of the agreement.

  Illegal Arms Supply
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used in assessing whether a country is likely to be a conduit for arms supply to banned countries. [112291]

  Mr. Straw
  I have been asked to reply.

  The risk of diversion of strategically controlled goods, to a third country is considered at the time of application for a licence, when this possibility is considered against

  439W
  Criterion 7 of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. Criterion 7 addresses the existence of a risk that the equipment will be diverted within the buyer country or re-exported under undesirable conditions and includes consideration of the capability of the recipient country to exert effective export controls.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the continued existence of terrorist networks in the regions of Afghanistan outside the control of the International Security Assistance Force; and what counter-measures his Department is taking to address this. [112697]

  Mr. Ingram
  Al-Qaeda continues to pose a threat both to Afghanistan and more widely, despite considerable success against their leaders and operations. The United Kingdom remains committed to assisting President Karzai's Government in building a strong, independent Afghanistan committed to eradicating terrorism. The Security Sector Reform programme aims to bring lasting stability to all the Afghan people through building up the capabilities of the Afghans to ensure their own country's security and stability. I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made on 8 May 2003,Official Report, columns 38–40WS, regarding the UK leadership of a Provincial Reconstruction Team.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps his Department is taking to improve the stability of the regions of Afghanistan outside Kabul and its immediate environs; [112698]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the peacekeeping duties of British forces in Afghanistan beyond Kabul and the surrounding areas. [112699]

  Mr. Ingram
  British forces in Afghanistan are not engaged in peacekeeping duties although they do contribute towards the International Security Assistance Force; there are no plans to expand the remit of the force beyond Kabul. I refer the hon. Member to the written statement given to the House on 8 May 2003,Official Report, columns 38–40WS, regarding Provincial Reconstruction Teams.

  Antonov
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the MoD has chartered civilian Antonov An-124s in each month in the past two years. [112691]

  Mr. Ingram
  Antonov An-124s were chartered in the following months and numbers during the last two financial years:

  Month/Year

  Number

  October 2001

  16

  December 2001

  4

  January 2002

  20

  February 2002

  26

  March 2002

  20

  April 2002

  32

  May 2002

  4

  June 2002

  8

  440W

  Month/Year

  Number

  July 2002

  18

  August 2002

  9

  October 2002

  3

  November 2002

  1

  January 2003

  9

  February 2003

  56

  March 2003

  36

  Armed Forces (Operational Duty)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the(a) Army, (b) air force and (c) Navy was on operational duty at the start of each month since April 2001. [113250]

  Mr. Ingram
  Data on personnel deployed on operations and other Military Tasks is collected on a quarterly basis as part of the Ministry of Defence's performance management process. Percentage figures for each quarter since April 2001 are shown as follows. These figures do not include personnel preparing for operations, recovering from operations or engaged in training. Information for the last quarter of 2002–03 is still in the course of compilation and the figures are provisional.

  Percentage of trained strength deployed on operations and other military tasks

  Service

  Army

  Navy (including Marines)

  RAF

  2001–02

  April-June

  21.8

  9.5

  11.9

  July-September

  25.6

  8.4

  12.7

  October-December

  26.3

  16.7

  16.7

  January-March

  23.9

  15.7

  13.1

  2002–03

  April-June

  24.6

  17.5

  12.6

  July-September

  23.9

  13

  10.9

  October-December

  32.5

  16.5

  19.1

  January-March

  55.6

  28.5

  21.8

  Armilla Patrol
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the commitment of Royal Navy warships and personnel to the Gulf region; if the Armilla patrol will continue; and if he will make a statement. [112020]

  Mr. Ingram
  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 of 11 April 2003,Official Report, columns 38–39WS and 30 April 2003, Official Report, columns 15–16WS. Royal Naval force levels in the Gulf region will remain under review.

  Bowman Communication System
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends that MRAV and ETS will be fitted with(a) Bowman and (b) Clansman radio systems. [110015]
  441W
  Mr. Ingram
  Our intention is to provide Bowman capability on all the armoured vehicle platforms we are planning to bring into service.

  Brimstone Weapon
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he expects the Brimstone air-launched anti-armour weapon to be in service. [112481]

  Mr. Ingram
  The entry into service of the Brimstone, air launched anti-armour weapon has been delayed because of technical factors that have emerged during the development and trials of the missile and its production. A revised date is currently under review.

  Cluster Munitions
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the UK armed forces' use of cluster bombs in military operations. [113737]

  Mr. Ingram
  Cluster bombs are a legitimate weapon that provide a capability against certain targets, in particular targets that cover an area, which cannot be

  £000

  Provision

  Outturn

  1997–981

  Vote 1 Operational and Support Costs

  10,145,387

  10,068,343

  Vote 2 Logistic Services

  4,806,638

  4,697,410

  Vote 3 Systems Procurement and Research

  6,353,598

  6,150,142

  Vote 4 Armed Forces retired pay, pensions etc

  1,121,776

  1,126,210

  1998–991

  Vote 1 Operational and Support Costs

  10,885,792

  10,922,188

  Vote 2 Logistic Services

  5,027,211

  5,027,921

  Vote 3 Systems Procurement and Research

  6,856,926

  6,526,112

  Vote 4 Armed Forces retired pay, pensions etc

  1,191,454

  1,169,138

  1999–20001

  Vote 1 Operational and Support Costs, Logistic Services and Systems Procurement and Research

  22,866,888

  22,549,260

  Vote 2 Armed Forces retired pay, pensions etc.

  1,270,091

  1,262,289

  2000–011

  Vote 1 Operational and Support Costs, Logistic Services and Systems Procurement and Research

  23,609,631

  23,537,721

  Vote 2 Armed Forces retired pay, pensions etc.

  1,342,195

  1,267,002

  Source:

  Appropriation Accounts

  2 I will write separately with the information for 2001–02 giving a full explanation of the components of the provision and outturn figures introduced with Resource Accounting and Budgeting and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what departmental savings have been achieved by the Defence Logistical Organisation; and whether they have met the funding assumptions of the Strategic Defence Review. [112563]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: Savings achieved by the Defence Logistics Organisation are recorded against its overall efficiency target to reduce the costs of its outputs by 20 per cent, by March 2006. Details of the DLO's performance against its strategic goal to March 2002 are contained in my answer on 15 January 2003, Official Report, column 634W, to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer). Subject to final validation, it is estimated that a farther 2 per cent, efficiency savings have been achieved in 2002–03.
  442W
  effectively achieved in other ways. United Kingdom armed forces always use them strictly in accordance with the provisions of international law.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had regarding extending the ban on anti-personnel mines to cover cluster munitions. [112599]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Defence Budget
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) provision and (b) outturn for the defence budget was, in cash terms, broken down by (i) Vote and (ii) Request for Resources in each year since 1997–98. [109141]

  Mr. Ingram
  The figures for each year from 1997–98 to 2000–01 are set out in the table below. From 2001–02 onwards the Defence budget was set on a Resource basis, which includes accruals, rather than cash. The figures for 2001–02 have not been included therefore, as they are not directly comparable to those for earlier years.

  The strategic defence review placed several targets on the newly formed Defence Logistics Organisation. The targets shown as follows, for which there were identified financial savings, have been achieved.
  20 per cent. (GBV 98 Baseline) stock reduction by 2001–02,
  Reduction in spares provision of £115 million per annum by 2001–02

  Other on-going targets have been subsumed within the DLO's overall efficiency target.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the Defence Logistics Organisation needs to deploy fully equipment to forces once they are in-theatre. [112025]

  Mr. Ingram
  The onward movement of equipment within a theatre of operations is the responsibility of the local military commander. Equipment and supplies are
  443W
  delivered to units in accordance with the military priority at the time and the overall delivery time will depend on a number of factors. These include the distance between the port or holding area and the receiving unit, the condition of local infrastructure, and whether the environment is hostile or benign. Delivery times will, therefore, vary from case to case.

  Defence Vetting Agency
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the unit cost of vetting individuals by the Defence Vetting Agency and (b) the estimated cost of vetting individuals through a private contractor; and if he will make a statement. [111840]

  Mr. Ingram
  The unit costs of vetting individuals for the main types of vetting clearances are as follows:

  £

  Counter Terrorist Check (CTC)

  27

  Security Check (SC)

  34

  Developed Vetting (DV) Initial

  1,101

  Developed Vetting (DV) Review

  672

  These are the average costs, and are based on the last full Defence Vetting Agency Annual Accounts (2001–02). They exclude Security Service costs, of which the Ministry of Defence has no visibility.

  The estimated costs of vetting individuals through a private contractor have not been considered. The proposal to create the Defence Vetting Agency was subjected to a prior options study, which involved the various stakeholders, including the Security Service. The study reached the conclusion that personnel security vetting was a core MOD function. This view is subject to the Quinquennial Review (now Business Review) process. A Business Review of the Defence Vetting Agency is currently under way, and will consider whether vetting could be provided by other means.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [112610]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom is actively engaged with our African, EU and UN partners in promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The Government have supported the implementation of both the Lusaka Peace Agreement and the Pretoria Agreement of July 2002 as providing the most viable way forward.

  We welcome the agreement signed last month in Sun City on the establishment of a transitional government with a view to democratic elections in two years time and will play our part as a member of the International Support Committee tasked with supporting the transitional process in DR Congo. We are concerned at reports of fighting in the North East of the country and look to all parties to abide by UNSCR 1468 and honour their commitments under the Lusaka Agreement.

  Discarded Military Equipment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on clearing up and removal of discarded military equipment; what financial resources he has to do this work; and if he will make a statement. [112052]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom forces have destroyed some caches of weaponry discarded by the Iraqi military. A nationwide systematic process of disarmament and decommissioning will be a matter for a new Iraqi government, drawing on the expertise of the international community and organisations like the UN.

  E-Government Projects
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by project the consultancies his Department and its non-departmental public bodies have used on e-government projects since 1 January 2001. [114184]

  Dr. Moonie
  As it will take some time for the information requested to be collated, I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Eurofighter
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of total UK expenditure on(a) research and development for and (b) the production of the Eurofighter has been spent in Wales. [Transferred] [113118]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: Payment arrangements for Eurofighter Typhoon are managed by the prime contractors. The Ministry of Defence does not have visibility of the geographical allocation of work (and hence expenditure) within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had regarding a change in the UK's purchase of Eurofighter Typhoons from 232 machines. [111587]

  Mr. Ingram
  We keep the size and shape of the forward equipment programme under constant review. Our commitment to the Typhoon programme remains undiminished.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures the Government is taking to ensure that the(a) cost of weapons integration and (b) benefits of inter-operability in the Eurofighter Typhoon project are shared equitably between the participating countries. [112441]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of weapons integration is shared between the countries electing to fit those weapons under arrangements set out in Memoranda of Understanding between the participating countries.

  Typhoon is designed to be interoperable with all the participating countries' air forces and each country will have both common and non-common weaponry requirements to meet their individual needs. Commonality of software and hardware will benefit the air forces when the aircraft are deployed and makes it cheaper and quicker to adopt, at a later stage, weapons that are in use with other participating countries.
  445W
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft the Government intends to purchase; when the order for tranche 2 will be placed; and what progress is being made on the development of a ground attack version of the aircraft. [111912]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: Under the four nation memoranda of understanding, the United Kingdom has undertaken to acquire 232 aircraft out of a total production of 620. We expect that the four partner nations will place the order for Tranche 2 aircraft, of which the UK share is 89, later this year. Typhoon aircraft are planned progressively to incorporate ground attack capabilities and early aircraft are planned to be upgraded through a retro-fit programme.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy warships are on station at the Falkland Islands; and what Royal Fleet Auxiliary support is available. [112014]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Falkland Island Patrol Vessel, HMS Leeds Castle, is currently on station providing a permanent Royal Navy presence in and around the Falkland Islands Area of Responsibility (FIAOR). The Atlantic Patrol Task (South) (APT(S)) tanker, RFA Gold Rover, is scheduled to deploy to the South Atlantic in early May 2003 while the APT(S) duty ship, HMS Lancaster, is scheduled to deploy in early July 2003.

  Far East Naval Deployment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which vessels will continue with the Naval Task Group 03 deployment to the Far East. [112083]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 11 April 2003,Official Report, columns 38–39WS, concerning the redeployment of HMS Marlborough and HMS Liverpool, together with RFA Grey Rover, from operations in the Gulf to the Far East. These ships constitute a reduced Naval Task Group (NTG) 03. Both HMS Marlborough and HMS Liverpool were part of the original NTG 03 deployment before being called upon, with the rest of the Task Group, for contingent operations in support of Operation TELIC.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the use of the Gibraltar base in potential future conflicts and peacekeeping operations. [112011]

  Mr. Ingram
  Gibraltar has been and continues to be an important overseas base for the British armed forces. It contains valuable support, logistic, communications and training facilities, which will be used for future missions as appropriate.

  Guided Multiple Rocket Launch System
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) forecast in-service date,
  446W
  (b) forecast date of main gate approval and (c) forecast cost of the assessment phase of the GMLRS; and how many rockets will be procured. [111828]

  Mr. Ingram
  The in service date for the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) will not be set until the project receives its main investment approval to proceed to development and manufacture (Main Gate), but current estimates are that the capability will become available in the second half of this decade; the project is due for Main Gate consideration later this year.

  Initial approval of GMLRS pre-dates the SMART acquisition process. The United Kingdom participated in a United States led Engineering Manufacture and Development Programme which was of a greater scope than an assessment phase; the cost of the UK's participation in this phase was around £20 million.

  The number of rockets to be procured will be in the region of 5,000; the actual number will be subject to approval at Main Gate.

  Hercules
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on centre-of-gravity problems with the RAF's short-fuselage C-130J Hercules C5 aircraft. [112684]

  Mr. Ingram
  The centre of gravity for all transport aircraft has to be managed carefully to ensure that aircraft remain within safe operating parameters.

  The Hercules C-130J Mk5 is cleared for use in accordance with the Military Airworthiness Release and Release to Service, which detail the limitations and configurations of the aircraft operation. The centre-of-gravity of the Mk5 is a known limiting factor on certain aircraft configurations and is overcome by the use of ballast.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received of squadron pilots refusing to fly the RAF's short-fuselage C-130J Hercules C5 aircraft in certain operational configurations owing to concerns over centre-of-gravity problems. [112685]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the fleet utilisation of the RAF's short-fuselage C-130J Hercules C5 aircraft was in the last 12 months; and what the utilisation was of(a) the long-fuselage Hercules C4 fleet and (b) the remaining C-130K variants. [112686]

  Mr. Ingram
  Fleet utilisation is not a term in common usage within the RAF. Officials have therefore interpreted this to be the average number of hours flown over the last 12 months per aircraft for each Hercules type.
  447W

  Aircraft Type

  Average hours flown per aircraft

  Hercules C-130J C5 (short-fuselage)

  436.50

  Hercules C-130J C4 (long-fuselage)

  1,033.93

  Hercules C-13 OK C1

  508.80

  Hercules C-13 OK C3

  807.20

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the RAF's fleet of short-fuselage C-130J Hercules C5 aircraft. [112692]

  Total hours flown per month by each aircraft type

  Aircraft type/ number of aircraft

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  C5(J)/10

  290

  377

  401

  301

  384

  476

  320

  C4(J)/15

  1,045

  886

  1,039

  1,355

  1,252

  1,332

  1,237

  C3(K)/20

  2,131

  1,654

  1,492

  1,237

  1,101

  1,424

  1,546

  C1(K)/5

  318

  264

  487

  127

  200

  373

  58

  Total hours flown per month by each aircraft type

  Aircraft type/number of aircraft

  November

  December

  January

  February

  March

  Total flying hours

  C5(J)/10

  254

  194

  409

  325

  634

  4,365

  C4(J)/15

  1,177

  1,098

  1,379

  2,112

  1,597

  15,509

  C3(K)/20

  1,215

  1,051

  1,021

  1,059

  1,213

  16,144

  C1(K)/5

  36

  141

  218

  121

  201

  2,544

  Total Hercules flying hours during last 12 months

  38,562

  Source:

  Strike Command Monthly summary of statistics

  HMS Victory
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional work is taking place to allow HMS Victory to play a role in the 200th Anniversary of Trafalgar; and what the cost is. [113855]

  Dr. Moonie
  No specific work is being carried out on HMS Victory to support the Commemoration of the 200th Anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar in 2005 and therefore no funding has been identified or allocated.

  Infantry Tours
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which infantry regiments have had a 24-month tour interval in the past five years. [112012]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the 40 Infantry Battalions, the 29 Battalions listed as follows are expected to achieve at least one 24 month tour interval between deployments in the period January 1999 to December 2003. Deployments have been defined as unaccompanied unit level operational tours.

  1st Bn Grenadier Guards

  1st Bn Coldstream Guards

  1st Bn Scots Guards

  1st Bn Irish Guards

  1st Bn Welsh Guards

  1st Bn The Royal Scots

  1st Bn The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  448W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Hercules C-130J Mk 5 aircraft came into service with the RAF in 2000 and forms part of the combined Hercules C-130J and C-130K fleet. The Hercules fleet provides a strategic lift capability for the RAF and it is currently planned that the C-130J Mk 5 will have a service life well into the present century.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours have been flown in each of the last 12 months by(a) the RAF's short-fuselage C-130J Hercules C5 aircraft, (b) the long-fuselage Hercules C4s and (c) C-130K Hercules variants. [112693]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of flying hours achieved for each Hercules aircraft type over the last 12 months:

  1st Bn The King's Own Scottish Borderers

  1st Bn The Black Watch

  1st Bn The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  1st Bn The Highlanders

  1st Bn The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  2nd Bn The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  1st Bn The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  1st Bn The Royal Anglian Regiment

  1st Bn The King's Own Royal Border Regiment

  1st Bn The King's Regiment

  1st Bn The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  1st Bn The Green Howards

  1st Bn The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  1st Bn The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  1st Bn The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  1st Bn The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  1st Bn The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  1st Bn The Light Infantry

  2nd Bn The Light Infantry

  1st Bn The Royal Green Jackets

  2nd Bn The Royal Green Jackets

  1st Bn The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  Intelligence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) agents and (b) covert human intelligence sources are receiving pensions; [112277]
  449W
  (2) what the cost was of (a) the 14th Intelligence Unit, (b) the Forward Reconnaissance Unit, (c) the Force Research Unit and (d) the Joint Services Group, in each of the last five years; [112523]

  (3) what the mission was of the Force Research Unit. [112520]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding the information requested in accordance with Exemption 1a (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) predecessor and (b) successor bodies were to the Force Research Unit; and when each body was (i) established and (ii) disbanded. [112521]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding the information requested in accordance with Exemption 1a (Defence, security and international relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the replacement of ordnance used during the Iraq conflict; and what changes this might imply for UK armed forces armoury. [111813]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ordnance usage during the Iraq conflict will be assessed by the Ministry of Defence as part of its wider post-operational assessment It is too soon to say how this might affect the United Kingdom armoury.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the helicopters deployed to Operation Telic together with the serviceability rates for each aircraft. [111822]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of helicopters, by type, deployed to Operation TELIC is listed.

  Helicopter type

  Number deployed to operation TELIC

  Chinook

  20

  Gazelle

  16

  Lynx Mk 3

  6

  Lynx Mk 7

  22

  Lynx Mk 8

  4

  Lynx Mk 9

  2

  Merlin Mk 1

  4

  Puma

  7

  Sea King Mk 4

  10

  Sea King Mk 6

  6

  Sea King Mk 7

  4

  Post operational reporting will provide analysis and 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 of helicopters at this stage. However, early indications are that the helicopters deployed to Operation TELIC performed very well.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the operational effectiveness of the containers handling rough terrain during Operation Telic; and what the average time was for moving containers. [111825]
  450W
  Mr. Ingram
  There are two types of container handling equipment in theatre, the Rough Terrain Container Handling and the Container Handling Rough Terrain. The two pieces of equipment have provided a complementary capability, both have played a vital role in the logistical operations in the Gulf. Data on the length of time taken to move a container is not recorded.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps are being taken to destroy unexploded munitions in Iraq; [111918]

  (2) what steps are being taken to protect (a) children and (b) adults from unexploded munitions in Iraq. [111919]

  Mr. Ingram
  Basra and its environs are likely to contain a significant number of unexploded munitions from the Iran-Iraq war as well as mines laid by Iraqi forces, unexploded ordnance fired or dropped during recent hostilities and stores of ammunition and other ordnance left by Iraqi military and paramilitary forces.Providing a safe, secure and risk free environment for the Iraqi people is a key aspect of restoration activity for the Coalition. When unexploded munitions are discovered Coalition forces' mark the site and inform those in the vicinity. Their normal practice is then to destroy them in situ. Those that present the greatest threat to human life and coalition operations are destroyed first.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the UK naval base in Gibraltar was fully utilised for operations in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [112009]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Gibraltar naval base was employed in support of recent operations in Iraq. Some vessels from the Naval Task Group headed by HMS Ark Royal called at Gibraltar en route to the Gulf and elements of the Air Group also embarked via Gibraltar as the Task Group transited east.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what problems have been reported with desert boots issued to members of the armed forces serving in Operation Telic. [112028]

  Mr. Ingram
  No problems have been reported to date through the official defect reporting system regarding desert boots issued to members of our armed forces serving in Kuwait or Iraq.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance is being given by(a) the Royal Marines and (b) the Royal Navy to facilitate the reconstruction of Iraq. [112250]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy and Royal Marines have played a crucial role in facilitating the reconstruction of Iraq. In particular, their efforts alongside United States forces in liberating the port of Umm Qasr, and in clearing the Khawr Abd Allah waterway of mines and obstructions should be commended. Umm Qasr is one of the key points of entry for humanitarian aid into Iraq, and RFA Sir Galahad, carrying food, water and medical supplies, arrived in the port on 28 March.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Dr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Joint Strike Fighters he intends to order for the Royal Navy. [112265]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) has been selected to meet our Future Joint Combat Aircraft (FJCA) requirement, to replace the current Harrier aircraft of Joint Force Harrier (JHF). FJCA will be flown by both Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel, from the new carriers and land bases. While no final decisions have yet been taken, our planning assumption is based on 150 of the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of JSF being acquired to meet the FJCA Requirement.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will take measures to ensure that weapons stocks procured before the Joint Strike Fighter enters UK service will be able to operate efficiently on the JSF; [112438]

  (2) if it is his policy that measures will be taken to ensure that UK air-launched weapons stocks can more fully inter-operate with US aircraft and vice versa; [112440]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the extent to which the UK's air launched weapons stocks can inter-operate with US aircraft, and vice versa, in current operations. [112439]

  Mr. Ingram
  The interoperability of air launched weapons with our allies is one of a number of factors considered when procuring new systems.

  The United Kingdom has a number of air launched weapons which could be inter-operable with United States aircraft and vice versa, such as Maverick, for example. However it is not usual practice to share stocks as notionally common weapons often have different national sub-systems, such as fuzes. Changes to these would therefore be required before the weapons could be used by other nations' aircraft.

  During the acquisition of air launched weapons due consideration is given to their potential to operate effectively from JSF if they are likely to be in use when JSF is in service.

  Mr. Sean O'Callaghan
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments have been made to Mr. Sean O'Callaghan. [112549]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: I am withholding the information requested in accordance with Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the minutes of meetings of the Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel since 1997. [114074]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel formed in 1999. As part of the panel's commitment to make information about inspection and regulatory activities publicly available, quarterly reports are 452W
  routinely issued to regulated sites for distribution to members of site Local Liaison Committees. I am arranging for past copies of these quarterly reports to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Next Geneation Light Anti-armour Weapon
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the NLAW will use depleted uranium; how much will be procured; when the forecast in-service date is; and if he will make a statement. [111829]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to use depleted uranium, in the Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon (NLAW) programme. NLAW has an approved In-service Date of 2007.

  Non-precision Weapons
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the margin of error for non-precision weapons is when used from a height of 150,000 ft. [113245]

  Mr. Ingram
  Aircraft do not generally fly at 150,000 ft and would not drop bombs from this altitude. I have therefore assumed an altitude of 15,000 ft. when answering this question. When dropped from this altitude, the average accuracy for non-precision weapons is as follows:

  540 lb and 1,000 lb free-fall bomb: 200 ft

  RBL-755 cluster bomb: 230 ft

  This will of course depend on the weapon delivery profile and operational circumstances. The accuracy of both precision and non-precision weapons and the need to minimise, as far as possible, collateral damage is considered during the targeting process. We continue to make efforts to improve the accuracy of both precision and non-precision weapons by enhancements to aircraft navigation systems and through our ability to calculate more precise target co-ordinates.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the UK has made to the USA's programme for a new generation of earth penetrating nuclear weapons. [112196]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no United Kingdom involvement in these United States studies.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken since the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review and Extension Conference in 2000 to increase the transparency of United Kingdom nuclear weapons capability. [111706]

  Mr. Ingram
  During and since the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, the United Kingdom has taken various steps to enhance transparency about its nuclear weapons capability.

  The UK has given a figure for our total nuclear warhead stockpile which is unprecedentedly precise, and has given an exact figure for the number of

  453W

  warheads carried by the submarine on deterrent patrol. No other nuclear weapon state has given such detailed information. We have also:
  continued to provide updated information about the costs of the Trident system;
  placed fissile material no longer required for defence purposes under international safeguards and all enrichment and reprocessing facilities in the UK are now liable to international inspection. We have also been more transparent about our nuclear and fissile material stockpiles and begun national historical accounting for fissile material produced, including the publication in April 2000 of a report on Historical Accounting and Plutonium; and
  agreed an Additional Protocol to our safeguards agreement with the IAEA and EURATOM. It will enter into force when the rest of the EU has completed the necessary steps.

  The Government are committed to transparency and openness about the defence nuclear programme when compatible with continuing security requirements and the UK's international obligations under Article 1 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  Operation Endeavour
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the command of Operation Endeavour; [112008]

  (2) what contribution (a) the UK and (b) Spain is making to Operation Endeavour; and if he will make a statement. [112010]

  Mr. Ingram
  NATO's maritime Operation Active Endeavour was mounted as a part of NATO's Article 5 response following the World Trade Centre attacks in 2001. The operation now covers the entire Mediterranean, with NATO warships conducting surveillance and interdiction operations in the east, and those working in the west, ie the Straits of Gibraltar, conducting monitoring, surveillance and escorting duties.

  Command of the Operation is exercised through the NATO Command Structure. The Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) exercises command through the Joint Force Commander, the Commander in Chief Allied Forces Southern Europe (CINCSOUTH) based in Naples. Day to day command of the operation is exercised by the local Maritime Component Commander, Commander Naval Forces Southern Europe, again based in Naples.

  The United Kingdom and Spain have participated in the operation since its outset, primarily through the deployment of NATO's Standing Naval Forces.

  Currently, the UK commits two ships to the operation, HMS Cornwall and HMS Northumberland. Command of the formations rotates between the NATO Nations; currently the UK is commanding Standing Naval Forces Atlantic, which is conducting the eastern element of the operation, from HMS Cornwall, while a Spanish officer commands the western element from SPS Extramadura. This ship is in lieu of her Standing Naval Force commitment, and is supported by a Spanish corvette, or fast patrol boat and a helicopter operating from ashore.

  Operation Telic
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the construction of Marchwood military port to the success of Operation Telic. [112252]

  Mr. Ingram
  Sea Mounting Centre Marchwood played an essential part in the success of Operation Telic, since it is configured and roled for just such an operational deployment Of the 46 vessels which deployed from the UK, 32 were loaded at Marchwood.

  Peacekeeping (Africa)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress the United Kingdom has made with developing a plan which will enable Africa by 2010 to deploy a brigade sustainable in the field for 18 months for peacekeeping operations. [113659]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the G8 summit at Kananaskis in June 2002, G8 nations, including the United Kingdom, have been working with African partners to develop a joint action plan so that, by 2010, African countries and regional and sub-regional organisations are able to engage more effectively to prevent and resolve violent conflict on the continent, and undertake peace support operations in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

  A draft plan is still under discussion with the African Union and other partners. No decisions have yet been made on the size or sustainability of a possible African standby peacekeeping force.

  RAF Coltishall
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce a decision on the future of RAF Coltishall. [112565]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: A decision on the future use of RAF Coltishall, the base for the Jaguar, will be made nearer the time of the Jaguar's withdrawal from RAF service, which is planned to take place by 2009.

  Regimental Strengths
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) establishment and (b) strength is of (i) 1 Bn The King's Regiment, (ii) 1 Bn The King's Own Scottish Borderers and (iii) 1 Bn The Queen's Lancashire Regiment. [113959]

  Dr. Moonie
  The establishment and strength, as at 1 April 2003, of 1 Bn The Kings Regiment, 1 Bn The King's Own Scottish Borderers and 1 Bn The Queen's Lancashire Regiment are detailed in the following table:

  Establishment

  Strength

  1 Bn The King's Regiment

  586

  541

  1 Bn The King's Own Scottish Borderers

  556

  505

  1 Bn The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  555

  543

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary
  Dr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects(a) RFA Largs Bay and (b) RFA Lyme Bay to enter service. [112270]

  Mr. Ingram
  The First of Class Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary), RFA Largs Bay, is expected to enter service in autumn 2004. RFA Lyme Bay is due in service by summer 2005.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of Royal Navy minehunters during the Gulf conflict. [112272]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the recent conflict with Iraq the Mine Countermeasures Vessels HMS Ledbury, HMS Grimsby, HMS Sandown, HMS Brocklesby, HMS Blyth and HMS Bangor operated as part of a combined UK/US Task Unit under the Command of a United Kingdom Mine Countermeasures Commander. Their role was to clear the approaches to the Iraqi primary commercial port of Umm Qasr of any sea mines to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered as quickly as possible.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of RFA Argus during the Gulf conflict. [112269]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the recent conflict with Iraq, RFA Argus provided support to the Amphibious Task Group and operated as the Primary Casualty Reception Facility, providing for the medical needs, both routine and emergency, of Service and displaced personnel

  Royal Navy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Royal Navy helicopter presence will remain in the Gulf after the return of HMS Ocean and HMS Ark Royal. [112262]

  Mr. Ingram
  Royal Navy helicopters will be assigned to those surface ships that are allocated to operations in the Gulf. Additionally, five RN Sea King MM aircraft will be remaining in Iraq for the next phase of Operation Telic.

  Dr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what unmanned aerial vehicles he intends to acquire for Royal Navy use. [112266]

  Mr. Ingram
  We have no current plans to acquire unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for Royal Navy use. However we are planning a Joint UAV Experimentation Programme to examine the potential role of UAVs including, potentially, Royal Navy use.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent progress there has been on repairs to HMS Nottingham. [112273]

  Mr. Ingram
  Work on HMS Nottingham began in December 2002. Repairs to the structure of the hull are expected to be completed by the end of May and work to strip out and replace damaged equipment, electrical rewiring and painting is progressing well. HMS Nottingham is expected to return to operational service, as planned, in November 2004.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Royal Navy is undertaking in respect of Sierra Leone. [112255]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom has maintained a twin track strategy in Sierra Leone, supporting the UN mission and providing training, advice and assistance to the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF) and the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone. A UK-led International Military Advisory and Training Team (IMATT) continues to help build the RSLAF into an effective, professional and democratically accountable force. A number of Royal Navy personnel currently serve in the IMATT.

  To show continued UK commitment to Sierra Leone, Royal Navy vessels are deployed to Sierra Leone waters. In February HMS Iron Duke and RFA Black Rover deployed to Sierra Leone. The next scheduled visit, by RFA Gold Rover, is due later this month.

  Smart Munitions
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the smart munitions in the UK inventory, including in each case the(a) unit cost and (b) total number of each unit expected to be procured; and what the total budget is for such weapons in each financial year until 2006. [111838]

  Mr. Ingram
  For the purposes of this question a 'smart munition' has been defined as one with an autonomous ability to engage a designated target with a high degree of precision.

  Using this definition, the following smart munitions are held in the United Kingdom inventory; Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, Paveway II, Enhanced Paveway II, Paveway III, Enhanced Paveway III, Sidewinder, Alarm, Sky Flash, AMRAAM (AIM-120B), Maverick and Sea Skua.

  I am with holding details of unit cost, numbers and total budget in accordance with Exemptions 1 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the findings of the Stevens Inquiry relating to the use of informants, with particular reference to Agent Stakeknife. [112548]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: Sir John Stevens' overview and recommendations published on 17 April 2003 made clear that his inquiries and specific criminal investigations are continuing and that his recommendations cover the operations of all security forces in Northern Ireland. It would therefore be inappropriate for the Ministry of Defence to comment.

  Strategic Trends Paper
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre paper on Strategic Trends in the Library. [113061]
  457W
  Mr. Ingram
  I have placed a copy in the Library today. An electronic version is also available at www.jdcc.mod.uk/trends.htm.

  Submarines
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) HMS Astute, (b) HMS Artful and (c) HMS Ambush will be operational. [112015]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with announcements made on 19 February this year, an agreement was reached between the Government and BAE Systems on both the Astute and Nimrod programmes. The exact details of the agreement required to establish formally the new financial structure and the revised in-service dates are being agreed.

  The Government will report further when this has been achieved.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all Type-45 destroyers will be equipped with Merlin helicopters. [111321]

  Mr. Ingram
  All Type-45 destroyers will be capable of carrying Merlin Mk 1 helicopters. However, at any particular time, they will carry the type of helicopter most appropriate to their tasking.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Report
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he will publish the Cabinet Office Departmental Report 2003. [114686]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office Departmental Report 2003 has today been laid before Parliament by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  African Trade
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by the Whitehall Africa Trade Group in drawing up terms of reference for a G8 study of how to improve preferential access schemes in G8 countries. [113648]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  This study comparing the G8 preferential market access schemes for African and least developed countries is now underway and preliminary findings are expected in June. The study will aim to produce a basis for practical proposals on improving G8 market access for African goods by identifying which aspects of these schemes have the greatest impact on African exports and identify possible areas of trade related technical assistance that can help countries increase their utilisation of the schemes. The Institute of Development
  458W
  Studies at the University of Sussex is undertaking the research drawing on work by the World bank and UNCTAD on impacts of preferential market access schemes. The importance of the work was noted by G8 trade and development experts, meeting in Brussels in January, to discuss the G8 Africa Action Plan trade commitments.

  British Business Assistance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list her Department's schemes and services which have been initiated to assist British businesses; when they were opened; what expenditure has been committed; how many companies have received assistance from each scheme; and how much has been expended by way of assistance to business by each scheme to date. [113217]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information necessary to answer this question is not held centrally on a database and retrieving it would incur disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department has expended on advertising and promoting each scheme and service for assisting British business since 1997. [113219]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information necessary to answer this question is not held centrally on a database and retrieving it would incur disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures are in place for measuring the effectiveness of her Department's schemes and services which have been initiated to assist British business. [113222]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI routinely commissions a programme of independent evaluations of the impact of its business support programmes, the results of which are normally published in full. Individual evaluations are subject to peer review through a specialised expert committee to ensure that the methodology used is rigorous and appropriate, and that conclusions are soundly based. Following the DTI's recent review of business support, new and improved monitoring arrangements are also being put in place, using a balanced scorecard approach, to provide ongoing information about the extent to which new business support products are achieving their objectives and offering value for money.

  Further information about the Department's evaluation procedures is available on its web site at http://www.dti.gov.uk/about/evaluation, together with the results of past evaluations.

  Broadband
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the availability of broadband technologies that do not use wire or cable to achieve connections; and if she will make a statement. [112657]

  Ms Hewitt
  Broadband fixed wireless access offers broadband to around 12 per cent, of the UK and broadband via satellite is available across the UK.
  459W
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with British Telecom about its technological capacity(a) to guarantee that where the broadband service is offered it can be properly and successfully provided and (b) to introduce broadband connectivity throughout the UK. [112995]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department maintains regular contacts with BT across a wide range of technological issues as we do with other broadband providers. The Broadband Stakeholder Group, consisting of key players throughout the broadband value chain from public and private sectors, exists to ensure the fastest possible roll out of broadband across the country while remaining technology neutral.

  Around 70 per cent, of the UK already has access to broadband.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to ensure that broadband provision becomes part of the universal service obligation in the EU review due by 2005. [113072]

  Mr. Timms
  Directive 2002/22/EC ("Universal Service Directive") concerns universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services.

  Article 36(3) requires the European Commission to review the functioning of the Directive for the first time in 2005 and to report to the European Parliament and to the Council. The member states and National Regulatory Authorities must supply the necessary information to the Commission for this purpose.

  When the review is announced the UK will provide information on all aspects of the functioning of the Directive requested by the Commission. It is too early to say at this stage whether it would be appropriate to consider broadband provision within the scope of the universal services to be mandated at Community level.

  Deregulation
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department will deliver its annual report on deregulation performance; and if she will make a statement. [112446]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: The Department reports annually on progress in its Expenditure Plan Report. The report for 2002–03 will be published in August. The published reports are available on the departmental website www.dti.gov.uk.

  Downstream Oil Industry Forum
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the results of the work of the Downstream Oil Industry Forum; and what its future plan of work is. [113278]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Downstream Oil Industry Forum met twice in 2002 where it identified two important areas for priority attention:

  Oil products supply infrastructure

  Service to motorists in rural areas

  460W
  The Forum has enabled a fruitful exchange of differing perspectives, which has enhanced understanding of these issues; discussions are continuing on issues, at a working level, which are aimed at benefiting all areas of the downstream oil industry.

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment is made of the environmental impact of a business, its products and services prior to the provision of a grant by one of her Department's schemes for business; who makes that assessment; and whether the assessments are published. [113220]

  Ms Hewitt
  Environmental issues affecting businesses, their products and services are part of the criteria for a number of support schemes promoted by DTI. Such support includes promoting sustainable development, such as capital grants for renewable energy projects.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU committee on security of information systems, (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. [110291]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer to my answer on 22 May 2002,Official Report, column 385W. The committee has not met since that response and currently there are no plans for it to reconvene.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade arid Industry if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU advisory committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions, (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. [110304]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions is the body through which the European Commission carries out its duty to consult member states on decisions and amendments to EC competition law which it proposes to adopt. Office of Fair Trading officials represent the UK at these meetings, but may be accompanied by officials from Government Departments and other regulators where they have a particular interest.

  Since January 2002, there have been 21 meetings of this Committee, as a result of which the European Commission adopted 16 decisions (10 prohibiting and fining cartels, one prohibiting and fining companies involved in restricting trade between member states and five granting exemptions for agreements or practices which would otherwise be prohibited under Article 81 of the EC Treaty). The process is transparent. The Commission issues a press release when it adopts a decision, and the full version of the decision is published

  461W
  in the Official Journal of the European Communities, as well as being made available on the Commission's website. Significant legislative changes which arise from meetings of the Advisory Committee are subject to the usual Parliamentary scrutiny process.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the EU advisory committee on standardisation in the field of information technology, (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. [110306]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer to my answer on 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 237W. The Committee has not met since that response and currently there are no plans for it to reconvene.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) pursuant to her answer of 8 April 2003,Official Report, column 165W, what reasons underlie the decision not to grant extraterritorial controls to the (a) sale and (b) brokering of sales in military and paramilitary equipment; [112382]

  (2) pursuant to her evidence before the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April, what Home Office guidance would be broken by the extension of extraterritorial control to the licensing of military and paramilitary equipment. [112381]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Home Office guidance recommends that extra-territorial jurisdiction should only be considered in cases of serious offences subject to international condemnation, for which an offender could reasonably be expected to be aware that an offence has been committed. Trafficking and brokering of military equipment to a non-embargoed destination does not come into this category as the vast majority of transactions will consist of legitimate business by UK defence companies carried out accordingly to the laws of the appropriate country.

  Holiday Industry
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what advice she is issuing to holiday companies following the ruling of His Honour Judge Graham Jones on 7 May 2003; [113193]

  (2) what plans she has to issue warnings to holiday makers about the extent of liability of air carriers for the health, welfare and psychological well-being of air passengers; [112981]

  (3) what advice she is issuing to holiday makers following the ruling of His Honour Judge Graham Jones on 7 May 2003; [113194]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the impact of the ruling in Cardiff County Court by His Honour Judge Graham Jones on the holiday industry. [113192]
  462W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A copy of the full judgment by Judge Jones on 7 May 2003 is not yet available. When this is issued we will consider whether or not there are wider implications for consumers and the holiday industry and if it would be appropriate to revise the advice we provide.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been spent promoting the Insolvency Service Directors' hotline in each year since its inception. [113286]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 May 2003]: The only cost directly promoting the Disqualified Directors hotline since its inception was £568 incurred in the year ended 31 March 2003.

  Internet (Spam E-Mails)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government has taken to encourage internet service providers to screen and prevent abusive and pornographic spam e-mails. [112826]

  Ms Hewitt
  We strongly support the work that internet service providers are doing to help their subscribers protect themselves against unwanted e-mail of all kinds, including unsolicited commercial e-mails which promote pornographic content, by advising subscribers about the steps they can take to protect themselves and by making filtering and blocking services available.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sick days were lost in the last year by her Department through staff mental health problems. [112069]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the financial year 2001–02 7,326 days were lost as a result of sick leave attributed to mental health problems.

  Miners' Compensation
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many former miners in Amber Valley have(a) claimed and (b) received payments in compensation for (i) chronic bronchitis and emphysema and (ii) vibration white finger. [113390]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of claims made in the Amber Valley, as of 31 March 2003, for respiratory disease is 2,098. Of this total, 511 claimants have received interim payments and 624 have had their claims settled. The total amount of compensation paid for respiratory disease is £4.4 million.

  The number of claims made for Vibration White Finger (VWF) is 1,404. Of this total, 561 claimants have received interim payments and 462 have had their claims settled. The total amount of compensation paid for VWF is £4.9 million.
  Note:
  Constituency figures can be found on the Department's website: www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth. The information is compiled in the middle of the month and shows the figures for the end of the previous month.

  National Institute for Medical Research
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will make a statement about the future of the National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill; [112846]

  (2) how many people work at the National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill; and if she will make a statement; [112844]

  (3) what representations she has received concerning the future of the National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill; and if she will make a statement; [112843]

  (4) what consultations she plans to hold over the future of the National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill with (a) staff and their representative bodies, (b) management and (c) the local community; and if she will make a statement. [112845]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answers 12 May 2003]: The National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) is MRC's largest institute and there are currently around 520 MRC employees with approximately 200 additional workers made up from short-term grant-funded posts, training fellows, students and visiting workers.

  No formal decision has been taken regarding the future of NIMR. The Medical Research Council is at present developing a long-term strategy for its major capital investments over the next 10–15 years including the NIMR. This is an issue for the MRC and I have not received any formal representations.

  DTI is not planning to carry out consultation, which is being done by the MRC. A document was released for general consultation on 4 April 2003 and local consultations include:
  The FIS consultation document has been made widely available to all NIMR staff. A general notice was circulated to all NIMR staff addressing key questions arising from this exercise. Employees have been encouraged to respond via the NIMR Director's Office and/or local and national trade union representatives, they may also respond directly to Head Office.
  The trade unions also met the FIS Subcommittee to discuss and comment on the over-arching strategy. The MRC Director of Human Resources met the trade unions to discuss the consultation document prior to its release.
  NIMR management staff met recently (24 April) with MRC Senior Office Staff to discuss the implication of FIS for NIMR and it is anticipated that their views will also be reflected in NIMR's response to the consultation process.
  Professor Radda wrote (on 4 April) to local MPs in all relevant locations offering meetings to discuss the strategy.

  Results of the consultation will be considered at an MRC Council meeting in July 2003.

  Oil Pipelines
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what access independent storage companies have to the oil pipeline network within the UK. [113277]

  Mr. Wilson
  Under the Pipelines Act 1962 independent storage companies have "common access" rights to all oil pipelines. This means that provided there is spare capacity independent parties have a legal right of access to transport their oil products in any oil pipeline.

  Petrol Forecourts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many operable petrol forecourts there were in the UK(a) in 1997, (b) in 2001 and (c) on the latest date for which figures are available; and how many she expects to be operating in 2006. [113279]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Institute of Petroleum's (IP) annual "Retail Survey" has provided the following data on the number of retail petrol filling stations in the UK:

  End of year

  Number of petrol stations

  1997

  14,824

  2000

  13,043

  2001

  12,201

  2002

  11,423

  The Department has not estimated the number of sites that will be operating in 2006.

  Post Office Card Account
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with reference to Deposited paper ref. Dep. 03/908 of 6 March, how the reference to the need to use a machine to withdraw money from a Post Office card account relates to the statement that customers will be paid over the Post Office counter. [112848]

  Mr. Timms
  The customer hands the Post Office card to the counter clerk who swipes it through the Horizon terminal. The customer is then asked to enter their PIN number into the key pad sited on the counter and is then given cash and a receipt by the counter clerk over the Post Office counter.

  Post Office Subsidies
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the £450 million subsidy announced for the rural Post Office network requires parliamentary approval; and when she expects to receive state aid approval from the European Commission. [110910]

  Mr. Timms
  In answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member himself, on 2 December I announced to parliament, the Government's intention to make available 450 million from 2003 to 2006, to help the rural post office network through the transition of benefit payment to ACT. The package will be funded from Royal Mail Holdings accumulated surpluses, as part of a package to put Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd. on a commercial footing. There is therefore no requirement for parliamentary approval.

  The funding is subject to State Aid approval and we submitted our notification to the Commission in December for clearance. The timetable for state aid clearance is a matter for the European Commission. DTI is working to ensure that the questions and issues raised by the Commission are responded to as quickly as possible. We are confident we have a strong case and we hope to have approval in due course.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in respect of(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for charges related to pyramid direct selling and multi-marketing practices, and their advertising in each year from 1987, what the (i) places and (ii) dates were of the court cases concerned; what sentences were conferred on directors; what offences were pleaded guilty to; and if she will make a statement. [113007]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 May 2003]: There have been no prosecutions or convictions recorded under the Trading Schemes Act 1996 and sub-ordinate legislation related to pyramid direct selling and multi-marketing practices or their advertising.

  However prosecution action will have been taken under the Companies Acts, the Company Directors Disqualification Act, the Theft Acts, or other legislation relevant to pyramid direct selling and multi-marketing practices. As the action will have been taken under a variety of different statutes the information sought is not available centrally.

  Salmon
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her policy towards dumping of salmon on the European Community markets. [112503]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am concerned at the possibility that salmon originating outside the European Community may be dumped, once existing anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are terminated. I have written to Commissioner Lamy urging him to introduce a surveillance scheme to monitor imports of salmon into the Community. In addition, Ministers from the Scotland Office, and the Scottish Executive together with British MEPs have played an active role in pressing the commission to adopt a surveillance scheme.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff in her Department were on long term sick leave in each of the last five years. [109261]

  Ms Hewitt
  The numbers of staff whose sick absence was longer than 22 days in each financial year were:

  Number

  1997–98

  206

  1998–99

  217

  1999–2000

  210

  2000–01

  228

  2001–02

  248

  In my Department sick absence in excess of 22 days in a year is the trigger for considering poor attendance action.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the statutory 466W
  instruments issued by her Department in the last 12 months, indicating (a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [106315]

  Ms Hewitt
  The HMSO Statutory Instrument Registrar siregistrar@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk can provide a list of statutory instruments issued by individual Departments. Statutory Instruments which have been originated by Departments but eventually made by the Privy Council Office, are only listed under the Privy Council Office.

  However during the period 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 my Department laid 101 Statutory Instruments before Parliament. A Regulatory Impact Assessment is completed for regulatory proposals unless there are no or negligible costs. During the period in question my Department prepared RIAs for the following instruments.
  The Late Payment of Commercial Debts Regulations 2002,
  The Wireless Telegraphy (Exemption) (Amendment) Regulations 2002,
  The Wireless Telegraphy (Licences Charges) Regulations 2002,
  The Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002,
  The Directors' Remuneration Report Regulation 2002,
  The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002,
  The National Minimum Wage Regulation 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2002,
  The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Rate of Interest) (No. 3) Order 2002,
  The Fixed-term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002,
  The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002,
  The Maternity and Parental Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2002,
  The Paternity and Adoption Leave Regulations 2002,
  The Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2002,
  The Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (General) Regulations 2002,
  The Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Administration) Regulations 2002,
  The Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (National Health Service Employees) Regulations 2002,
  The Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Mariners and Persons Abroad) Regulations 2002,
  The Community Designs (Fees) Regulations 2002,
  The Measuring Instruments (EC Requirements) (Electrical Energy Meters) (Amendment) Regulations 2002,
  The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002,
  The Flexible Working (Procedural Requirements) Regulations 2002,
  The Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2002,
  The Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 2003,
  The Wireless Telegraphy (Exemption) Regulations 2003, The Companies (Acquisition of Own Shares) (Treasury Shares) Regulations 2003,
  The Registered Designs Regulations 2003,
  The Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003,
  The Patents (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) Rules 2003,
  The Patents Act 1977 (Electronic Communications) Order 2003.
  467W
  Copies of all RIAs have been placed in the Libraries of the House and are also available on the department's website.

  Statutory Performance Benchmarks
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the proposed introduction of statutory performance criteria into the process which determines board-room bonuses. [111654]

  Ms Hewitt
  Directors' remuneration is a matter for companies and their shareholders. The Government will shortly be consulting on issues relating to 'rewards for failure' and measures to more effectively link severance payments to performance through contracts.

  Transport Fuel
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what strategic planning she is carrying out to ensure adequate supply and distribution of retail motor transport fuels in(a) urban and (b) rural areas. [113280]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is working in close collaboration with the industry and other Government Departments so that robust and effective emergency plans and response measures are in place in the event of any possible supply disruption.

  The issue of adequate supply of transport fuels is also being address by the Downstream Oil Industry Forum. I initiated the forum last year to address industry concerns about:

  Oil products supply infrastructure

  Services to motorists in rural areas

  The Forum agreed that all urban areas are well placed with adequate supplies of transport fuels. However, rural areas are an issue, and the forum initiated a Rural Task Force to investigate how the needs of the rural motorist can be served.

TRANSPORT

  Airports
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what purposes his Department has employed Avia Solutions in connection with plans to expand runway capacity in the South East; what monitoring he has carried out on(a) financial and (b) other links between (i) directors and (ii) employees of Avia Solutions and BAA plc; and if he will make a statement. [113582]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]: Avia Solutions have been retained by the Department as part of a team of consultants and civil servants to carry out the analysis of responses to the consultation. As part of their work they will analyse responses on the issue of capacity for the south-east and other parts of the UK. The managing consultants for the south-east study were Halcrow, Avia solutions were not involved with this work. Any final decisions on capacity will, of course, be taken by Ministers.
  468W
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the inability of constituents in Solihull to obtain questionnaires to respond to the Midlands version of the Government's Consultation on Regional Airports; and if he will make a statement. [113443]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are aware of individual instances in which a small number of people have had difficulty in obtaining hard copies of the questionnaire. Officials have discussed this with the Department's distribution centre as part of the on-going monitoring and development of their performance. Since the launch of the revised South East consultation documents on 27 February, 16,319 new Midlands' questionnaires have been issued, with around 15 per cent, having been completed and returned.

  Residents in Solihull, as in the rest of the UK, can respond to the consultation in a number of ways to ensure that their views are taken into account. These include completing the electronic version of the questionnaire on our website and sending letters to our consultation response address.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 798W, on the Highways Agency, what the total pay costs incurred by the Highways Agency were in each year since 1997. [113375]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The salary costs for civil servants employed by the Highways Agency on 1 January for the past seven years are set out in the following table:

  Year

  Salary costs(£)

  1997

  38,446,953

  1998

  36,566,314

  1999

  38,836,837

  2000

  41,341,278

  2001

  43,003,512

  2002

  44,967,107

  2003

  47,540,928

  Mobile Workers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the regulatory impact assessment of the extension of the Working Time Directive to mobile workers will be published. [114041]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A partial Regulatory Impact Assessment will be published with the Consultation Document which we expect to issue in the summer.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when consultation will commence on the regulations implementing the extension of the Working Time Directive to mobile workers; and for how long it will last. [114042]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The department is consulting with both sides of the industry on how the directive should be implemented into domestic legislation. We expect to launch a formal consultation exercise before the end of this summer. The exercise should last for at least three months.

  Pay Costs
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, columns 796–7W, on Departmental Agency staff, what the total pay costs incurred by the (a) Vehicle Certification Agency, (b) Maritime and Coast Guard Agency and (c) Driving Standards Agency were in each year since 1997. [113380]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is contained in the Agencies' published Annual Report and Accounts (details for 2002–03 are not yet finalised). For the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, details begin in its first year, 1998–99. Copies are available in the Library.

  Rail Freight Grants
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the(a) date for reinstatement and (b) budget for SRA rail freight grants. [112189]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend, to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnoshire (Roger Williams) on 13 May 2003,Official Report, column 134W.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many non-UK citizens have been killed in road accidents in the UK in each of the last five years. [114071]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not available. The nationality of a casualty is not recorded as part of the Department's collection of road accident statistics.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Information Technology
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's(a) total managed expenditure, (b) total spending on Information Technology and (c) spending on Information Technology as a proportion of its total managed expenditure was in each financial year since 1997–98. [107183]

  Alun Michael
  The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs was established as a new Department in 2001–02. The contribution by Defra to Total Managed Expenditure can be measured by the total of spending under resource and capital budgets, less non-cash items in AME. Data for 1998–99 to 2002–03 are available in the 2003 Departmental Report (May Cm 5919).

  Information technology budgets were devolved to Defra's various business areas for 2001–02 and 2002–03 and fully accounted information on total IT expenditure cannot be gathered without incurring disproportionate cost. However, estimates being used for planning purposes indicate that IT expenditure in Defra
  470W
  (excluding internal staff costs, Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies) was £53 million for 2001–02 and £64 million for 2002–03.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated level of saving to the Department is from the use of market testing in 2002–03. [107772]

  Alun Michael
  Departments are no longer required to undertake a programme of market testing. Defra's focus is on improved delivery of services by ensuring that high quality public services are delivered on the basis of value for money in line with the Better Quality Services ethos as set out in the following extract from the Treasury publication, Public Private Partnerships, The Government's Approach: (http://www.hm-treasury.gov. uk/media//C23A9/PPP2QOQ.pdf)Better Quality Services
  The focus of Better Quality Services (BQS) is on improving what is delivered, rather than taking a dogmatic line about whether this is best achieved through private, public or partnership solutions. BQS is a comprehensive programme across central Government. It covers all activities in the departments and its agencies and executive NDPBs, with all services and activities, including policy and headquarters functions, are reviewed over a five year period.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Africa
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development if he will publish a report on UK progress with implementing the G8 Africa Action Plan. [113633]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK will publish at the beginning of June a report detailing UK progress in implementing the G8 Africa Action Plan at the G8 Summit in Evian.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what progress has been made with UN(a) African and (b) sub-regional initiatives to control the circulation of small and light weapons within Africa. [113635]

  Hilary Benn
  As part of the joint DFID/FCO/MOD Global Conflict Prevention Pool, the UK Government supports the implementation of a number of African and sub-regional initiatives to combat the circulation of small arms and light weapons on the continent. Some of this work has been done in partnership with the UN.

  The UK provides financial and political support to three regional initiatives: the Nairobi Secretariat assists the countries of eastern Africa, the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa to meet the commitments undertaken in the Nairobi Declaration on preventing the proliferation of small arms and light weapons (2000). The Secretariat provides advice, capacity building and technical assistance on small arms, training to policing agencies and helps to ensure coherence on regional activities.
  471W
  The Programme for Co-ordination and Assistance for Security and Development (PCASED) supports the implementation of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Moratorium on the import, export and manufacture of light weapons. The Southern African Development Committee (SADC) Regional Action Programme on Small Arms and Light Weapons works to assist countries in southern Africa to combat the circulation of small arms. In March 2002 the UK co-sponsored a conference to examine implementation of the UN Programme of Action on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its aspects, in Southern Africa.

  The UK Global Conflict Prevention Pool also supports the UN Development Programme's (UNDP) weapons collection, destruction and management programme in a number of African countries, including the Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo. A recent UNDP disarmament, demobilization and reintegration project in Republic of Congo assisted 11,000 former fighters to relinquish their weapons and receive economic and social reintegration assistance.

  In July 2003, the UK will report to the UN Biennial Meeting of States as part of its review of implementation of the UN Programme of Action. In partnership with other governments, regional agencies and civil society, the UK will seek to find ways to improve implementation of the Programme of Action in Africa, to help ensure that the circulation of small arms is addressed effectively.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether her Department will enter negotiations to reduce the tax African countries impose on the importation of bednets. [112682]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government is strongly committed to tackling malaria, recognising its importance not just in terms of burden of disease, but also in terms of the impact malaria has on economic development, particularly in Africa where this has been an increasing problem. We are committed to the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goal to halt and begin to reverse the incidence of malaria by 2015, as well as to supporting the principles and targets set out at the African Summit on Roll Back Malaria held in Abuja in April 2000.

  At that summit, African leaders identified insecticide treated nets as a measure that could be used to control malaria. Eighteen countries have now reduced or eliminated taxes and tariffs on nets, netting material and insecticide. RBM, with the support of DFID, is working on the process necessary to support other countries to do likewise, through advocacy, policy frameworks and technical advice.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what progress has been made with a country-by-country assessment of(a) finance gaps, (b) necessary policy reforms and (c) private sector participation for providing safe water in Africa. [113609]

  Hilary Benn
  The EU 'Water for Life' Initiative was launched at the World Summit in Johannesburg in 2002. The initiative aims to provide a means of securing 472W
  greater co-ordination between EU member states and developing countries in developing water management and water use arrangements.

  The principal intention of the EU Water Initiative is to provide the means to contribute towards achievement of the Millennium Development Goals—to halve by 2015 the proportion of people without access to safe water and basic sanitation. This will include an assessment of finance gaps, necessary policy reforms and private sector participation, focussing initially on Africa.

  The Initiative has been building a framework of working groups, operating through a core group of representatives and a multi-stakeholder forum, which encompasses Governments, civil society and the private sector. The UK Government are a key contributor and are leading on the Finance Component. They are also a member of several other working groups including water and sanitation.

  The UK continues to strongly support the EU Water Initiative and is working with member states to ensure that it moves from discussion to action on the ground.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development if he will make a statement about the help the Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund has given to Africa, and its future plans. [113625]

  Hilary Benn
  The Emerging Africa Infrastructure Fund (EAIF) has made one investment to date, a £14 million senior ranking loan and a £5 million subordinated loan to a cellular investment holding. This is a leading private regional cellular telephone company with 14 licences in 12 countries of Africa, in which a number of Direct Funding Initiatives (DFIs) are also investors. The fund's loan forms part of a larger fund raising by the telephone company. Commercial bank lenders have provided three year term debt, whereas the fund's loans have a six year tenure in order to provide a more stable financing structure.

  The fund has approved, for the purposes of undertaking a detailed review, a further five investments which would give rise to a potential total commitment by the fund of some £63 million, of which three should close in mid-2003. The five investments represent projects in the electricity, transport, and sanitation sectors, and all are in West Africa. The fund managers will shortly be submitting four further investments for initial approval. This would give rise to additional commitments of £38 million.

  If potential investments proceed as envisaged over the next 12 months the fund will have committed some £125 million, and will then need to engage in steps to increase its size to around £250 million, as contemplated at the time of its establishment.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development whether the G8 leaders' Africa Personal Representatives have agreed a process for reporting each G8 country's and the EU's progress towards the Monterrey commitments; how often these reports will be made; and how they will be published. [113628]
  473W
  Hilary Benn
  Progress on achieving the Monterrey commitments will be reported in national progress reports. Each G8 country is individually responsible for publishing a progress report. The UK published an implementation plan shortly after the Africa Action Plan had been agreed, and we will be publishing a progress report that will give an update on activity in each of the priorities we set out in the plan. Africa Personal Representatives will be producing a report for presentation to G8 Heads for the Evian Summit; this report is in the process of being finalised, and will also be made public.

  Congo
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid the Government has sent to the Congo in the last three years. [112606]

  Hilary Benn
  While we do not have a development programme with the Republic of Congo as we do with the Democratic Republic of Congo, over the last three years for which figures are available, the Government's assistance (including debt relief) to both countries has been:

  Gross Public Expenditure, in £ million

  Rep. Of Congo

  Dem. Rep. Of Congo

  1999–2000

  3.224

  2.132

  2000–01

  —

  6.752

  2001–02

  —

  10.262

  2002–031

  0.370

  16.057

  1 Provisional figures

  Ethiopia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the(a) social and (b) economic consequences of Ethiopian farmers moving from coffee to khat production. [112739]

  Hilary Benn
  Some coffee farmers are making an economic choice to shift to khat production. We have not undertaken any specific assessment of the consequences of this change, but are keeping the situation under observation.

  There have been some efforts by the University of Alemayu in Ethiopia to encourage a shift from khat to coffee. These have been unsuccessful, largely because of low coffee prices, but also because of slow start-up time for coffee production and the need for intensive labour.

  The key issue is market prices for coffee and the need to reduce vulnerability to market uncertainty. Commodity dependence is a complex problem and unfortunately there are no simple solutions. Together with other Whitehall Departments, we are engaged with a number of different stakeholders examining how best to mitigate the wider challenges presented by dependence on agricultural commodities. In Ethiopia we are providing a
  474W
  broad range of poverty-focused bilateral support aimed at reducing the vulnerability of people to shocks, including that of low commodity prices.

  EU Water Initiative
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the EU water initiative, launched at the World Water Forum, in Kyoto in March 2003 and the UK's contribution to the EU initiative. [113608]

  Hilary Benn
  The EU 'Water for Life' Initiative was launched at the World Summit in Johannesburg in 2002 to secure greater co-ordination between EU member states and developing countries in developing water management and water use arrangements. The aim is to help make progress towards the Millennium Development Goal of halving by 2015 the proportion of people without access to safe water and the equivalent target agreed for sanitation at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg.

  The potential outcomes of the initiative are: greater political commitment to action on water and sanitation; better water governance arrangements, including stronger partnerships between public and private sectors; development of regional and sub-regional co-operation on water management; and development of additional innovative funding mechanisms. The initiative operates through a framework of working groups on issues, and has regional components in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Mediterranean and Latin America.

  The UK Government contributes through leadership of the Finance Component and membership of several other working groups including water and sanitation. We continue to support the EU Water Initiative and are working with EU member states to ensure that it moves from discussion to action on the ground, in order to deliver the Millennium Development Goal for water, sanitation and environmental sustainability.

  Foreign Aid
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development how many countries receiving United Kingdom aid have agreed poverty reduction strategies with her Department; and how many she expects will be agreed each year to 2006; how many of these strategies she expects to be(a) multi-donor agreements and (b) to be superseded by multi-donor agreements; and which other bilateral and multilateral donors are working with the United Kingdom on multi-donor agreements. [113630]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK was influential in agreement being reached at the 1999 Annual Meetings of the World Bank and IMF that countries receiving debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative should produce Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) setting out how resources are to be used. These are the basis for support from the IMF, the World Bank and other donors. We believe strongly that a basic principle of these Strategies is national ownership, written in-country by the government, setting out the policies it intends to pursue to promote growth and reduce poverty. These Strategies are not therefore agreed with DFID, but we
  475W
  are aligning our bilateral development assistance programmes with them. To date, 26 low-income countries—all recipients of UK aid—have produced full PRSs. Of the 25 countries that have produced interim PRSs, we expect a number of these to develop full Strategies over the next year or two. DFID is working with these countries to help them with this.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development how many officials in his Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by his officials, broken down by category of honour. [111480]

  Hilary Benn
  Our records show that there are currently eight officials in DFID who have received honours related to official duties: one CMG, three OBEs and four MBEs. Data is not routinely kept on the number of awards held by individuals, awards not related to official duties, or awards already held by staff before joining the department.

  Polio
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what discussions he has had with his G8 counterparts regarding the commitment of additional funds to the WHO to eliminate polio by 2005. [111576]>

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has provided US$357 million to support Polio eradication since 1988. We have on a number of occasions pressed G8 countries to fulfil the commitments made in Kananaskis to raise sufficient resources to eliminate polio in Africa by 2005. Indeed, we will be urging this at the G8 summit in Evian. We believe eradication is achievable, but will require resources and commitment from a broad partnership base. Discussions have been held with a variety of stakeholders, including the G8 and others.

  Primary Education
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what resources his Department has allocated to ensure that all children have the opportunity to complete primary education; and what recent discussions he has had with her G8 counterparts on(a) pooling and (b) increasing the resources dedicated to this aim. [112727]

  Hilary Benn
  Between 2002 and 2007 we intend to spend £1.3 billion on basic education, subject to agreeing high quality programmes with our partners. Of this, about £500 million will go to Africa and £800 millon to Asia. This figure of £1.3 billion compares favourably with the £700 million committed to Universal Primary Education since 1997.

  However, it is important to realise that achieving Universal Primary Education is not an issue that simply requires the provision of more aid. Most of the countries with large numbers of children out of school are not seriously committed to Universal Primary Education. Most countries that are committed to reprioritising their own spending are receiving additional aid.
  476W
  There is broad consensus among international agencies that greater harmonisation of resources will increase aid effectiveness. We continue to underline the central importance of ensuring that strengthened efforts support country-owned strategies, as set out for low-income countries in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and linked to national budget processes. We will work with G8 to ensure that they increase support and resources to meet the education MDGs.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which of his Department's projects have received sponsorship in the last financial year; who the sponsor was in each case; what the nature of each project was; what time-period was covered by each project; what the total cost of each project was; how much money was involved in each sponsorship deal; and if she will make a statement. [112393]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID did not receive any sponsorship in the last financial year.

  Water and Sanitation
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what policy the Government has adopted on what nations can do on their own to achieve the goal set by the United Nations on halving the number of people without access to water for nourishment and hygiene by 2015. [112604]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government supports country-owned Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), as the best way in which nations can achieve, on their own, the goals set by the United Nations on water and sanitation. PRSPs offer donors the opportunity to support a country's own priorities and reforms. They also help enhance and streamline the financing of water supply and sanitation. DFID works with partner governments to strengthen PRSPs and with donors to align their support.

  Water supply and sanitation are consistently identified as a priority for the poor in participatory poverty assessments, and many PRSPs recognise the contribution of access to a safe water supply in reducing both income and non-income related dimensions of poverty. DFID advocates such an integrated approach to sanitation, water supply and hygiene promotion measures to combat poverty in our discussions with partner governments.

  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of the national poverty reduction strategies received by her Department include measures to increase access to clean water and improve sanitation; and how her Department encourages such activities. [111856]

  Hilary Benn
  Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) provide a country-owned framework to strengthen the impact of public action on poverty, and to promote progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. Water supply and sanitation are consistently identified as a priority for the poor in participatory poverty assessments, and all PRSPs generally recognise
  477W
  the contribution of access to a safe water supply in reducing both income and non-income related dimensions of poverty.

  A review of Full and Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers in Sub-Saharan Africa has found however that treatment of water supply and sanitation is not comprehensive and often inconsistent. In particular, sanitation and solid waste management received limited and inadequate attention. Also, despite the significant continuing work on sector reforms (in decentralisation, and rural and urban water supply and sanitation), their incorporation in the country PRSP initiatives requires considerable strengthening. The Uganda PRSP was a notable exception having good coverage of water and sanitation issues, and serves as an illustration of good practice.

  Despite their weaknesses, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers represent a huge step forward and we remain committed to focusing on helping partner governments implement them. PRS and the linked Medium Term Expenditure Framework sanitation sector. This financing supports fiscally sustainable strategies for the scaling up of reforms to acountry level.

  Processes provide an opportunity to move to a programmatic approach, which will also help enhance and streamline financing of the water supply and sanitation sector. This financing supports fiscally sustainable strategies for the scaling up of reforms to a country level.

  DFID are working with partner governments to strengthen PRSPs as they are revised (each three years). We advocate an integrated approach to environmental health to combat poverty and continue to push for the inclusion of sanitation, water supply and hygiene promotion measures into individual country PRSPs. In addition, through the Overseas Development Institute and WaterAid, we are supporting an in depth research and advocacy project which aims to address these issues in more detail.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  British Museum
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the reasons for changes in the level of receipts by the British Museum in the last five years. [100335]

  Dr. Howells
  The Museum's total self-generated income increased from £48.8 million in 1998–99 and £46.7million in 1999–2000 to £51.7 million in 2000–01 as a result of their fundraising activities to secure capital funding for the Great Court and other development projects.

  With the opening of the Great Court in December 2000 it was no longer necessary for the Museum to generate large sums of capital funding and as a result total self-generated income decreased in 2001–02 and 2002–03 to £44.9 million and £43.2 million respectively. In the last two years the Museum has significantly increased its revenue income primarily delivered by the
  478W
  facilities of the Great Court. The Museum is forecasting that receipts will stabilise in the next few years at around £24 million.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State supports the Museum in their activities to obtain income from trading, fundraising, donations and sponsorship.

  Darts Sponsorship
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the British Darts Organisation about alternative sources of sponsorship; and if she will make a statement. [113922]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are aware of the extent to which the British Darts Organisation is reliant on tobacco sponsorship and of the challenge it faces in finding alternative sponsors.

  I met Olly Croft, Managing Director of the British Darts Organisation, on 9 April to discuss sponsorship issues and to assure him of the Government's commitment to helping those sports affected by the tobacco sponsorship ban. It has always been the Government's aim to ensure that such sports do not suffer unduly during the transition away from tobacco sponsorship.

  It was agreed at the meeting that the British Darts Organisation would write to me outlining the ways that they believe the Department can best assist them in their search for alternative sponsorship. I await Mr. Croft's letter.

  Satisfaction Channel
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she plans to proscribe the Satisfaction Channel as recommended by the ITC; and if she will make a statement. [113920]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering whether to proceed with a proscription order against Satisfaction Channel Television.

  Sport (Women)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with television and press organisations about increasing positive media coverage of women's sport. [113664]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have had no formal discussions on this issue. However, UK Sport is actively lobbying to make the media more aware of women's sport. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and Sport England are leading by example, through ensuring that all internal publications give men and women equal coverage. I also met Helen Donohue at the Women's Sports Foundation to discuss general issues involving women's sport.

  Television Channels
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list(a) those channels which the ITC has recommended should be the

  479W
  subject of a Proscription Order and (b) those channels against which Proscription Orders have been issued since 1990. [113921]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) The ITC has recommended proscription for the following:

  Red Hot Television (Red Hot Dutch)

  TV Erotica (also known as xxxTV)

  Channel Bizarre

  Rendezvous Channel

  Adult X

  Satisfaction Channel

  Satisfaction Club Television

  Eurotica Rendez-Vous

  Eros TV

  (b) The following channels have been the subject of proscription orders since 1990:

  Red Hot Television

  XXX TV Erotica

  Rendez-Vous Television

  Satisfaction Club Television

  Eurotica Rendez-Vous

  Eros TV

  Channel Bizarre and Adult X stopped broadcasting before a Proscription Order was made. The Secretary of State is currently considering whether to proceed with a Proscription Order against Satisfaction Channel.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Funding
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funds his Department holds which have yet to be allocated in respect of the current financial year. [112741]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: Allocations for 2003–04 were outlined in my statement of 19 December, Official Report, column 67WS, and the Higher Education White Paper The Future of Higher Education' (Command Number, 5735) published on 22 January. Those allocations include a small element of unallocated provision (£40 million) as recommended by Treasury to cover unforeseen pressures that might arise during the course of the year.

HEALTH

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the maximum waiting time is for(a) radiotherapy and (b) chemotherapy for cancer patients in Greater Manchester; and what the corresponding figures were in each of the last two years. [113919]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health does not collect data on waiting times for chemotherapy or radiotherapy separately from other forms of cancer treatment.480W
  The NHS Cancer Plan sets out the Department's strategy to reduce waiting times for cancer patients. The ultimate goal, planned to be achieved by 2008, is that no one should wait longer than one month from an urgent referral for suspected cancer to the beginning of treatment, except for a good clinical reason or through patient choice.

  In order to tackle cancer waiting times, the Department is making unprecedented investment in new radiotherapy facilities, streamlining care processes through the cancer services collaborative and working to best utilise the current workforce and to increase the number of staff in post and in training.

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire's letters of(a) 4 February and (b) 14 March about Mrs. Wendy Hands. [111775]

  Mr. Lammy
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 8 May.

  Document Classification
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many documents are held by his Department that are subject to security classification, broken down by category of classification. [107344]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander), on 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 696W.

  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Department follows the Cabinet Office guidance on document marking and control.

  Dysphasia
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether is it his policy to encourage and fund the provision of dysphasia support services by voluntary groups. [111833]

  Jacqui Smith
  Primary care trusts now have the responsibility of improving the health of the community, securing the provision of high quality services, and integrating health and social care locally. They have the resources to commission services, and to identify the number of professional staff that they need to deliver those services.

  In making their commissioning decisions PCTs will need to consider how best to use a range of providers for the benefit of National Health Service patients. PCTs may fund local support groups for a range of conditions including dysphasia, if they have identified this as a need when assessing the health needs of the local community. They will also need to consider how best to use voluntary sector providers.

  Evesham Community Hospital
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the minor
  481W
  injuries unit at Evesham Community Hospital, and the implications of proposed staff reductions at the unit for its functioning. [112664]

  Mr. Lammy
  This is a matter for South Worcestershire Primary Care Trust.

  Wherever change is being considered, local health organisations, working with their partners, will need to satisfy themselves that their plans are in line with the core principles set out in the guidance "Keeping the NHS Local—A New Direction of Travel", published in February this year.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners working in North Shropshire are(a) under 40 years old, (b) between 40 and 65 years old and (c) over 65 years old. [113166]

  Mr. Lammy
  Figures for North Shropshire are not held centrally.

  Hysterectomies
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the latest waiting times for urgent hysterectomies in Worcestershire. [112645]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on urgent hysterectomy operations is not collected centrally.

  We are reducing outpatient waits for urgent referrals and have embarked on the biggest ever programme to replace and update screening, diagnosis and treatment equipment. Within new guaranteed maximum waiting time backstops, patients are treated according to individual clinicians' assessment of clinical urgency and need.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra NHS dental places have been funded in(a) East Staffordshire and (b) England since 1997. [113149]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since 1997, the funding initiatives to increase the number of national health service dental treatment places in England have been:

  £ million

  Initiative

  Date

  Funding

  Investing in Dentistry Scheme

  1999–2000

  11

  Dental Care Development Fund

  2000–01

  4

  Modernisation Fund

  2001–02

  35

  Dental Action Plan

  2001–02

  10

  These grants were distributed to health authorities (HAs) based on the existing provision of dental services and the estimated need for future services. The HAs were then responsible for distributing this money in the form of grants to general dental service dentists who would undertake to treat an agreed number of additional NHS patients. Information on the number of additional patients is not held centrally.

  South Staffordshire HA, the authority responsible for the East Staffordshire area, was awarded £108,000 from the Investing in Dentistry scheme, £50,000 from the
  482W
  Dental Care Development Fund, £364,000 from the Modernisation Fund and £65,000 from the Dental Action Plan.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists there are per head of population in(a) Staffordshire and (b) England. [113151]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of NHS dentists working in North Staffordshire Health Authority, South Staffordshire Health Authority and England at 30 September 2001 and the number of dentists per 100,000 population is shown in the table. These figures are on a headcount basis rather than whole time equivalent and take no account of part-time working. Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service, apart from dentists working in both the personal dental service (PDS) and the general dental service (GDS) who are counted in the GDS only.

  Dentists working solely in private dentistry are not covered in these figures.

  NHS Dental Services: Number of dentists and number per 100,000 population—At 30 September 2001

  North Staffordshire

  South Staffordshire

  NHS dentists

  HA

  HA

  England

  General Dental Services1

  126

  178

  18,354

  Salaried service of GDS

  0

  0

  86

  Personal Dental Services2

  15

  11

  467

  Community Dental Service3

  0

  10

  1,348

  Hospital Dental Services3

  0

  10

  2,184

  Number of dentists per 100,000 population4

  31

  37

  46

  1 The General Dental Service (GDS) figures cover principals on a HA list, assistants and vocational and dental practitioners.

  2 The Personal Dental Service (PDS) covers dentists working in the PDS who are not working in the GDS.

  3 Figures by Health Authority are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4 Using ONS mid-year population estimates based on the 2001 census.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population in the Shropshire County Primary Care Trust has been registered with a dentist in each of the last five years. [113169]

  Mr. Lammy
  At 28 February 2003, 39.3 per cent, of the population for Shropshire County Primary Care Trust were registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist. The information in the table shows the percentage of population registered with a dentist for Shropshire health authority area at 30 September for the years 1998 to 2001 and for 31 August 2002.

  General Dental Service: Proportion of the population registered with a dentist, 1998 to 2002 Shropshire health authority

  At 30 September

  Percentage

  19981

  44.4

  19991

  43.2

  20001

  42.7

  20012

  40.7

  20023

  41.4

  1 1998–2000 ONS mid year population estimates based on the 1991 census.

  2 2001 ONS mid year population estimates based on the 2001 census.

  3 2002 data is at 31 August 2003.

  483W
  Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentist within 15 months and so the registration figures exclude patients who have not been to their GDS dentist within the past 15 months. Also excluded from the figures are patients who receive dental treatment from other national health service dental services including dental access centres.

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

  Hospitals
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled at the(a) Princess Royal hospital and (b) Royal Shrewsbury hospital in the last 12 months. [113165]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of last minute cancellations for non clinical reasons in the period January to December 2002, which is the latest information available, was 79 at the Princess Royal hospital national health service trust and 352 at the Royal Shrewsbury NHS trust. Last minute means on the day patients were due to arrive, after the patient has arrived in hospital or on the day of their operation/surgery.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are waiting for in-patient treatment at(a) Royal Shrewsbury hospital and (b) Princess Royal hospital. [113168]

  Mr. Lammy
  At the end of February 2003, there were 1,392 patients waiting for inpatient treatment at Princess Royal hospital national health service trust and 3,698 waiting at Royal Shrewsbury hospitals NHS trust.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the value of settled negligence claims brought against the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital was in each year since 1997. [113049]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to confirm the dates by which the Worcestershire Acute hospitals NHS trust must(a) bring its annual expenditure into balance and (b) repay its accumulated deficit; and if he will make a statement. [112665]

  Mr. Lammy
  In line with this Government's policy of "Shifting the Balance of Power", discussions about individual health organisations financial positions are undertaken locally with relevant commissioners and if required the local strategic health authority (SHA). In this case West Midlands South SHA.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost was of(a) in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104261]
  484W
  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department does not provide in-house canteen or other catering services. Scotland Office staff have access to canteen and catering facilities in those buildings shared with the Scottish Executive.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106307]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Estimated expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals purchased centrally by my department in 2002–03 is £12,846.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list the occasions on which her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104309]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The only non-departmental public body for which my Department has responsibility is the Boundary Commission for Scotland. Payment performance details for the Commission are not recorded separately and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) her Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) her Department. [106000]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The running costs of my Department's private offices in 2001–02 were £614,146, of which £325,982 related to staff costs. The figures do not take account of accommodation costs and other overheads.

  The running costs (administration costs) of the Department in 2001–02 were £6.6 million, of which £3.8 million was staff costs.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies in 2002 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [106269]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No expenditure has been incurred by my Department on opinion polling, focus groups or other forms of market research.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the cost will be to public funds in 2003–04 of the rise in national insurance contributions on the salary bill of her Department. [107904]
  485W
  Mrs. Liddell
  It is estimated that the changes to employers' national insurance contributions will increase pay costs on average by 0.7 per cent, in the current year.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in her Department have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive since it came into force. [108417]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No staff in my Department have applied for leave under the Parental Leave Directive.

  However, the Department is committed to helping its staff achieve a better balance between their home, family obligations and their work. Parental leave can play an important part in achieving this.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are employed in her Department's press office; and how many were employed on 2 May 1997. [108397]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Four staff are currently employed in the Department's press office.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many individuals have been seconded to her Department from(a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, in each case listing (i) from which organisation and (ii) dates of secondments in (A) 2001–02 and (B) 2002–03. [108097]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Two individuals were seconded to my Department from the Bank of Scotland in 2002, and two individuals were seconded from the House of Lords, one in 2001 and one in 2002.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants have been seconded from her 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 1990–2000. [108098]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No civil servants have been seconded from my Department to the private sector, NGOs or elsewhere.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in her Department were on long term sick leave in each of the last five years. [109250]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. Since that date, only one member of staff has had a period of long-term sick leave.

TREASURY

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the European Union about the establishment of a smaller committee of the European Central bank for setting interest rates. [114101]

  Ruth Kelly
  The recommendation on the voting modalities of the European Central bank's governing Council was discussed by ECOFIN on 7 March 2003. The Council, in the composition of Heads of State or Government, adopted a decision on the voting modalities of the European Central bank on 21 March 2003.

  Futurebuilders Fund
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the objectives of the Futurebuilders fund; on what criteria its funds are to be allocated; and how voluntary and community groups can apply. [114300]

  Mr. Boateng
  Objectives and proposals for use of the Futurebuilders fund are set out in the consultation document published on 30 April, which is available in the House Library. The fund manager will make details of how voluntary and community organisations can apply available when the fund comes on stream.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps is he taking to support manufacturing in the North West. [113464]

  John Healey
  Manufacturers globally are facing difficult times as the world economy slows. This Government remains committed to delivering a stable macroeconomic environment which will allow businesses to plan, invest and grow, whilst at the same time taking a range of measures to boost Productivity, Enterprise and Skills.

  In particular, corporation tax is now lower than in any major industrialised country. Cuts in capital gains tax mean the UK's CGT regime will be more favourable than the US's since April. R&D tax credits for large companies will provide an important boost to UK manufacturing and Regional development Agencies have been created to drive growth in every region.

  The North West has a forward-looking RDA, pioneering new approaches to better co-ordination and delivery of business support and workforce development, and to working more closely with universities. The North West development Agency has helped create the UK's first regional Science & Industry Council, helping to finance science-led projects in bio-manufacturing and the creation of a world-class science and technology university hub in Manchester. The NWDA has also been allocated £991 million for the three years to 2005–06 to play a key role in driving economic development and regeneration across the region.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed by the Inland Revenue to process applications for(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit in each month since April 2002. [111388]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of staff employed by the Inland Revenue on processing claims to new tax credits in the year to 31 March 2003 were as follows:

  Number

  September 2002

  19

  October 2002

  978

  November 2002

  1,941

  December 2002

  2,578

  January 2003

  3,455

  February 2003

  4,336

  March 2003

  4,502

  The figures quoted are monthly full time equivalents.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount he will collect in(a) income tax and (b) national insurance from people entitled to one or both of the new child and working tax credits in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [107408]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated liabilities for those expected to receive Child Tax Credit, Working Tax Credit or both are given in the table. The income tax liabilities exclude the negative tax element of the tax credits

  £ billion

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Income tax

  14.5

  15.7

  Employee and self-employed national insurance contributions

  7.0

  7.4

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the expenditure on each of the new personal tax credits in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05 will be defined as (i) negative taxation and (ii) public expenditure. [107409]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimates are given in the table.

  £ billion

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Child tax credit

  Negative taxation

  2.6

  3.0

  Public expenditure

  5.5

  8.5

  Working tax credit

  Negative taxation

  0.6

  0.7

  Public expenditure

  2.4

  2.6

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the Answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions on 2 April 2003,Official Report, column 721W, on benefits, for what reasons information on the number of individuals eligible for (a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit is not available. [110936]
  488W
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of households eligible for(a) child tax credit, (b) working tax credit and (c) both. [111392]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 May 2003]:Reliable information on the eligible population for the Working and Child Tax Credits will not be available until survey data for 2003–04 has been produced and analysed.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 8 May,Official Report, columns 791–2W, on Tax Credits, which Inland Revenue offices have made interim payments of child tax credit; and how many payments there were and what their value was, broken down by office. [113196]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: In the vast majority of cases, special arrangements for payment of Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit are not necessary.

  Where, exceptionally, a payment is due but has not, for some reason been received, all local Inland Revenue Enquiry Offices have the ability to issue same day interim payments. Collated figures for the number and value of interim payments of Child Tax Credit are not readily available.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has set a deadline for the payment of all overdue tax credits. [111383]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Revenue has set up tax credit awards for all claims made by 25 April or, if not, it is because more information is needed from claimants or further checks are required before a decision is made. Over 3.3 million awards are being paid. This includes the 2 million families opting to get their money every 4 weeks, who were sent their first payment of tax credits by Friday 2 May, as planned.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General what the cost was of(a) the in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104260]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland,Official Report, column 486W.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General if she will list the occasions on which her Department failed to pay valid invoices within 30 days or after the agreed credit period in the financial year 2001–02. [104308]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland,Official Report, column 486W.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General what her estimate is of the expenditure of her Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106306]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland,Official Report, column 486W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) her private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) her Department. [106002]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland,Official Report, column 486W.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies in 2002 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [106268]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland,Official Report, column 486W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department has received the report of the task group established to consider the future of the Fire Service College. [114013]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Yes. It is under active consideration and I hope to comment shortly.

  Former Council Houses
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures are in place regarding companies buying homes from former council tenants and then letting or selling them at market prices. [112536]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is nothing to prevent former council tenants from selling the homes that they purchased under the Right to Buy scheme to whomever they wish. They must repay all or part of the discount they received if they resell within three years of buying. The Government's draft Housing Bill, published on 31 March 2003, proposes to extend this period to five years and to change the basis on which discount is to be repaid from the current flat rate to a percentage of the resale value of the property. This will act as a further disincentive to companies that are profiteering from the Right to Buy scheme.

  Home Improvement Agencies (North-east)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which home improvement agencies he supports in the north-east region. [113062]

  Mr. McNulty
  Within the area covered by the Government Office for the north-east region, the following Home Improvement Agencies are supported:

  North Tyneside

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Gateshead

  Derwentside

  Easington

  Sedgefield

  Hartlepool

  Darlington

  Middlesbrough

  Housing
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will withdraw the recommendation of his Planning Inspectors that Cambridgeshire County Council's Structure Plan should consider the development of up to 1,000 houses on land west of Trumpington Road. [113923]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Panel of Inspectors who considered the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan, although appointed by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, is independent and makes recommendations to the strategic planning authorities as promoters of the plan. It is for the strategic planning authorities to consider the panel's report and to give reasons if they do not propose to modify their plan in accordance with the panel's recommendations. They must then publish modifications to the plan offering stakeholders the opportunity to comment upon the modifications. GO-East will be responding to the consultation on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I would urge anyone with an interest to make their views on the proposed modifications known to the strategic planning authorities by 17 June.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment is made when assessing capital housing allowances to Islington of the council's income from the sale of buildings that could be used for housing purposes; and if he will make a statement. [113520]

  Mr. McNulty
  The framework for allocation of capital resources to English local authorities no longer includes specific adjustments to reflect differences in authorities' capacity to fund capital expenditure from receipts arising from sales of housing and other assets. New arrangements are being introduced for allocation of resources for housing investment by local authorities and housing associations. These will increasingly be directed at regionally identified strategic housing priorities; decisions on allocations will reflect how the available resources can be best used to complement housing investment funded from authorities' own resources, including housing capital receipts, and from other funding streams.

  Planning
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines he issues on independent scrutiny of local planning authorities in the area of conditions attached to planning applications. [114089]

  Mr. McNulty
  None. Conditions are imposed at the discretion of local planning authorities to enable planning permission to be granted. The applicant has a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister where a local planning authority grants permission subject to conditions.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of recent trends in the length of public planning inquiries. [112357]

  Mr. McNulty
  A recent analysis of inquiries held in the last five years revealed that 88 per cent' were scheduled to last for up to one week, 8 per cent, between one and two weeks, 2 per cent, between two and three weeks. The remaining 2 per cent, were scheduled to last four weeks or more. The analysis covered all planning inquiries (ie both delegated appeals and Secretary of State cases).

  Figures for actual sitting days are not available but would be unlikely to vary significantly from the estimate.

  There has been no significant change in trends relating to the duration of inquiries during this period. Despite increasing appeal numbers the proportion proceeding by the inquiry method has actually fallen in the last four years.

  Social Exclusion and Urban Policy Units
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many research projects the(a) Social Exclusion Unit and (b) Urban Policy Unit commissioned (i) in 2003–04 and (ii) 2002–03; and what the criteria for selection of each project were. [113558]

  Mrs. Roche
  The numbers of research projects commissioned is as follows:

  2002–03

  2003–041

  Social Exclusion Unit

  13

  3

  Urban Policy

  26

  1

  1 to date

  The criteria for selecting projects for inclusion in the Office's research programmes is that they meet policy requirements. All of the Office's programmes of research are agreed by Ministers.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the(a) Social Exclusion Unit and (b) Urban Policy Unit were formally established. [113561]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Social Exclusion Unit was formally established in December 1997. The Urban Policy Unit was formally established in January 2001.

  Travellers
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) number and (b) location are of sites for travelling people in each county; and if he will make a statement. [113562]
  492W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister publishes an annual count of local authority authorised sites in England, which is broken down into each local authority area. Privately run sites are not included in the list.

  A copy of the latest local authority Gypsy sites list is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Vacant Government Buildings
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list vacant government-owned buildings, broken down by constituency; and if he will make a statement. [113043]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on vacant government-owned buildings is held centrally by the Office of Government Commerce. However, this information is not broken down in the format requested and could not be reconstructed by constituency without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Waste Management
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of his policy of encouraging development on brownfield sites upon the availability of sites for waste management activities. [113182]

  Mr. McNulty
  Planning Policy Guidance note 10, 'Planning and Waste Management', explains how the land-use planning system can contribute to sustainable waste management. The planning system should enable adequate provision to be made for waste management facilities in appropriate locations and waste planning authorities should carefully consider the siting of waste facilities in relation to existing and, where possible, potential surrounding land-uses.

  Planning authorities, when preparing their development plans, should consider the land-use requirements of the infrastructure and services needed to support their communities. They should ensure that sufficient land is identified to meet those needs.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department monitors the rate of refusal of planning permission for schemes concerned with waste management. [113181]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not formally monitor the refusal rates for planning applications for waste management facilities. Statistics concerning the treatment of planning applications related to "county matters" (those concerned predominantly with mineral workings and waste disposal, handled by the counties in the two tier shire authority areas and the London boroughs, metropolitan districts, unitary districts and national park authorities in other areas) are prepared on a quarterly basis. For such "county matter" applications decided in the October 2002-December 2002 quarter, the refusal rate in relation to waste disposal applications was 7 per cent., compared to 8 per cent, for all "county matter" decisions. The overall refusal rate for all planning applications has been around 12 per cent, to 13 per cent, for several years.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports the Government have received since 1 January 2002 from(a) international governmental organisations, (b) international NGOs and (c) other sources, regarding the supply of Hawk jet spare parts to the Democratic Republic of Congo; what the content was of the reports; what action has been taken; and if he will make a statement [112328]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office received many reports from international governmental organisations, international NGOS and other sources. To the best of our knowledge only one of these refers to the supply of Hawk jet spare parts to the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is the report of the UN Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo (the Panel) published on 15 October 2002. It is available on the internet at: http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m = S/2002/1146.

  We supported and developed a new mandate for the Panel, asking them to provide evidence supporting the allegations in their report of 15 October 2002. We have asked the Panel for information about the supply of Hawk jet spare parts, but have not yet received it. We continue to repeat our requests for this information.

  There is an EU arms embargo against the DRC. We condemn the sale or supply of arms to DRC, whether from a European country or otherwise, while this embargo is in place.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government has taken to investigate the allegations that British-made spares for Hawk aircraft were shipped to the Zimbabwean Airforce in contravention of sanctions against Zimbabwe; and what the results were of the investigations. [112327]

  Mr. Straw
  The UN Expert Panel on the Illegal Exploitation of the Natural Resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo (the Panel) published a report on 15 October 2002. In it the Panel alleged that British made Hawk jet spare parts were supplied to Zimbabwe in contravention of EU sanctions. The UK Government takes these allegations seriously. We have ascertained: that there was no application for a licence to export these goods to Zimbabwe; and that HM Customs have no information about the export of these goods from the UK. In order to follow up this allegation, and others, we supported a new mandate for the Panel to provide the Security Council and UN member states with information supporting the Panel's allegations. The Panel has begun its work, and we have specifically asked them for information relating to the sale of British made Hawk jet spare parts to Zimbabwe. We have not yet received this information from the Panel. We are repeating our request.

  Framework Convention for Tobacco Control
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department is having with(a) the World bank and (b) the German Government regarding the contents of the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control. [113111]

  Mr. MacShane
  There have been no regular discussions between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the World bank about the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. However, other Whitehall Departments have had discussions with the World bank on this subject. Officials in our embassies in the EU and in the UK Permanent Representation to the EU have been in frequent contact with colleagues from other EU member states, including Germany, in an effort to secure the adoption of the text of the Convention.

  Indonesia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Indonesia concerning human rights and a peace process in Aceh; and if he will make a statement. [113269]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly raise with the Indonesian authorities the importance of upholding and promoting human rights and religious freedom throughout the country. When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Indonesia in January he offered human rights training for a number of Indonesian Supreme Court Judges. This has now been undertaken and we are positively considering a request for further training in this area.

  The EU, and other co-chairs of the Tokyo Preparatory Conference on Peace and Reconstruction in Aceh, have issued statements in the past week expressing our deep concern at the possible breakdown of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement in Aceh, and urging both sides to resume political dialogue.

  We remain convinced that a long-term solution to the Aceh problem can only be achieved through political negotiation.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how British forces applied the Geneva conventions covering protection of(a) hospitals and (b) cultural assets in Iraq in the period following the immediate end of hostilities. [111359]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The aim of coalition forces is to create and maintain a stable and secure situation in Iraq. As soon as it was judged safe, forces were assigned to secure specific medical and cultural sites. This tasking will continue until the people of Iraq are able to assume responsibility for that security.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had with US counterparts about the engagement of Dyncorp to provide security operatives to Iraq. [112510]
  495W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the whereabouts and situation of the Kuwaiti prisoners of war held captive in Iraq after the Gulf War of 1991. [113077]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Sadly, we have no further information on the Kuwaiti missing. When information becomes available it will be made public as quickly as possible.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set up a facility via the British Embassy in Iraq for people to get a message about their health and safety to relatives in the UK. [113167]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Office Baghdad is staffed by a small team and consequently can operate only in a limited capacity. As the situation stabilises, we would hope to increase staffing of the office and extend the range of services on offer, in line with other diplomatic missions. However, people in Iraq can send 'safe and well' messages to relatives via the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Relatives outside Iraq can send such messages via the ICRC's special website (www.familylinks.icrc.org).

  Russia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has made to the Government of Russia on the human rights of ethnic minorities. [112711]

  Mr. MacShane
  We regularly raise the issue of racial discrimination with the Russian authorities who have acknowledged that racism and extremism is a problem in Russia. Most recently during our bilateral Human Rights talks in September 2002 and March 2003, which included discussion of the situation of Chechens and Meskhetian Turks.

  Syria
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he, (b) one of his ministerial colleagues and (c) a delegation from his Department last visited Syria; what discussions took place; and if he will make a statement. [113291]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Syrian authorities on(a) bilateral relations and (b) the Middle East. [113462]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not visited Syria during his term in office. He last spoke to Syrian Foreign Minister Shara'a on 11 April 2003, when their discussion focussed on Iraq and the Arab/Israel dispute. The Foreign Secretary also looked forward to building on bilateral relations. My meeting with President Al-Assad in Damascus, on 14 April 2003, focussed on the same issues. 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 496W
  dialogue on issues of concern including her attitude to Iraq, support for Palestinian rejectionist groups, WMD and human rights.

  Turkey
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Turkey's progress on meeting the criteria for EU membership as defined by the European Council in Copenhagen in 1993 on(a) human rights, (b) treatment of minorities and (c) the role of the army in political life. [113142]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Commission's 2002 Regular Report on Turkey, published last October, described the progress that Turkey had made towards complying with the Copenhagen political criteria. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agreed on a revised Accession Partnership for Turkey setting out priorities for reform, at the General Affairs and External Relations Council on 14 April 2003. The Turkish Government continue to pass significant legislative reform packages and show the political determination for which they were praised at the Copenhagen European Council. A sixth legislative reform package has been announced and will be deposited in the Turkish Parliament soon. We continue to strongly support Turkey's EU candidature both bilaterally through our UK/Turkey Action Plan, and as part of the EU.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Children Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 29 April 2003,Official Report, column 351W, on Command Paper 5778, which parts of the Children Act 1989 are failing to be implemented effectively in his Department as set out in paragraph 2.22 of Command Paper 5778. [112183]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Paragraph 2.22 of Command Paper 5778 does not state that the Children Act 1989 is not being implemented effectively, and neither is it meant to imply that this is the case.

  As the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hilary Benn) noted in the answer that he gave on 29 April 2003, Official Report, column 351–52W, the Children Act is a shared responsibility across Government and our aim, as set out in the Command Paper, is to increase the range of family support provisions that can be made available through the Children Act, as part of our response to tackling anti-social behaviour.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on advising asylum seekers(a) at first interview and (b) later on other alternative applications open to them including an application to work in the UK. [113607]
  497W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]: It would not be appropriate to provide an asylum seeker with advice on any other applications they may wish to make at this stage. The Immigration Rules attach an entry clearance requirement to a number of categories of leave. Similarly, there will often be a requirement, where the period of leave is not in a category leading to settlement, that the applicant is willing to leave the United Kingdom at the expiry of the period of leave, which a person who has applied for asylum is unlikely to do.

  Asylum seekers are not able to apply for work in the United Kingdom. Employers must seek work permits for individuals, and asylum seekers are not permitted to take up employment.

  Child Prisoners
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of the children in Stoke Heath prison are subject to(a) section 20 and (b) a full care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989; [113178]

  (2) how many of the children in Parc prison are subject to (a) section 20 and (b) a full care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989; [113179]

  (3) how many of the children in (a) Brockhill, (b) Brinsford, (c) Wetherby, (d) Lancaster Farms, (e) New Hall and (f) Onley prisons are subject to (i) section 20 and (ii) a full care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989; [113195]

  (4) how many of the children in (a) Ashfield, (b) Styal, (c) Thorn Cross, (d) Werrington, (e) Huntercombe, (f) Holloway, (g) Hollesley Bay and Warren Hill, (h) Hindley, (i) Feltham, (j) Eastwood Park, (k) Castington and (l) Bullwood Hall prisons are subject to (i) section 20 and (ii) a full care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989. [113191]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service does not hold information on the numbers of children and young people in each of its establishments who are subject to section 31 of the Children Act 1989 or who are accommodated by a local authority under section 20 of the Act before being received into custody. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Department of Health collects aggregate figures annually for those subject to section 31 care orders and as of 31 March 2002 (the latest date for which figures are currently available) the Prison Service was accommodating 130 such children and young people.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for compensation were submitted to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many applications for compensation were rejected in each year. [111095]
  498W
  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows.

  Financial year

  Applications received

  Applications rejected

  Awards made

  Total resolutions

  1998–99

  78,651

  32,762

  39,038

  71,800

  1999–2000

  78,742

  33,312

  37,553

  70,865

  2000–01

  76,501

  30,451

  34,343

  64,794

  2001–02

  78,202

  31,938

  37,103

  69,041

  2002–03

  70,722

  34,883

  40,131

  75,014

  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) advise that these figures relate to cases resolved under the tariff-based scheme without an appeal.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the running costs were of the(a) Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and (b) Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel; and how much each body awarded in each of the last five years. [111342]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows.

  £ million

  Financial year

  CICA running costs

  CICAP running costs

  Total value of awards made by CICA under tariff scheme

  Total value of awards made by CICAP under tariff scheme

  1998–99

  22.49

  2.45

  107.39

  3.55

  1999–2000

  19.62

  3.85

  108.29

  6.91

  2000–01

  22.01

  5.99

  100.03

  10.39

  2001–02

  23.18

  6.62

  113.54

  11.88

  2002–03

  24.20

  5.68

  141.37

  14.68

  CICA advise that the figures in the table show the total value of awards for which acceptances were recorded in the year.

  Criminal Justice IT Systems
  Annette Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2003,Official Report, column 23W, on criminal justice IT systems, when he expects the criminal justice system IT delivery plan to be presented to ministers; and when the electronic progress report will be available on the criminal justice IT website. [113076]

  Mr. Wills
  The Cabinet CJS (IT) sub-Committee has now approved the Criminal Justice System delivery plan subject to officials reviewing elements of the programme costs. Once this has been completed the electronic progress report will be published on the Criminal Justice Information Technology (CJIT) website (www.cjit.gov.uk) in the summer. I will write to the hon. Member at this time.

  Criminal Offences
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal offences have been abolished since 1997. [111723]

  Paul Goggins
  No central records are kept of abolished offences. The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For example, an offence may be re-enacted or amended and, once identified, a detailed assessment would be required in each case.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department until what age a women serving a prison sentence in England and Wales is allowed to have a young child with them while they are in prison. [112047]

  Paul Goggins
  There are no restrictions on the age of mothers who have young children with them in prison but the mother and baby units in prisons are designed to accommodate young children up to about 18 months. The position in any particular case depends on an assessment of what is in the best interests of the child.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women who are serving a prison sentence in England and Wales for periods of time up to(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) four years and (e) five years have children under the age of 14. [112048]

  Paul Goggins
  There is no routinely collected data on the number of women prisoners who have young children. However, a study of women prisoners and their work in custody, published in 2000, found that 66 per cent, had dependent children under the age of 18 (out of a sample of 567 sentenced women).

  Another Home Office study found broadly similar results: from a large sample of imprisoned women and mothers, published in 1997, 60 per cent, of female prisoners, sentenced and unsentenced, had dependent children under the age of 18.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects all girl prisoners to be removed from prison and placed in local authority care. [112516]

  Paul Goggins
  The commissioning and purchasing of secure accommodation for under-18s, and the placement of most individual offenders, in that age group, are the responsibility of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales.

  On 18 February 2003 the Board announced its intention to remove all under-17-year-old girls from Prison Service accommodation during 2003 and to place them instead in secure training centres and local authority security children's homes. As of 12 May, there were no 15-year-old girls in Prison Service accommodation, and 16 16-year-olds.

  This is in line with the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary (Mr. Straw) in March 1999 when he said that he intended to use the greater flexibility provided by the detention and training order to place sentenced 15 and 16-year-old girls in available non-Prison Service accommodation. The detention and training order came into force in April 2000.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) 15-year-old, (b) 16-year-old and (c) 17-year-old girls were (i) held in prison, (ii) cautioned for offences and (iii) found guilty of offences in each year since 1997. [112517]
  500W
  Paul Goggins
  The numbers of 15-year-old, 16-year-old and 17-year-old females who were held in Prison Service establishments, cautioned and convicted of offences in each year since 1997 are given in the tables.

  Held in Prison Service Establishments (as of June)

  Year

  Age 15

  Age 16

  Age 17

  1997

  9

  12

  50

  1998

  7

  20

  52

  1999

  7

  22

  57

  2000

  3

  28

  58

  2001

  7

  12

  71

  2002

  9

  27

  85

  Cautioned

  Year

  Age 15

  Age 16

  Age 17

  1997

  4,651

  4,307

  3,761

  1998

  5,449

  4,621

  3,981

  1999

  5,173

  4,230

  3,794

  2000

  5,357

  4,077

  3,248

  2001

  5,518

  4,262

  3,254

  Convicted

  Year

  Age 15

  Age 16

  Age 17

  1997

  1,802

  2,613

  3,564

  1998

  2,009

  2,991

  3,885

  1999

  2,252

  2,616

  3,811

  2000

  2,312

  2,692

  3,526

  2001

  2,485

  2,746

  3,623

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women serving a prison sentence in England and Wales have young children with them in prison. [112279]

  Paul Goggins
  On 28 April 2003 there were 44 women serving sentences who had young children with them in prison.

  Inquests
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken was(a) in England and (b) in each local authority between the decision to hold an inquest and the opening of the inquest, in the last year for which figures are available. [112722]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is not held centrally, but I understand that a decision to hold an inquest can normally be taken within a few days of the report of the death. In 2001, in 88 per cent, of cases where coroners decided to hold an inquest, they issued certificates for the burial or cremation of the deceased within a week. In a further 9 per cent, of cases, certificates were issued within a month. In the remaining 2.5 per cent, of cases, authorisation to bury or cremate took longer. Such certificates would not be issued until after a decision to hold an inquest had been taken.

  Leave to Remain
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is in relation to(a) granting leave to remain and (b) the length of the

  501W
  period of leave in cases where an individual establishes a right to remain in the UK under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [113419]

  Beverley Hughes
  Where a person is unable to demonstrate a claim for asylum or Humanitarian Protection but is able to demonstrate a claim under Article 8 of the ECHR, they will be granted Discretionary Leave. This is in line with the new procedures introduced on 1 April which replaced the exceptional leave system.

  A person granted Discretionary Leave will be granted leave for a period of up to three years, although a lesser period may be granted where the circumstances of the case suggest that this is appropriate. This period of leave will be renewable for a further three years. After a person has spent six years on Discretionary Leave on Article 8 grounds, they will be eligible to apply for settlement. All applications for further leave or settlement will be the subject of an active review.

  Narrowing the Justice Gap Website
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the Persistent Offender Scheme section of the Narrowing the Justice Gap website is password protected. [112151]

  Paul Goggins
  The Persistent Offender section of the Narrowing the Justice Gap website is password protected because it contains operational guidance for use by criminal justice practitioners. The public access area of the Narrowing the Justice Gap site contains some information about the Persistent Offender Scheme.

  Prison and Court Escort Services
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much was spent on prison and court escort services in each of the last five years; [112138]

  (2) how many prisoners escaped (a) at court and (b) while in transit between court and prison in each of the last five years; [112141]

  (3) how many operational staff were employed by each of the private contractors responsible for prison and court escort services in each of the last five years; [112139]

  (4) what penalties have been imposed on the companies responsible for prisoner escorts in each of the last five years; and what the reason was for the penalty in each case; [112142]

  (5) what percentage of prisoners appearing at court arrived on time in the last year for which figures are available. [112140]

  Paul Goggins
  The table shows the number of escapes from escort contractors while the prisoner was either in court or in transit:

  Escape

  1988–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  From court

  Not available1

  Not available1

  45

  38

  27

  In transit

  Not available1

  Not available1

  11

  2

  4

  Total

  55

  58

  56

  40

  31

  502W
  1 Although the total number of escapes for 1988–89 and 1999–2000 is available, specific information on whether the escape took place while the prisoner was in court or while in transit was not available until 2000–02.

  Expressed as a percentage of the national average of prisoners handled during 2002–02, 76.39 per cent, of prisoners were delivered contractually on time to courts and 86.61 per cent, were delivered to courts before the court start times.

  The table gives the level of payments made to contractors for the provision of the prisoner escort contracts service for the five years from 1998–99:

  Year

  Amount paid (£)

  1998–99

  93,291,529

  1999–2000

  101,889,243

  2000–01

  104,833,064

  2001–02

  106,343.811

  2002–03

  110,216,636

  The table shows the total amount of financial remedies applied to the escort contractors since 1999:

  Company

  Number of remedies applied

  Total value (£)

  Group 4 Court Services

  1

  60,000

  Premier Prison Services

  1

  36,000

  Securicor Custodial Services

  2

  500,000

  Reliance Custodial Services

  2

  25,000

  Totals

  6

  621,000

  The table shows the average number of operational staff (excluding senior managers) employed on courts escorts services duties over each of the last five years by each of the escort contractors.

  Group 4 (4)1

  Premier (2)1

  Securicor (1)1

  Reliance (1)1

  1998–99

  1,522

  738

  848

  390

  1999–2000

  1,613

  787

  810

  386

  2000–01

  1,635

  788

  823

  400

  2001–02

  1,606

  787

  840

  397

  2002–03

  1,617

  794

  844

  396

  1 shows the number of contracts held by each company

  Prisons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bullying incidents there were on girls aged 15 to 17 years in prison in each year since 1997. [112514]

  Paul Goggins
  All prisons have anti-bullying strategies. These are designed to detect incidents of bullying, confront and address the bullying behaviour and support the victim. Under these arrangements, the available information shows that since 1 March 2002, there have been 151 incidents concerning juvenile girls in prison.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1997 the ratio of prison officers to prisoners for(a) the general prison population, (b) women prisoners and (c) girls aged between 15 and 17 years in prison. [112566]
  503W
  Paul Goggins
  The information is as follows:

  Date

  Officers to all prisoners

  Officers toprisoners in female only establishments

  Officers to female juvenile prisoners (15 to 17 years)

  30 April 1997

  1:2.49

  1:1.67

  —

  30 April 1998

  1:2.60

  1:1.84

  —

  31 March 1999

  1:2.50

  1:1.74

  —

  31 March 2000

  1:2.48

  1:2.26

  —

  31 March 2001

  1:2.51

  1:2.29

  —

  31 March 2002

  1:2.76

  1:2.63

  —

  31 March 2003

  1:2.81

  1:2.35

  —

  12 May 2003

  —

  —

  1:1.27

  Officers include prison officers, senior officers and principal officers. The Prison Service personnel database can only differentiate staff by establishment rather than individual units within establishments. Therefore, information relating to female prisoners can only be provided for establishments that only accommodate female prisoners.

  There are no establishments that only hold juvenile female prisoners and therefore staffing numbers are not available centrally. A manual count of female juvenile prisoners and officers responsible for them has been carried out but no historical staffing data are available.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Director General of the Prison Service is responsible for the operation of private prisons in England and Wales. [112133]

  Paul Goggins
  On 6 May 2003, operational responsibility for the nine private prisons in England and Wales was transferred from the Director General of the Prison Service to the Office for Contracted Prisons, a newly created unit within the Home Office, under the Commissioner for Correctional Services.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which companies hold contracts to supply the Prison Service with meat products; and on what basis those contracts were awarded; [111879]
  (2) whether meat products rejected by suppliers for sale to the general population are being supplied to the prison service for consumption in HM Prisons. [111880]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 8 May 2003]: The Prison Service currently contracts with two companies to supply meat products; Harry Yearsley Ltd. and N. H. Case Ltd. These companies supply products on a national basis and in competition with each other. Both companies were awarded contracts as a result of a competitive tendering action undertaken in strict adherence to European Union procurement regulations. The award was made on the basis of best value for money to the Prison Service, which took account of a range of evaluation criteria including price, quality, availability and the ability of the bidders to provide the requirements of the Service. All products supplied are fully compliant with all meat hygiene regulations including full product traceability.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were moved from HM prisons and kept temporarily in police custody, broken down by(a) police authority and (b) month, in the period March 2002 to March 2003. [110844]
  504W
  Paul Goggins
  The information you have requested is not collated centrally and cannot be provided except at disproportionate expense.

  Sexual Assault Referral Centres
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what direct financial support the Home Office gives to each of the sexual assault referral centres in England and Wales; [110728]

  (2) whether it is Home Office policy that local police authorities should share in the costs of (a) establishing and (b) running sexual assault referral centres; and whether there has been a budget allocated to a police area for such a project; [110725]

  (3) what Home Office policy is on whether sexual assault referral centres should be partly financed as to (a) capital setup costs and (b) running costs by primary care trusts; and what liaison he has with the Department of Health about such projects; [110724]

  (4) what Home Office guidelines there are to assist in the establishment of policies and procedures for sexual assault referral centres; [110723]

  (5) what policy the Home Office has to encourage the establishment of sexual assault referral centres in England and Wales; [110727]

  (6) how many sexual assault referral centres there are in England and Wales; and how they are financed. [110729]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office is currently considering ways in which further support can be provided to victims of sexual crime. Possibilities under consideration include the use of Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs); rape crisis and other counselling and support services; national or local telephone helplines; and some combination of these. The Home Office will consider with the Department of Health and other government departments how best to take these complex issues forward.

  We believe there are currently at least six SARCs in England and Wales. Funding for these has been negotiated and agreed locally. For example, the pioneer SARC, St. Mary's Centre in Manchester, is funded jointly by the Greater Manchester Police and the Central Manchester and Children's University Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust. The two REACH Centres in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Sunderland are jointly funded by Northumbria Police, the four local health authorities, and six local authorities.

  At present, no agreed process and criteria exist for the funding or setting up of SARCs and no Home Office guidance has been published on these matters. Most SARCs are currently jointly funded by the police and local health authorities, and neither the Home Office (except as outlined below) nor the Department of Health has allocated specific funding for SARCs.

  The Home Office has, however, provided some direct funding to certain SARCs. The Crime Reduction

  505W
  Programme (CRP) Violence against Women Initiative (VAWI) is an evidence-led programme which aims to find out which approaches and practices are effective in supporting victims and reducing incidents of domestic violence, rape and sexual assault. As part of this programme, some funding was allocated to three existing SARCs (St. Mary's in Manchester, REACH in Newcastle and STAR in West Yorkshire) to enable them to implement additional interventions to help support victims of rape and to improve their services. The funding was provided in July 2002 up to the end of March 2003.

  The Home Office commissioned Professor Liz Kelly from London Metropolitan University to evaluate the contribution of these three established SARCs towards supporting victims of rape and sexual assault and reducing attrition in the criminal justice system. An overview of the research is due to be published in the autumn of 2003. The Home Office will take Professor Kelly's findings into consideration when looking at ways in which further support can be provided to victims of sexual crime.

  At a recent seminar we discussed with the Department of Health a range of issues around service for sexual assault victims, including SARCs. We plan to discuss further.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suspected terrorists have been detained and for what periods under the Anti Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. [113603]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on 14 May 2003, Official Report, column 247W.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made by the Egyptian Government in the last six years for extradition to Egypt of suspected terrorists; and how many have succeeded. [113604]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]: There has been no such request from Egypt in the last six years.

  Work-related Deaths
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce new policies covering work-related deaths. [110361]

  Paul Goggins
  We are committed to reforming the law to increase corporate liability for manslaughter and will do so when parliamentary time allows. The results of the regulatory impact assessment are currently being studied and will influence any draft legislation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Boundary Commission
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  The Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended by the Boundary Commissions Act 1992 requires that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland undertake periodical reviews of constituencies in Northern Ireland. The Commission are required to submit a report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not less than eight or more than twelve years from their last report. The previous report was submitted in June 1995. The next report must be submitted by 2007 at the latest.

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been notified by the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland that they will be commencing their fifth general review of parliamentary constituencies as of today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Annual Report
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I have today, with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, laid before Parliament the Home Office's Departmental Report 2002–03 (Cm 5908). Copies are available in the Vote Office, Library and on the Home Office website. The Report describes the work of the Home Office to build a safe, just and tolerant society. It sets out our Public Service Agreement targets and describes performance against them. The Report explains how we are delivering better public services, sets out how the Home Office is organised to deliver and provides performance information. It provides financial data for the years 1998–99 to 2005–06 and summarises the Home Office's response to PAC Reports over the last year.

TREASURY

  Savings and Investment Plans
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly)
  The Government have decided to allow a wider range of investments to be accepted into ISAs and PEPs. In future all UCITS will be accepted as qualifying investments for ISAs and most UCITS will be qualifying investments for PEPs. We will be bringing forward amending regulations to achieve this shortly.

  This change to ISA and PEP investment qualification responds to the replacement by the FSA of different categories of pooled funds (such as securities schemes
  26WS
  and warrant schemes) with a single category of "UCITS schemes". This follows the implementation by the FSA of the UCITS Amending Directive on investment powers.

  Given the wide range of investments allowed to a UCITS scheme, not all UCITS schemes can be allowed into the stocks and shares component of an ISA, or into a PEP. To maintain the distinction between cash-like equities (which can be held in the cash component of an ISA) and other equities (which can be held in the stocks and shares component of an ISA, and in a PEP), the Government have proposed a test to distinguish between cash-like and other UCITS schemes based on the proportion of capital which an investor could be certain or near certain of receiving from their investment. Investments that would return at least 95 per cent. of the investor's original capital would be eligible for the cash component of the ISA—lower returns of the original capital would be eligible for the stocks and shares component of the ISA, and the PEP.

  This proposal has been welcomed by the industry as simple and workable. We will be talking to them further about the detailed arrangements.

  The overall result is that ISAs and PEPs will become an even more flexible savings and investment as they will be able to accept a wider range of investments.

  National Insurance Contributions Deficiency Notices
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  The decision to suspend National Insurance Contributions deficiency notices for the years 1996–97 was taken five years ago in 1998 by the Contributions Agency, when it was part of the then Department for Social Security.

  No Minister was consulted or informed of this decision at the time the decision was taken in 1998. In fact, Ministers were informed of this decision in March this year.

  As soon as Ministers were informed, I instructed the Inland Revenue to publish a statement on their website informing people of this suspension, which they did on 5 April 2003, and I informed the House of Commons by written answer on 11 April.

  In addition, I took action to:
  protect the position of those who choose to make voluntary contributions by suspending the six year rule;
  ensure that the six year rule will run from the beginning of this financial year so that people affected have the same amount of time to make contributions as they would have had if they had been informed earlier;
  freeze the contribution rate at the rate that would have applied at the time, so no one has to pay more than they would have to at the time;
  ensure that people receive a consolidated deficiency notice to enable them to make an informed decision.

  I have been informed that the Contributions Agency took the decision to suspend issuing deficiency notices as a result of the serious problems they were experiencing in the introduction of the NIRS2 computer system, dating back to 1996. It was intended to be a temporary measure to clear the backlog of work created by these problems, but no plan was ever put in place to resume issuing them.
  27WS
  As the Inland Revenue statement of 5 April, and my written answer of 11 April said, to ensure that no-one missed out from being able to pay voluntary National Insurance contributions for the years from 1996–97, I immediately instructed the Inland Revenue to extend the normal six year time-limit in which voluntary contributions can be made.

  Under the normal rules, the latest deadline for payment for 1996–97 would have been 5 April 2003. However, as I announced in April, because deficiency notices were not sent out the April deadline will not apply.

  We have therefore stopped the clock on the time limit for payment, and the six years will start from the beginning of this financial year. So for the years 1996–97 to 2001–02, people will have up to 5 April 2008 to fill in any gaps in their National Insurance record if they wish. Everyone will be given as much time to pay as they would have had if the notices had been issued in the normal way.

  In addition, as we said in April, I have instructed the Inland Revenue that anyone affected must be allowed to pay their voluntary contributions at the rate that would have applied in the year that their contributions were deficient, rather than the current rate.

  The Inland Revenue will publish details shortly of how it plans to issue deficiency notices in respect of the years since 1996–97. These notices will tell people if they have any missing contributions in those years, and what they can do to fill the gaps in their contribution record if they choose to do so.

  I also announced in April that each individual affected will be sent a consolidated deficiency notice for any years since 1996–97 in which they may have made insufficient contributions, rather than a succession of separate notices, so that they could make an informed decision as to whether it was in their interests to pay voluntary contributions.

  These notices will not be a demand for payment, but will inform people that they have the option to pay voluntary contributions in order to make up their contribution record if they choose to do so.

  Historically speaking, in the years prior to 1998, when deficiency notices were issued only about 4 per cent. of these resulted in people choosing to make voluntary contributions.

  In addition, the pension rights of those caring for children and receiving Child Benefit, and those who care for a dependent relative at home and receive Carer's Allowance, are protected. Credits are automatically awarded when people claim incapacity or unemployment benefits. None of these groups will need to pay any voluntary contributions.
  28WS
  When I was informed of the full extent of this issue, I immediately asked the Inland Revenue to carry out an inquiry into why the decision to suspend the issue of deficiency notices was taken, why ministers were not consulted or informed at the time, why the issue of deficiency notices was not resumed after the NIRS2 computer system was stable, and why ministers were not informed for six years.

  The inquiry will report by end of this month.

  I will continue to keep the House fully informed of any further information on this matter.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Annual Report
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and I are pleased to present the first Annual Report of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for 2003 to Parliament. It sets out our achievements since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was set up on 29 May 2002.

  The aim of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is to achieve thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities. The aim and associated objectives and delivery targets were developed during the Spending Review 2002. The issues that we deal with affect the lives of everyone and are crucial to building the healthy, prosperous and safe communities we seek.

  During our first year, we have made good progress. A key achievement has been the publication of Sustainable Communities: building for the future—a long term programme of action, backed by substantial resources of £22 billion, to improve housing and communities across the country. Progress has been made in all our other areas of responsibility: housing, planning, local and regional government, regional policy, devolution, neighbourhood renewal and social inclusion. We are also strengthening our capacity to deliver and establish effective working relationships with all our partners.

  We also recognise that many of the problems we seek to tackle are deep rooted and much more remains to be done in the years ahead. We remain focused on delivering thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities in all regions.

HEALTH

  Food Standards Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)
  The Food Standards Agency's Departmental Report Spring 2003 was laid before Parliament today.

  Copies will be placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Russia (EUC Report)
11.5 a.m.
Lord Joplingrose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on EU-Russia Relations (3rd Report, FIL Paper 29).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the sub-committee began to consider EU-Russia relations in March last year. It completed its study in December and published the report in January. It is unfortunate that there has been such a long gap between publication and debate. However, that is another matter.
At the beginning of my speech I wish to pay tribute to Dr Haslam of Cambridge University. He was the committee's specialist adviser and was a huge help with his experience of these matters. I want to put on record the committee's gratitude to David Batt who was the Clerk to the Committee until October of last year. In particular, I express the committee's gratitude to Audrey Nelson who took over from him. She had no previous experience of Parliament and admirably picked up that role at the stage of the inquiry when the committee was writing its report. It is particularly grateful to her.
The committee was very impressed by the huge progress made in recent years in Russia. After all, it is only 15 years ago that Russia was a command economy under the dead hand of communism. Today it is all too easy to brush Russia aside as being a nation in a post-communist rut; to draw attention to the inefficiency, the corruption, the maladministration, the poor banking system, the horrific environmental problems and the rotting military potential. Those issues are part of the scene. They are generally recognised within Russia, especially by President Putin himself.
I give as an example the way in which President Putin railed against many of these things when he addressed the Duma a year ago. He drew attention to adopted laws often being contradictory to each other; he talked about business tycoons finding it much more reliable to buy state officials rather than rely on the law courts; and he referred to the cumbersome, clumsy and ineffective state apparatus.
President Putin has made remarkable progress. I believe that we must begin by recognising and saluting that. But he still has a major uphill task ahead. That presents a major challenge to the European Union. Russia will no longer be a distant European state. The European Union will share much longer borders with Russia after its expansion next year. So it is essential that the European Union reconsiders how it can live
438
with Russia, not as in the past as a potential menace—which it no longer is—but as a major player moving fast to join the community of nations as a powerful partner in the developed world.
A great deal of progress has been made. We have seen signs of much warmer relations—until recently of course—with the United States. In particular, that follows Russia's expressions of solidarity with the United States post 9/11. A side effect of that, which the committee noted, was that because of Russian solidarity with the US there was a distinct falling-off of criticism of Russia with regard to the Chechnya crisis.
Another area in which there has been much progress is that Russia now enjoys much closer relations with NATO. The Council of 20, which was set up a year ago, has brought Russia much closer within NATO. Russia is included in decision-making without having either full membership or a vote in these matters. Again progress has been made with regard to the TACIS programme in which 2.5 billion euros have been allocated to the end of this current year.
So what should the European Union be doing to help Russia to continue the positive progress of recent years? I shall briefly suggest seven areas. First, the committee believes that there is the need to strengthen current arrangements. Many are out of date, especially the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement (PCA). We believe that is no longer relevant as it was designed for the early post-communist days. I hope that matter will be discussed at the Russian-EU summit in St Petersburg at the end of this month and that the Minister will tell us about that summit. The European Voice of 30th April stated:
"A blueprint for radically changing the ways the EU handles relations with Russia has been developed by the European Commission".
It would be extremely helpful if the Minister in responding could tell us about that.
Secondly, the committee believes that the institutional framework of the European Union itself needs to be altered. The committee found there was no proper co-ordination with Russia between the Council and the Commission. In their response, the Government say that that will be reviewed next year. With respect, that is not good enough; the matter should be tackled at once.
We also felt strongly that there ought to be a single office in Brussels to co-ordinate all matters relevant to Russia. In the Government's response, they say that that is already done by DG Relex. With great respect, the committee knew that and found it inadequate. I am surprised that the Government are satisfied with the co-ordination role of DG Relex, which really needs to be dealt with.
Thirdly, we believe that the EU should do what it can to help Russia to achieve its ambition to join the World Trade Organisation. Although we see no reason to weaken the rules to allow Russia in, we must accept the fact that, given the state of affairs in Russia. the date of accession is probably a long way ahead.

439
However, when Russia achieves that, we agree with the Government's view that that will greatly facilitate the development of EU-Russian trade.
Fourthly, we believe that the EU should do everything that it can to help to relieve Russia's environmental problems. Whether they arise from rotting military equipment or from inefficient chemical, nuclear or power facilities, those problems affect the entire European and neighbouring communities and they must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. In passing, I may say that years ago I was the Minister who had to deal with the Chernobyl crisis, in which large parts of the United Kingdom, including my constituency in the Lake District, were affected. I see my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, sitting in his place. I seem to recall that his constituency was also affected by that fall-out. So those are urgent matters.
Fifthly, the committee felt that there is an urgent need to encourage closer links by establishing with Russia agreements recognising that it is today a major energy supplier to the European Union. There is scope to try to arrange long-term understandings for the supply of energy. With the tension, terrorism and potential instability in the Middle East, that case is an easy one to make.
The Government's response tells us that they believe that that is likely to be a matter for the energy companies themselves. Of course we agree with that, but given the realities of Russia and the remaining power of central control there, I believe, and I think that the Committee would agree, that the Government have a role alongside the energy companies to try to make agreement to ensure long-term supplies of energy.
Sixthly, we believe that opportunities arise to create better understanding through educational exchanges. Russia has been moving from a command, centralised economy to a modern state. Close EU-Russia relations could be encouraged by schemes to bring more Russian officials to the European Union to study public administration. In their response, the Government refer to the trans-European mobility scheme for university studies. We are aware of that, but we believe that there is scope for a large extension of educational opportunities to show officialdom in Russia how we do things here, with all the warts attached.
The seventh and last area to which I shall refer is the thorny problem of Kaliningrad. That problem needs to be solved. There is an enclave on the Baltic Sea that is detached from the larger part of Russia. There is a great deal of resentment in Kaliningrad about their citizens' need to move to and from the two parts of Russia, and being forced to have visas and passports to do so.
We read recently that the EU-Russia Co-operation Council is reported in April to have agreed a gradual transition to visa-free public travel, so that Russians could travel freely to and within the European Union by 2007. That is an important matter, and I hope that
440
in her reply, the Minister will tell us exactly what is meant by that reported agreement. Where does that leave the Schengen rules? Commissioner Patten has on many occasions been extremely firm on that issue and has made clear that the Schengen rules cannot be relaxed with regard to the Kaliningrad situation. Will that be discussed at the end of the month at the EU-Russian summit?
Much has happened since we completed our report in December. President Putin has shown that he has a mind of his own. He has fallen out of step with those who were previously perceived to be his close friends and allies. With regard to President Bush, he sided with France and Germany over Iraq. With regard to Mr Blair, he has been prepared to humiliate him publicly, or "openly ridiculed" him as the Independent yesterday described it. Yesterday's Independent also described Russia as being militarily weak, but as having a well-developed sense of its own national dignity. And I ask why not. Therefore, the lesson must be that President Putin and the Russian administration should not be taken for granted.
We are told that the EU is starting to talk of a wider Europe. It is beginning to talk of what its relations should be with the nations on the periphery of the larger European Union that will be established next year. Some like Mr Prodi, we read, cannot see Russia as a member of the European Union in the future, but others, like Mr Berlusconi, have been saying the opposite. It is important that we know what the Government's attitude is to the plans that are being devised in Brussels for creating an association with what is described as wider Europe. The sub-committee of which I have the honour of being chairman will discuss that when we take evidence from the Minister on 12th June. It is an important matter.
In conclusion, we cannot ignore Russia. It is essential that we should do what we can to encourage its development and to draw it into a closer and more purposeful understanding with the states of the European Union. A good deal of progress has been made; for example, the work of the Quartet in trying to deal with the Israel-Palestine situation. Above all, we should work as hard as we can to avoid a sort of Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, which is in danger of being set up and which would split the European Union permanently and seriously. At a time when the United States is sadly turning more and more away from a multilateral approach to foreign affairs—I have expressed my views about that in the past—it is vital that the European Union tries to expand its multilateral approach to world affairs. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on EU-Russia Relations (3rd Report, HL Paper 29).—(Lord Jopling.)
11.23 a.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I am very proud to have a Prime Minister who from time to time puts himself in difficult diplomatic positions in order to further international peace.

441
Seventeen years ago, I stood alone in the Fulda Gap—that part of a divided Germany through which it was said the Russian tanks would pour in the event of the Cold War turning hot. Contemplating then the divided communities of Europe found on each side of the border fence, it would have been rash of one to suppose that a few years later Germany and then Europe itself would begin to reunite within NATO and within the European Union.
Nevertheless, the abiding impression that I retain of our Select Committee's 2002 visit to Moscow to peer into the present state of EU-Russia relations is that there still remains a kind of Fulda Gap of the imagination between our two communities, between the power blocs of Russia and the European Union. We have failed to capitalise as fully as we might on the real opportunities that now present themselves, opportunities which, in some ways, have become more, not less, attractive in the aftermath of the war in Iraq. As so often in international relations, instability provides opportunities as well as threats.
I am pleased that today we have the opportunity to debate our report, which was so cogently presented by our chairman the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. That Russia has been relatively lukewarm to the European Union in the past decade is perplexing. It may be that she has preferred to keep to bilateral approaches with old friends and old enemies, rather than use the newer institutions in Brussels. It is also evident that she has made the courting of the United States of America a priority over that of Europe and the European Union. Perhaps old superpower habits live on long after the power has gone. Whatever the case may be, Russia's efforts with America have little to show for them, but that should he the signal for the European Union to redouble its efforts to revive dormant ties with the emerging Russia. After all, post Iraq, Russia will be reassessing her strategic interests and alliances. We should ensure that Europe is her first port of call.
Incidentally, it is a measure of how much current Russian thinking has evolved from Soviet attitudes that in the past the fostering of EU-Russia ties would have been interpreted in Washington as mischief-making in Moscow. No one blinks at it today. Similarly, the acquiescence of Russia in the process of former Soviet states and satellites coming into NATO and the European Union should be recognised and applauded. Only this week, Lithuania voted overwhelmingly in favour of joining the European Union, but has anyone thought to acknowledge Moscow's forbearance?
The time is ripe for a closer EU and British engagement with Russia. Here are some of the areas in which we should seize the day: first, in business and trade. Some 57 per cent of Russia's external trade is conducted with the continent of Europe. That compares favourably with the 6 per cent plied with the US and the slender 1.6 per cent with Japan. However, our business and trade ties with our geographical neighbour could and should be considerably strengthened, and there are signs that the pace is quickening.
442
Our sub-committee was heartened by the evidence of Mr Hugh Humphreys. His auto-industry software business, Delcam, has been trading in Russia for some years, not only supporting Russians with well paid jobs and prosperity on the ground, but also providing profits for British firms in Birmingham. Mr Humphreys offered graphic descriptions of the hazards of doing business in Russia, which included on occasions a return to the pre-capitalist world of barter. On one occasion, Delcam had to accept payment in kind. It took the form of 20,000 bottles of vodka and battalions of bulldozers. in the absence of hard cash.
We learnt, too, from Mr Humphreys of the real opportunities for joint ventures, especially where entrepreneurs were willing to penetrate the vast Russia that lies beyond and outside the major cities of St Petersburg and Moscow. The European Union and its entrepreneurs have a dynamic role to play in promoting a friendlier business environment of secure contracts, courts to enforce them, reliable accounting and auditing systems and a proper banking system. Equally impressive in helping to reach those goals was Mr Humphreys' promotion of exchange visits for Russian employees to Delcam's Birmingham plants, which the chairman of the sub-committee, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, mentioned.
The second area is energy supply. Here, the opportunities for closer ties are plentiful. There are some pipelines of promise, especially as for the European Union, Russia offers an alternative source to the volatile Middle East as a source of oil. Can we and the European Union go further than that and use oil transactions to facilitate other common goals? For instance, I remember how, in our conversations in Moscow with leading politicians and business people, my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel suggested that the euro might be an effective alternative to the dollar for transactions involving Russian oil. With a strengthening euro, that must be an attractive option. For us, Russian oil denominated in euros, rather than in dollars, would strengthen the single currency's international credibility.
Apropos of the euro, I add that one of our interlocutors in Moscow was Mr Vladimir Ryzhkov, chairman of the 20-strong Russia in Europe group in the Duma and author of the pamphlet The Rouble, the Dollar and the Euro. His passion for the euro and for Europe was all the more surprising given his Siberian origins, but what struck me and gave me pause for thought was his assertion that pro-European sentiment and tradition extended way beyond the Urals. We should make fast friends of those in Russia who truly see Europe as what Gorbachev once called our common home.
Thirdly, there is Kaliningrad. The reality of our common home is illustrated by the situation of Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave within the boundaries of the European Union. Our ability to find solutions to that tricky problem augurs well for our resolving other sensitive issues related to common borders and shared interests in countries formerly wholly within the Soviet sphere of influence.

443
Fourthly, whatever view is taken of Chechnya, we have a common cause in the suppression of terrorism and in frustrating organised crime related to prostitution, drugs and money laundering. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, will be only too aware of the dubious links that certain Russian entrepreneurs maintain with the island of Cyprus. We met one such leading air tour operator, and I am not sure that all the traffic was touristic.
Tourism is another potentially fruitful field of engagement. During our visit to the Moscow think tank IMEMO—the Institute of World Economy and International Relations—I was disappointed that our Russian interlocutors were so lukewarm on the potential for the beneficial expansion of tourism. Russia is a country of unparalleled diversity and natural beauty. I wonder whether British and European expertise might be mobilised here to our mutual benefit.
To respond to some of the challenges that I have outlined, our report on EU-Russia relations proposes three modest steps. Those steps will animate a friendship based on geographical, historical, cultural, literary, economic and social ties that are deep and are deepening. I also warmly support the proposal for a major two-way programme of educational assistance and the updating and re-jigging of existing EU-Russia agreements. Thirdly, the establishment of a single office in the European Commission to co-ordinate all matters Russian is wise and practical. It must be adequately staffed, especially in the middle ranks, where most of the nitty-gritty of re-fashioning our relationships must be done.
I commend the report and plead with my noble friend the Minister—a doughty European—not to allow Britain and the EU to miss such an opportunity. We have much to learn from the Russians and they from us.
11.34 a.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, as I was not a member of the sub-committee, the first thing that I must do is congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and his fellow members of the sub-committee on producing a valuable report on an important subject that is likely to grow in importance, as the years go by. The foundations that we lay down in the next decade will be of vital importance to the future well-being and security of the whole of Europe and Russia. The over-riding problem of our day, when we consider the threat of terrorism and the seeds of hatred that have been sown around the world, is how to win the hearts and minds of the younger generation. It is as important to win them in Russia as anywhere else.
I do not have any great knowledge of Russia, although I have a cousin who is a great authority on Russian geography and has taught in Berkeley for many years. I remember going on a private trip round Russia with an American friend in Brezhnev's day. We had an amazing amount of freedom. I joined up with my American friend in Leningrad, as it was then
444
called. That evening, I went to a meeting arranged by the Americans, at which there were representatives of the State Department in Washington, who were visiting Russia, and their counterparts in the Russian foreign ministry. We had a jovial evening, as one can imagine, but there was also a great deal of serious discussion too. I remember, in those days of the Iron Curtain, that the young American and Russian diplomats of the future were dividing the world between them. As the only European there, apart from the Russians, I piped up and asked them to tell me what would happen to Europe. The Americans said, "We'll look after you", and the Russians said that, of course, they would do the same. That was it. Things have moved on greatly since then.
One of the problems in dealing with people who have been brought up in a formerly communist country—not the intellectuals, but the average businessman, the average person—is the cast of mind or mode of thought. They are unaccustomed to taking initiatives, and they look over their shoulder all the time at the figure that, they think, might be behind them. We must be patient in building up a different approach in an ex-communist country. That applies to Russia and to the eastern European candidates for entry to the European Union. We all remember what an enormous problem it was to bring eastern Germany into a united Germany. The cast of mind was different. There was any amount of capital pumped in from western Germany, but it was difficult to invest effectively. It all takes time.
It was of great interest to read the evidence presented to the committee. That evidence is very valuable, and I was particularly interested in the views expressed on potential military relations between the European Union, Russia and the United States by Dr Perry, the former Secretary of Defence, and by General Shalikashvili—I apologise if I have mispronounced his name—a former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is very interesting. I shall quote General Shalikashvili:
"Let me first of all start because I think it is very important at the beginning to say that America has long supported and even urged an increase in European military capabilities. Not just military capabilities but also the mechanism to employ the military themselves. The European Security and Defence Policy is something that in fact has been urged upon Europe for quite some time, sometimes under very different terms when we talk about burden sharing and whatnot. It is clear that there are also a lot of voices in the United States that have some concern with certain Europeans who view the European Security and Defence Policy as a tool to lessen America's influence in European and transatlantic security issues".
He goes on to say that, by and large, he takes the first view of that.
It is worth remembering, when there is so much criticism today because of any differences we may have had with our European partners, that the main aim of strengthening European defence capability is to build the missing pillar of the Atlantic alliance. There is the North American pillar and the European pillar, which remains very dubiously constructed. Russia's position on the eastern flank of the European Union is vital in the longer term. Having quoted from the former US

445
Secretary of Defence and the former head of the Armed Forces in the United States, I must say that their views may have been modified by the present holders of those posts.
One of the great problems in Russia at present is the breakdown of the educational system; not only what is taught in the schools, but the available structure. The European Union would do well to look at the matter. Recently, for reasons unclear to me, there has been a dramatic decrease in the population of Russia. We in this country and throughout Europe should seek to improve the overall education of young people in Russia, pointing out how they can use their talents and encouraging interchange with our countries. For example, the BBC World Service, through its Russian services, is very well respected there.
But our country could do more. Many of the complaints that I have heard from different parts of the world are that Western culture is often exported in the form of the cheapest films that hard up countries can purchase for cheap and easy presentation in cinemas. They represent Western civilisation as depraved and unsavoury, to say the least. Does this country or Europe do enough to counteract that impression? Do we have enough cultural or student exchanges with Russia, which, over the next decade, will change to accommodate itself with Western business and other techniques? It will have a great task in shaking off some of the leftovers of communist culture.
I can well understand President Putin's point, and we know that there was a great deal of money-laundering in Europe and in our own country as a result of the misuse of the proceeds from the sale of what were formerly nationalised industries in Russia. So capitalism got off to a bad start.
A report such as that which we are discussing today, particularly the evidence given by experts to the committee, is a very valuable step towards establishing a much better relationship with Russia. It is of crucial interest to the whole of western Europe in its relationship with Russia.
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I begin by saying how much I enjoy and value my membership of European Sub-Committee C. I pay tribute to the splendid way in which we are served by our clerks and advisers, and to a range of excellent witnesses. We have been very fortunate.
Our report addresses a vast subject, but I shall concentrate on two things. The first is our attempt to define Russia's policy towards the EU after the seminal events of 9/11, and, on the other hand, what the EU could and should be doing so far as concerns Russia in the immediate future, particularly given the change in Russia's direction brought about by the Iraq crisis. Secondly, I shall spend some time on Russia's environmental problems and what should be done about them.
446
President Putin's own definition of Russia's foreign policy at his address to the Federal Assembly in April 2002—after 9/11 and Afghanistan, but before the debate on Iraq—was that it would be,
"purely pragmatic, based on our possibilities and national interests—military-strategic, economic and political ones".
Russia, he said, would,
"continue vigorous work with the EU aimed at forming a single economic space".
He said that the major objective would be,
"to ensure strategic stability in the world".
His aim was also to take part in,
"devising a new security system, maintaining permanent dialogue with the United States and working to change the quality of our relations with NATO".
Most of his speech was, perhaps rightly, devoted to the immense task faced by Russia internally, including Chechnya.
The word "pragmatic" leaves everything open. Thus, Russia may well focus primarily on its relations with the superpower—the US. But it will still not be averse to easing the US out of Europe by responding to recent French and German overtures in their anti-US mode by playing the EU off against NATO—since NATO is what keeps the US in Europe—and by drawing closer to the EU in its CFSP and ESDP manifestations. That has been developing since before the Nice Treaty. The wise move by NATO in April 2002 to meet the Russians to set up the NATO-Russia Council and arrange working groups should have helped to make Russia feel loved and wanted. But we must accept the fact that, as one of our ministerial witnesses put it,
"the old agenda is still lurking—not even lurking sometimes—in the shadows".
Our report has approached the EU-Russia relationship both from the EU's and Russia's point of view. Initially, relations with Russia, other than the practical issues covered by the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, were not a major factor in EU foreign policy. However, in the common strategy initiated in 1999, a move was made to discuss policy on stability and security and,
"integrating Russia into a common European economic and social space".
The EU, led by Javier Solana, developed and deepened the relationship through a series of summit meetings, which still continue. Russia, for her part, with many major internal challenges to meet, and probably a preoccupation with the US and NATO as a threat, regarded the EU for some time, apart from some general economic interest, as a useful milch cow rather than a major challenge.
We are now, however, entering a critical phase. Enlargement will bring common frontiers and a need for Russia to move outwards into Europe. It could also bring a useful influence to bear on EU-Russia strategic relations, precisely because the new members—former Soviet satellites—so long as they feel safe thanks to their NATO membership, should be able to make valuable contributions to EU-Russia relations because they understand Russia. Conversely, Russia may feel

447
that it continues to have some influence in, and understanding of, those countries. Their transatlantic orientation may also help to protect NATO from a move from the French—still very Gaullist in their attitude to Russia and the US respectively—to attempt to supplant NATO by a European security and defence policy benefiting by Russian heavy lift.
It would not succeed but it could be the straw that breaks the American camel's back and opens the way for a US withdrawal from Europe. Our report states:
"Although it will be to Europe's advantage to promote links that lock Russia into a stable European security system, it will be no less important to avoid any dissonance between NATO's links with Russia and Russia's association with the CFSP. The greatest possible co-ordination will need to be maintained by the EU".
The new entrants are clear, as we should be, that we need both the EU and NATO. They are not mutually exclusive. Meanwhile, what has emerged about President Putin's present position over Iraq—especially given Mr Primakov's long and close association with President Saddam and with Syria, the evidence of Russian arms sales to Iraq, despite the UN embargo and, of course, the major oil debt—should remind us that Russia has not changed much and we should be wary of supposing that a personal relationship with Putin, admirable though it is, is a reliable basis for policy and not open to manipulation. However, Russia's part in the quartet is potentially more benign.
Meanwhile, I suggest that through the EU we should begin to extract some real action from the Russians on the increasingly dangerous environmental hazards that, 14 years after the Berlin Wall came down, still exist in Russia despite the fact that the US, the EU and a number of individual EU members have all given considerable sums of money to get something done. One of our witnesses commented. in the context of the PCA, that it was,
"necessary to cajole the Russians to meet their obligations".
Clearly, they still follow the good old communist tactic of treating all negotiations as a way to get, not give.
The Russians still have 44 tons of chemical weapons alone which have not been disposed of and which are having terrible effects on human beings and on the environment in general. Russia signed the Chemical Weapons Convention to destroy all chemical weapons by 2007, but has not done so, claiming lack of funding.
The EU gave Russia 11 million euros from 1997–99 alone under the TACIS programme. The US has given 900 million dollars. The UK and Germany have also given considerable sums. Yet the Russians continue to say that they cannot meet the deadline until 2012. Indeed, their Commission on Chemical Disarmament has said that if this date were not accepted, Russia would withdraw from the convention. We recently offered a further £12 million for the destruction of these chemical weapons. So far, the Russians have built some good roads around the complexes where the weapons are stored, but the toxic materials remain.
The Russians also continued to manufacture for some time biological weapons, presumably for sale—a fact that we learnt only through a defector. In the
448
nuclear field, only 21 per cent of weapons-usable, fissionable materials have been disposed of after all these years. As the Committee reported, the Russians are dragging their feet about signing up to the legal framework necessary to allow nuclear clean-up programmes to proceed. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Atomic Energy, (Minatom), whose facilities contain most of the material of proliferation interest, has been working with Iran on nuclear matters. The Committee found that disturbing.
There are also the rusting nuclear submarines and nuclear power stations, any one of which could be another Chernobyl. The British Government alone is providing £70 million over 10 years under the plutonium disposition programme to dispose of 34 million tons of surplus Russian weapons grade plutonium. Some of that money comes from a British contribution of £84 million for the years 2001–04 for projects relating to the nuclear legacy in the former Soviet Union. We are doing all this and yet anyone within Russia with a concern for environmental matters who reports on this dangerous area, with all its hazards to human life, is liable to be imprisoned, as a brave Russian naval officer was a year or two ago.
I believe strongly that we shall not succeed in bringing Russia, with all its human promise, into Europe in any real way until we can force it to be more transparent and, in this instance, to use the money that it has received over 8 years now to help preserve the environment. It will never take us seriously on great issues if we are not seen to hold it to account on such practical and pragmatic issues as this. The same could also be said of Chechnya, but that is a subject for another day.
Finally, I want to add from my own experience of the many brave, honourable and decent Russians, that what I have said about the continuing Russian institutional proclivity for driving wedges and for its incorrigibly conspiratorial outlook and instinctive distrust of the West, does not mean that I do not believe, as I think the Committee does, that there has been a major change for the better in Russian society.
We heard with particular interest from a witness, named by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison—Mr Humphreys—who has built up a thriving and useful software business in Russia, in the provinces, working everywhere in partnership with Russians, training Russians here and in the universities. Outside Moscow, with all its prevailing climate of bribery and corruption, ordinary people are building new lives, free of the dead hand of communism.
Mr Humphreys' enterprise has been a very practical example of sensible private enterprise rather than state control. We have been working through the Know How programme, and the EU through TACIS, and other schemes are working with them, too. Indeed, we are very alive to the issue of education. President Putin was talking about just such practical issues—the way to a decent life—in his speech. Russia's borders are open now. It is for us to hold successive Russian governments to freedom of speech. We cannot be so arrogant, however, as to lay down our terms for good

449
governance in an ancient and proud country. The imagination boggles at the idea of Russia ever having to wrestle with the acquis. But we can set some standards for those who wish to be our friends and partners.
I think that the message of our report is that there arc major changes going on in that vast and great country. It behoves us to do everything practical that we can to help them to develop the nationhood that is their right. I strongly believe that there are great prospects for the EU to give many, many people who were once behind an iron curtain the chance to live properly. However, in doing that, we must not forget when we are dealing with the institutions and with Russia as an institutional government, that they have an agenda which is not always in our interests. We need to be aware of it and ready to counter it.
11.57 a.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I begin by offering my thanks to all the staff and attendants here for helping me in my very early days. When I walked into this building I was afflicted by an attack of what I think is called "navigational dyslexia", a fancy way of saying "no sense of direction". Therefore, I am particularly grateful to staff and attendants. I am grateful, too, to Members of this House for the warmth of their welcome, far warmer than many a parish church I have been in.
I welcome the report and thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for introducing it. This being my first effort at speaking in the House, I draw attention to just one sentence within the report. Paragraph 94 states:
"The transformation of Russia will ultimately be completed primarily from within, from below as much as from above, and through a change in outlook as well as of institutions".
This year, two great anniversaries are being celebrated in Russia. The first we have all heard about—the300th anniversary of the founding of St Petersburg. There are great festivities and an EU summit at the end of this month to celebrate the occasion. But we must remind ourselves of what St Petersburg represents to the vast majority of the Russian people. It was founded by Peter the Great—opening windows to the West—followed by Catherine the Great and many others, who have looked to the West and taken with them a minority. But the majority of the Russian people have been very suspicious of everything that St Petersburg stands for. They were certainly very suspicious of those who were leading them in that direction. We need to remember that. This westernisation is not all that popular in a great swathe of that great country. There is deep suspicion.
The movement never took the people with it, a people who had had no experience of what we call the Renaissance, no experience of what we call the Reformation and no experience of what we call the Enlightenment—with all the advantages brought by those developments, as well as all the disadvantages. So that is the first anniversary I wanted to discuss: 300 years of St Petersburg.
450
But the Russian people are celebrating another centenary—and, it must be said, with far greater enthusiasm. It is one that has received no publicity at all in the western world. I refer to the centenary of the canonisation of St Seraphim of Sarov, of whom I am sure all noble Lords are well aware. The fact that we are not aware is indicative of how little we know about Russia. To Russia, St Seraphim of Sarov is far more than St Francis of Assisi ever was to the western world. He is almost the most popular person in history. A monk who lived in the forests of Sarov and who died only in 1850, he represented and continues to represent for the Russian people the very soul of Russia. He encapsulates the Russian spirit.
All I want to say is this: in all relationships between the European Union and Russia, we have much to learn and much to gain from looking at and listening to the Russian spirit. I believe that barriers will be broken down, suspicions quelled and trust established if there is humility in our approach. Only then can there be true dialogue. The EU has much to share, economically, socially, politically, and so forth, but I wonder if we shall be listened to if we do not acknowledge equally our need to learn from Russia; to listen and to learn.
It was Catherine the Great, I believe, who said that the secret of leadership is to shout praise and whisper criticism. Taking that approach towards the people of Russia will ensure far more progress than thinking that we have everything to offer and nothing to receive.
12.2 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech. I did not know that he would finish his remarks quite so soon, because I have been caught writing down the right reverend Prelate's wonderful quotation, to the effect that you must shout praise and listen quietly. That is not quite the quote, but perhaps I may ask for it after the debate. As someone who loves and lives in Yorkshire, it gives me an added pleasure to welcome a Yorkshire Bishop to the House. Perhaps I may also say how glad I am that Sheffield won last night.
Like other members of the sub-committee, I should like to say how much I enjoyed being a member of it. The study was not only very enjoyable to take part in, but was full of interest. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has already outlined the key recommendations from the committee, but 1 wish to repeat one comment he made, to the effect that much has changed since the report was published at the end of last year. Not the least of those changes has been the war in Iraq and the serious and perhaps potentially long-lasting disagreements between ourselves on the one hand and France and Germany on the other, as well as with Russia. Furthermore, disagreements have arisen between what has become known as "old" and "new" Europe. They are bound to have implications for the EU/Russian relationship. What those are is not yet clear, but they will certainly have further implications for this country.

451
Although I shall speak in the main about defence and security issues, I should like to make some brief general comments. There was recognition in the West of the enormous challenges—economic, political, environmental and social—facing Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed, and along with it the failure of communism as an ideology. But like other noble Lords, I am not sure that we have really given credit to Russia for what it has already achieved politically and economically. In some ways, the Russian people have made remarkable progress.
Russia may no longer be a superpower, but it will remain a very important country. Its oil and gas industries, for example, are of increasing strategic importance. It still retains a large arsenal of extremely capable nuclear weapons and it borders countries which are, to say the least, unstable. Therefore Russia will continue to be a major player on the world scene, a country difficult to ignore and, indeed, we would be stupid to do so. At times I sense that it will be an awkward player and we would be unwise to think that it will never again in the future pose a threat. It is a country which needs to be treated with greater respect than some of our commentators have tended to demonstrate. Russia is a proud country and we should neither patronise nor underestimate her, both as an ally and as a country which, at times, will create difficulties and cause tensions.
Of course I recognise that following the events of l1th September and the attack on the Twin Towers, Mr Putin firmly allied Russia with the West and, in particular, with America in the war against terrorism. But equally, as we have seen in Chechnya and following the terrorist incident in the Moscow theatre, the Russian response to such threats is rather more ruthless and very different from our own approach.
Let me say a few words about defence and security issues. Other speakers have pointed out that we heard compelling evidence from a number of witnesses about devastating cuts in the Russian capability made over the past 10 years or so. Much of the equipment is very dated, badly maintained and lacking spare parts, while, to be frank, training standards are abysmal. A previous British ambassador to Moscow described the Russian Army as brutal and incompetent. Certainly morale is low. However, I do not believe that it would take all that long for limited but significant elements of the Russian armed forces to be brought to a reasonable standard of competence, despite the difficulties with regard to equipment and training. I do not speak here of any form of military threat, I refer to forces that we may wish to consider using in peacekeeping operations. Certainly the airborne and other specialist units should not be written off too hastily. The nuclear forces and the submarine service have been given a higher priority than others.
In addition, I sense that the Russian élite has a better understanding of the reality of military operations and what that means than have some European countries. Over the past decade, NATO has developed increasingly strong links with Russia. Indeed, some would argue that those links have become too strong,
452
and certainly they were given increased impetus after 9/11. There remains in some Russian military and security circles a suspicion of NATO, but that suspicion has been greatly reduced. I warmly welcome that development. However, despite what some senior Russian officials said to the committee about European security and defence policy having a promising future, we need to recognise that it is NATO which allows the Russians to have a direct, strategic security link with the United States of America.
It seems to me, therefore, that we face a dilemma. Despite the suspicions still harboured by some Russians, NATO is the security alliance with which Russia wishes to deal. As I have said, it has seen its position within NATO considerably enhanced since 9/11. Yet some European countries wish to push the European security and defence policy at the expense of NATO. However, we need to recognise that the countries of Eastern Europe which will be joining NATO over the next few years are much more interested in that organisation, not least because of its Article 5 guarantee, than they are in some rather woolly European stand-alone command structure with only a limited military capability to call on. Therefore the members of the EU need to think through the implications of this in their relationship with Russia.
I know that the Government are well aware of the dilemma, but I seek a reassurance that there is no intention of undermining the Russian link to NATO by offering it some kind of association with the structures being set up under the ESDP.
Let me conclude by saying that the geo-strategic position with Russia has greatly improved and I feel much encouraged by that progress. But I do not believe that we should look at this relationship through rose-tinted spectacles. I wish to stress how important it is for the EU to recognise its vital role in developing that relationship.
12.10 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I should like to focus on the issue of environmental protection in the Russian Federation, noted by the Select Committee on the European Union in its excellent report. It stated that much more emphasis should be placed on this issue in future.
The dreadful state of the environment in some areas has been emphasised in the report and in the debate. Furthermore, the State Committee on Environmental Protection no longer exists. However, the Russian Government, while changing its arrangements, is taking the environment and sustainable development more seriously. On a visit to Russia I met Vladimir Grachev, the chairman of the Environment Committee of the Duma. I could see that considerable progress was being made in collaboration with the international community and the private sector. A number of important environmental initiatives are being undertaken.
The situation in the Arctic is critical for a number of reasons. The region has enormous natural resources and is a key for the economic prosperity of Russia,

453
especially in terms of oil and gas. The recently announced multi-million pound investments of British Petroleum and Shell are testimony to that. The sensitive effects this will have on the global climate and on the survival of many species in the Arctic region means that what the Russian Federation accomplishes, or fails to accomplish, in the Arctic will impact on the rest of the world.
Environmental degradation in the Arctic has been considerable, especially because of the nuclear legacy of the USSR. Handling this difficult legacy would impose too heavy a burden on any economy. That is why many partners have rallied to help.
An important initiative is the trilateral Arctic Military Environmental Co-operation (AMEC), involving Russia, the USA and Norway, which the UK has now joined. It has been influential in making safer the Russian system for the storage of nuclear waste and the transfer of nuclear fuel from submarines to railcars at Murmansk.
Parliamentarians have been particularly active on environmental issues through Globe, the global legislators, which is chaired in the UK by Joan Ruddock and in the Congress by Congressman Greenwood. It has helped the Russian Parliament to raise the profile of environmental issues. In the United States, Congressman Curt Weldon's document, USA-Russia Partnership: A New Time, A New Beginning, which was endorsed by 160 Members of Congress, made a big impact.
In the UK, following a visit by our former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, a multi-year programme of more than £50 million should commence shortly, focusing on nuclear issues and the decommissioning of submarines. This important bilateral programme will be co-ordinated by the DTI and the Foreign Office. It is important that this programme should be integrated with wider EU initiatives, as has been mentioned.
While there is some interest in the UK becoming engaged, there seems to be a lack of overall coordination and stimulation by any one department in Whitehall. As a result the private sector has commented that it may lose considerable commercial opportunities which may present themselves through working with the Russian Federation. I have been considerably impressed by US and Canadian officials, who have explained their countries' involvement in terms of the eventual commercial pay-off and the environmental benefits in the shorter-term to the whole Arctic region and its global consequences.
Europe and the UK could similarly look to their own interests while contributing to the sustainability of Arctic regions through multilateral projects. That point was made rather forcefully by Patience Wheatcroft in today's edition of The Times, who stated that when the Americans put their money in they also want to get their money out. She commented that that attitude is not so widely held in the UK.
Despite the fact that we are spending considerable amounts of money in the UK and that there are many EU programmes in the Arctic area—for example, the Natural Environmental Research Council is spending
454
close to £10 million per year on Arctic research—it is not well connected to Arctic policy and diplomacy. The UK has observer status in the Arctic Council and could raise its profile beyond the present level.
When I visited Russia recently, the Academy of Sciences made the point that the scientific links between the UK and Europe were not as strong as they should be. I believe that it is still not at a particularly high level.
One of the encouraging developments in the relationship between Europe and Russia is the role of non-governmental organisations. Major bodies such as the World Wildlife Fund and the International Union for Conservation of Nature have been active for many years, frequently acting in partnership with the private sector. In Russia, one should single out the critically important work of the Russian Association of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, RAIPON, in view of the need both to utilise indigenous knowledge in assisting in the protection of the Arctic and in safeguarding their unique way of life.
It has been exciting to work with Russian colleagues through the catalytic role of an international nongovernmental organisation, ACOPS—I declare an interest as chairman—which has been working with the full co-operation of the Russian Federation.
Addressing this environmental degradation will involve ultimately a huge economic investment. This is why the World Bank is becoming involved and this non-governmental organisation is working with ft. It is very encouraging that major corporations in the UK, working together with Russian corporations, are now connecting private sector involvement in environmental issues.
The Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Mr Kasyanov, has thrown his full weight behind these projects and announced in November last year the convening of partnership conferences in which the EU and the UK will be active partners.
Following his election as President, Mr Putin has transferred powers for overall co-ordination on all matters, including environmental, in the Arctic to the powerful Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. This Ministry has made enormous strides in the recent past, in close collaboration with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Finance. These institutions established last month a Council on Sustainable Development which will examine all projects, foreign and Russian-assisted, dealing with the twirl issues of environmental protection and sustainable development.
At a more personal level, I appreciate the affection expressed in the debate for Russia and its remarkable people. I commend the maiden speech of the Bishop of Sheffield. As Lord Snow said so vividly when I heard him speak when I was a schoolboy, Russia can teach us great lessons about culture and science—as he put it, any Russian physicist could write an essay about Natasha in War and Peace—but he felt that the same was not true in England. I hope that the debate will push forward in future greater exchanges. mutual respect and collaboration.
12.17 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, there is a tendency in this period immediately following the war in Iraq and the EU's sharp division over it to dismiss as irrelevant or simply unrealistic any discussion of the further development of a common foreign and security policy for Europe and of the European Union's external relations. But a reading of this report, and a little thought about the challenges that all Europeans face in developing their relations with Russia, will show how short-sighted and self-defeating such an attitude would be.
None of the European countries has the need for, or the capacity to develop, a completely separate national foreign policy towards the new Russia. Many of us share the same interests in matters of trade policy, investment, the environment, human rights and security. All of us are more likely to secure those interests if we work together than if we allow Russia to play us off against each other, as it will surely do if we cannot get our act together.
One point we need to take fully on board—it was not much emphasised in the report—is that the European Union's relationship with Russia is one of the most obvious areas of EU policy that will be fundamentally changed by the enlargement of the Union, which will formally take place in May 2004 but which, in practice, is already upon us as the acceding countries join in all EU deliberations from now onwards following the signature of their treaties. We should have no illusions. The new member states from central and eastern Europe, who have only recently escaped from the Soviet empire or from its tutelage, will regard relations with Russia as central to the whole of common foreign and security policy so far as they are concerned. They will expect, quite rightly, to have a major say in defining those relations. What they want may not always be what we want, but I hope we will always take their views seriously and not just brush them aside as inexperienced new boys, as some in the European Union did over Iraq.
It would be good if Britain could begin, without more ado, to discuss with the new member states what shape and content they would like to give to the European Union's future relationship with Russia and to consider carefully what we can do to accommodate their priorities within our own.
Developing policies towards Russia in a consistent and coherent way will, let us face it, not be entirely straightforward. Hitherto, the European Union's efforts have swung rather uneasily between piecemeal ad hoc-ery, finding a fix for Kaliningrad, dealing with individual trade problems, and, at the other extreme, drawing up documents of such broad-brush and breathtaking generality as to be quite unusable in any practical circumstances that may arise.
Nor will the Russians themselves make it entirely easy for us. They are still living through a period of post-imperial twilight and find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that the United States is not necessarily their most natural and most equal partner. Their coming to terms with reality is not much helped
456
by a somewhat self-serving American tendency to pander to this nostalgia. If we are to make progress towards developing an overall set of policies towards Russia, the European Union will have to make much of the running, and it will need to steel itself against disappointments.
A recent example of several of the points I have just made emerged when the Prime Minister visited President Putin and was not given a very helpful response on how to handle post-war Iraq. Comparing that with the response given to Secretary of State Powell shows what I mean about the way in which both the United States and Russia tend to nurture each other's illusions on this point.
I must confess that I am a little less convinced than are the authors of this report and the Government in their response that we should be focusing most closely on the institutional framework of EU-Russian relations and the various nuts and bolts of the partnership and co-operation agreement. I still remember those dreadful, stultifying joint commissions which the Soviet Union and its satellites used as a kind of straitjacket for bilateral relations, smothering them in bureaucracy and jargon. We surely do not want to follow that pattern in developing our relations with a Russia which is gradually breaking away from that old-speak approach and adopting a more pluralistic, free-market one. Institutional links there will need to be, but let us keep them light and not allow them to constrain a burgeoning of contacts and co-operation at business and non-governmental levels.
Getting Russia into the World Trade Organisation is clearly a crucial part of any EU policy. This is not a matter of doing the Russians a favour but of doing ourselves one. If I understand rightly, one of the biggest constraints on our trade with and investment in Russia is the weakness of the rule of law and the absence of a proper framework for corporate activity and of fiscal arrangements that are transparent and non-discriminatory. All that will be a lot easier to remedy in the context of a Russia that has joined the World Trade Organisation, bringing with it many benefits for Russia, than it will be just by bilateral nagging and chivvying. This is a lesson we have surely learnt from the case of China and its accession to the World Trade Organisation.
Should we be thinking, in the very long term, of Russia as a potential member of the European Union or, for that matter, of NATO? I doubt whether that is either realistic or desirable. I doubt whether membership of the Union will come to fit Russia's self-image in the foreseeable future. But I do not think we should rule it out either. Drawing the limits of the Union in some definitive way has always seemed to me to have more drawbacks than advantages. And we must never forget that whether Russia is or is not an imaginable member of the Union, it is most certainly a European country. I greatly welcomed what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield said in his maiden speech. That country is linked to us by history, culture and civilisation, facts obscured only

457
temporarily by 70 years of totalitarian dictatorship and a failed ambition to achieve, or at least to share, world domination.
In conclusion, I suggest that a revitalisation and a reshaping of the EU-Russia relationship should be a major objective of the new enlarged European Union of 25, and that this should be a priority piece of the common foreign and security policy jigsaw which we should be assembling in the years ahead.
12.25 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, at a time when the Select Committee on the European Union, through its Sub-Committee C, is actively engaged in the preparation of a report on European Union-United States relations, and when relations with the USA are in high—perhaps excessively high—profile, it is also important to give attention to and to develop the Union's relationship with Russia, a great partner nation, and, as a result of European Union enlargement, an even closer neighbour. But this is not just a question of balance—it is, rather, because of the mutual benefit of good European Union-Russia relations, because of the wide range of issues where we have or may in the future have common interests and because of the great potential of the relationship.
The report of the Select Committee was prepared by Sub-Committee C, whose remit covers principally foreign affairs. That is why Part 2 of the report deals with Russia's place in the European Union's foreign policy and Part 3 with the European Union's place in Russian foreign policy. But the report goes a little way beyond issues of foreign policy in dealing with some of the recent changes in Russia, particularly in relation to the economy and the common challenges.
The key point I would like to stress is that foreign policy is only a part of European Union-Russia relations and that a wide range of issues make up that relationship. Evident examples are trade and investment—and not just in primary commodities—financial services, the sciences, our shared environment, transport links, energy and culture, particularly, as others have mentioned, in the year of the tercentenary of St Petersburg, when many Britons will visit that lovely city. I shall come back to some of these matters which are, in my view, the substance of a growing relationship with Russia, particularly the economy, investment and energy supplies.
However, I would like to deal first with the institutional framework, which is widely covered in the report and currently applies to European Union-Russia relations. The report sets out in Box 2 a useful short summary of the four main elements of the relationship at the structural level: the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement—the PCA—of 1994; the European Union's Common Strategy of 1999; the ongoing TACIS programme of aid and assistance to Russia which provided about 2.4 billion euros of EU assistance for over 500 projects up to 2001 and continues in 2002 and 2003; and various sectoral agreements.
458
Although the PCA arid the common strategy cover much of the ground, the Select Committee considered that the structure would benefit from some renovation, reflecting the growing importance of our relations with Russia in coming years. More specifically, the PCA has the advantage of calling for activities and dialogue in a number of important areas, such as those to which I referred earlier. It is good that the range of subjects is wide but, in evidence to the committee, some witnesses felt that some further coordination on the Union's side would be helpful. That is why the committee suggested a "Russia Office" which would act as a co-ordinator and raise the profile of the dialogue if it was headed, as it should be, by an official of a sufficiently high level.
The Government, in their response, were not over-impressed with this idea. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, stated, they considered that DG Relex in the Commission fulfils the function of co-ordinating all matters relevant to Russia. But we shall have to see, as our relations with Russia develop, as I believe they will, whether this is satisfactory, as evidently some issues are the responsibility of the Council and others of the Commission. I hope that at least the Government will bear in mind the motivation behind the Committee's recommendation.
On a possible review and improvement in the common strategy, the Government are more open, indicating that the Council is considering how the common strategy might be made more operational and concise. That would be worthwhile in itself and should, of course, take account of Russian views. It could also serve the purpose of breathing more life into common strategies. They are only just about alive in my view. The Minister will recall that the Select Committee in an earlier report was critical of the common strategy for relations with Mediterranean countries. I believe that in that case the criticism was widely shared.
The effectiveness of the structure for the EU's dialogue with Russia for the identification of common ground and common interests and for the resolution of disagreements is related to the big changes which have taken place in Russia and in central and eastern Europe in recent years, and which in my view are still not sufficiently recognised here. In Russia itself the decision of President Putin to play a full role in cooperation with other countries in the fight against terrorism—as he demonstrated by his decisions in relation to Al'Qaeda and Afghanistan—was an important step in itself and a really significant development of Russian foreign policy overall. I take this opportunity to offer my sympathies to the Russian people on the terrorist attack in Chechnya in recent days which left 54 dead and over 80 injured and another terrorist attack there on Wednesday which killed 30 people. So the fight against terrorism is certainly a common interest.
President Putin has also given increased attention to the performance of the economy and on the removal of blockages which in the longer term would slow up its progress. As has been quoted today, his speech to

459
the Duma on 18th April 2002 was a powerful statement of that position, summarised in my view by his phrase,
"We have to fight for our place under the economic sun".
On the principle that all ships rise with the tide, I believe that the other elements of the European Union's relationship with Russia will be strengthened by the mutual interest in investment and trade as that grows. Domestic investment in Russia has risen strongly and there is progress towards important issues such as compulsory international accounting standards from next year and the raising of capital requirements which should benefit inward investment. We should recall that in 2001 the Russian economy grew by more than 5 per cent and that there was a 50 billion dollar trade surplus, a record budget surplus and debt repayments. Many countries would like to have that record at the present time. There has been a fall in capital flight. Some part of what is often described as capital flight may be external investment which could be fully justified economically.
More generally on trade, the role of the European Union and its member states is vitally important as we are Russia's biggest trading partner, with over one-third of the total trade. After enlargement, that share will be substantially increased as Poland in particular is also an important trading partner while the United States and Japan have only a very small share of Russia's external trade. Although the future no doubt lies in an increased diversification of Russian production and the further difficult adaptation of the giant old industries, for some time to come primary products such as metals and timber and particularly oil and gas will dominate the Russian economy both in exports and in the stock market. The report of the Select Committee looks for a more active role in seeking to lock in Russia as a major supplier of oil and gas over the next two decades given the uncertainties in the Middle East.
The Government in their reply agree that the EU/ Russia energy dialogue will play an essential role in creating energy security for the European Union in future years. That statement is very welcome. Russia has the world's largest gas reserves and already supplies 25 per cent of Europe's gas. Its gas production and export will probably increase very substantially—it is estimated by 50 per cent by 2020. It is the second biggest exporter of oil in the world and it supplies 15 per cent of Europe's oil. Those figures amply demonstrate its importance for security of supply.
Although the Government have not followed all the recommendations of the Select Committee's report, I think that the report and this debate have served a purpose in drawing attention to the importance of the political and economic issues at stake in an effective relationship between the European Union and Russia.
12.35 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee C of the European Union Committee, I join our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, in
460
regretting the delay that has taken place between publication of our report and the debate in your Lordships' House. Between those two events, of course, there has been a major event, notably, the war in Iraq. That has upset a lot of preconceived notions we might have had at the time we were worrying about what to say in the report.
Nevertheless, we have to go back to the principles. I was sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, thought that we had not paid much attention to enlargement. The first sentence of the introduction of the report says that the main reason we produced the report was enlargement of the European Union which would shift the geographical balance to the east. That is the first and most important point we made in the introduction.
There is also the question of internal change. Obviously we spent a little time on that. It is very difficult to put this in a long-term context although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, tried to do that. I should like to put it in the context of the end of the Cold War. It is very difficult to change two regimes—an economic regime and a political regime—at the same time. I think history shows that you can change an economic regime or you can change a political regime, but doing both at the same time is enormously difficult. That is what has happened in Russia. As Zhou Enlai famously remarked when he was asked what the effect of the French Revolution was, "It is too early to tell". I think that it is too early to tell what the effect of the end of the Cold War is finally going to be and how Russia will find its place in the world. But I certainly agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, who made a very distinguished maiden speech, that we really have to worry and take great care about the sensitivities of people who thought they were in a superpower and find themselves in what looks like an economic dwarf. The sensitivities are very real.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Park, I much enjoyed my membership of the sub-committee and, indeed, the whole inquiry. There were one or two things that I found particularly interesting. First, to put it in perspective, there were very few people whom we met in Moscow who really knew about Russian foreign policy. It was very surprising that even those members of the Duma we met inherited all sorts of prejudices that came out of the former Soviet Union. It was equally surprising that one member of the Duma we met who represented western Siberia really had no idea what people in western Siberia thought about the foreign policy of Russia. But one can understand that people in western Siberia probably do not think anything about the foreign policy of Russia. On inquiry we came down to about 2,000 people at best, be it in government, be it in think tanks, either in Moscow or St Petersburg, who really had an input into Russian foreign policy. So let us not think that it is driven by focus groups or constituents. It is driven by a small minority of people sitting in Moscow and St Petersburg and that can easily change.

461
One of the other things that occurred to me was that underlying all the progress that has been made in Russia, both political and economic, was the thought—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to that—that it may be a little bit fragile. Things can change lithe Putin experiment goes wrong. There is still a large communist element in the Duma, for instance, and we do not know where that will go. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, with enlargement the Poles will have very strong views about what should happen in the EU towards Russia. We then have the problem of Kaliningrad which enlargement will bring about. All those problems have to he handled with very great diffidence and tact. On 13th January, the magazine Time stated that,
"even in a world where Russia and the USA wage a joint battle against terrorism, cold war suspicions die hard".
That is a truth well worth bearing in mind.
The next matter that worried me was the EU's approach to the Russian question. We heard a lot about the common European economic space, and tried to find out what on earth was meant by that. There was good deal of verbiage about it, but when we came down to practicalities no one—no ambassador from the EU or anyone else—could tell us precisely what it meant. We are not entirely clear what "wider Europe" means; we need much more definition of that.
In our report, we are quite clear that the EU should be reasonably modest, however. We should not imagine that anything that the EU does will create fundamental and dramatic change in Russia as it stands at the moment. What can the EU profitably and reasonably do? The World Trade Organisation, which President Putin has had an almost totemic wish to join, has been mentioned.
When we interrogated people about the WTO in Moscow, however, I am afraid to say that we found that a lot of them did not have the faintest idea what joining would actually mean for Russia. It was all very well their saying, "We want to join the WTO. Will you help us to do it?", but we had to say, "Yes, but do you know what that means to some of your large industries, which will have to adopt accounting and legal practices familiar to us in the western world, but not at all familiar to you in Russia? What will big businesses say politically when they find that they are disadvantaged by joining the WTO?". There is a big question mark about that.
Also, we must recognise that Russia is not an integral part of Europe. I do not believe that there is any question of Russia joining the European Union. There are nine timezones. Fly across Siberia and, for a hundred miles, there is no one there. Vladivostok has a population of' largely Asiatic descent. We cannot admit such a country, however well intentioned, into a union. That would be like putting the proverbial elephant into a row-boat. The problem with which we have to deal, which we described in the report, is simply one of what we can do to encourage what is already happening, and also encourage modest development in the future, at least economically.
462
Noble Lords probably take it as read that no democracy can flourish without a successful middle class. It was one of the triumphs of Germany after the Second World War that the Mittelstand, the middle class, successfully reasserted itself, to the point where there was backing for democracy and for the system as it was. There was no move towards revolution. In Russia at the moment, something between 7 per cent and 10 per cent of the population can be considered to belong to the middle class. That is a very small fraction. There are millions of people still virtually in a peasant role. In thinking about what happens in Russia, one must try to develop that Mittelstand, with its small businesses. My noble friend Lord Harrison mentioned Delcam, which is very impressive. but there have to be thousands of Delcams before we can say that Russia is secure for democracy and a proper partner for the European Union.
At the moment, Russia is running an enormous balance of payments surplus thanks to sales of oil and gas. Manufacturing exports are not going at all well. Somehow, that balance has to be redirected towards job-creating manufacturing industries. My noble friend also said that I had mentioned the possibility of the euro becoming the method of exchange for sales of oil and gas in Russia, but that requires a rather specific and sophisticated financial environment.
Again, when we were in Moscow, we were talking about hedging the euro, and I came to the conclusion that a lot of people did not understand what that meant. If the euro is to become the reserve currency of Russia, which probably in the long run is to be desired, there has to be much greater sophistication in the Russian Central Bank, the Russian banking system and the Russian accountancy profession.
I echo what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield; I have come back to where I started. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, was unable, alas, to recollect—we cannot have everything in life—the quotation used by the right reverend Prelate, which was "Shout praise and whisper criticism". I believe that that is the right way for the EU to approach Russia.
12.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, the report before us is a welcome and rigorous examination of many aspects of Russian social and economic life. I am glad to echo noble Lords' appreciation of its scope and depth; I am even happy to do so in a debate that has seen the maiden speech of my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, an old Manchester colleague. I shall, like him, be brief, and I should like to address four areas.
The first is Kaliningrad, which is, of course, a problem of Soviet policy's own making. That problem is the result of Stalin's determination, vividly recounted on a blow-by-blow basis by Anthony Beevor in his book Berlin, to wipe any trace of German East Prussia from the face of the earth, Königsberg as a German city and all. I once crossed the Memel bridge from the Lithuanian side in the fond hope of getting

463
into Tilsit, but without a visa it was impossible. That was a personal experience of Kaliningrad's problematic context.
I am glad that attention is being paid to that strange outpost of what is now Russia, and I hope that Lithuanian and Belarussian sensibilities, as well as Russian needs, will be heeded in future arrangements over travel, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Kaliningrad is a symptom of historic developments that go right back to the Germanic-Nordic encounter with the Baltic area, which in the past produced conflict, but then many centuries of considerable and mutually enriching coexistence, followed by the forcible resettlement in Third Reich policy or annihilation by Soviet policy. One really wonders what the long-term future of Kaliningrad is going to be, unless it is to develop as a window to the West.
That brings me to my second point—common values—to which the report also refers. It is no coincidence that President Putin is a citizen of St Petersburg, which was founded to look westwards. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield for his wise and reflective words about the symbolic, almost spiritual but not uncontroverted position of St Petersburg in relation to the former Russian empire, the former Soviet bloc, when it was renamed, and now in the more modest but still politically significant Russian Federation, with the old name restored.
Shared values do not result from PhD theses or even the odd newspaper article, but from different levels of encounter, shared education, travel, trade agreements and many other kinds of networks and partnerships. The leading article in yesterday's Independent, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred, indeed warns us that Putin-led Russia is a serious player on the international scene. However, shared values at the international level need one more ingredient for longterm stability, and that is a sense of identity in nationhood.
Russia has a very strong sense of ethnicity, with a rich language in which it is considerably easier to create new words than it is in English. Perhaps that is as well for us, but not for them. Ethnicity also involves other groups, such as the Karelians in the west of Russia and the Chuvash in the east. Russian sense of nationhood has had a series of severe jolts in the 20th century, however. First came enforceable expansion and then enforceable contraction. I know that I am referring to intangibles, but intangibles feed attitudes far more than we often realise.
That brings me to my third point; the vital area of human rights. On Wednesday, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, tabled a Question on Kazakhstan that attracted a higher proportion of interest than was perhaps anticipated. That may have been because it was the second Question, the first having been eaten up in less than two minutes. The poor Deputy Leader of the House had to struggle—she did very well. The problems of Kazakhstan over censorship, oil scandals and religious freedom are fortunately not in the same
464
league as Russia's and I am clear that we must not expect all our international partners in whatever area to be exactly the same as ourselves. However, human rights is an issue that can never be pressed too hard, however subtly, even in the face of a country with a history about as different from ours as can be imagined, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned.
That brings me to my final point; the role of religion and religious freedom. Perhaps I may illustrate that from my own experience. Because of my Danish ancestry, I have been involved in the Anglo/Nordic theological dialogue, formally and informally, for some time. After perestroika, our Lutheran partners in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Finland were joined by Estonia and Latvia as well as the Lutheran minority in the west of Lithuania. All were thoroughly indigenous, ethnically self-confident and themselves bringing both the scars of, and the inscrutability that results from, dealing constantly with Soviet domination. We met for the first time in 1981 in Gotland, and it was a profoundly moving experience to listen to them. I have visited all those Baltic nations and I have been impressed by their vigour. Our Anglo/ Nordic and now Baltic relations are moving further east like EU interests; a kind of Drang Nach Osten, but of an ecclesiastical and theological kind rather than driven by the Prussian knights.
Knocking at our door now are the 500 or so German Lutheran congregations in Russia, led by their archbishop, Dr Georg Kretschmar, an increasingly Russian-speaking community which has emerged from conditions that, because of their ethnic German origin, make the treatment of the Russian Orthodox Church by the Soviet government seem straightforward by comparison. I am looking forward to visiting St Petersburg in the summer after our Anglo/Nordic Baltic theological conference in Riga when we shall be planning our next meeting in 2005 in Finland under the theme of "East meets West".
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, pointed out, when you meet these people you realise that their survival from Soviet repression does not mean that they automatically look sympathetically to the West. Cold War attitudes take a long time to die. How religious minorities are treated and how religious majorities behave in such circumstances is crucial. It is about the formation of community in ancient and modern societies and it is my fondest hope that the international networks open to all the Churches—Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran—as well as the other faith communities, can together build up common values to sharpen perspectives on human rights and help along some of the processes highlighted in this excellent report.
Russia deserves the kind of critical engagement on a step-by-step basis that is being put before us, with the cautions registered by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the one hand, and the enthusiasm for a cultured roundedness voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the other. Like many noble Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by the debate to look more closely at the issues that such developments must properly entail.
12.54 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I join others in welcoming this extremely good report. I greatly value the creation of Sub-Committee C as a major contribution to the scrutiny role which this House provides for European Union issues.
Reports from the European Union Committee are read in all sorts of odd places and they are noted around the world. I arrived in Moscow last Saturday night and went out to dinner. There the German Ambassador to Russia said loudly to the assembled company, "The House of Lords has just published an excellent report on EU-Russia relations. You should all read it". So I am in the process of sending to my Russian hosts a number of extra copies of the report. Indeed, the Moscow journal, Russia in Global Affairs, has expressed interest in publishing extracts, if it is allowed, for its Russian readers.
There is evident need for scrutiny of the developing common foreign and security policy and its messy overlap with EU external relations—and even messier overlap with the slowly developing European security and defence policy. The European Parliament does not scrutinise it effectively, nor do most other national parliaments pay much attention to it. The weakness of debates across the EU holds back the development of a more coherent approach to common and foreign policy. Therefore, there is a practical case, noted by the report, for more effective co-ordination of national foreign policies if only national governments and leaders can get their acts together.
I welcome the report's proposal for a single office in Brussels. The failure of the Commission and Council, as it operates on behalf of the EU and national foreign ministries often operating "vanity" foreign policies—the Prime Minister likes to be seen alongside other world leaders—is one of the many weaknesses of the EU. After all, one of the proposals of the current EU convention is that we bridge the gap between the Council Secretariat in foreign policy and the European Commission by establishing a combined post which will in effect be an EU foreign minister.
I welcome that useful practical proposal and compare it with the ill-informed hysteria which has suddenly hit the Right-wing press in Britain, after months of ignoring the convention altogether, suddenly discovering that this is finally the great threat to British sovereignty. I am told by friends that we are seeing a response by the Murdoch press, the Daily Mail and others, to a Conservative-led campaign which is intended to boost the leader of the Conservative Party after the local elections. The presence of the political correspondent of the Sun at the last meeting of the Joint Standing Committee on the Convention—at least to hear the speech of David Heathcote-Amery and leave immediately afterwards—demonstrates the extent to which such ill-informed politics badly biases the domestic debate on European co-operation in Britain.
Therefore, the Lords' contribution to a more informed public debate in this area is vital. This is a worthwhile report which notes that Russia is an
466
important partner of the European Union; that with the forthcoming enlargement the EU will account for half of Russia's external trade; and that if Russia is successful in developing a more effective manufacturing sector and tourist industry, the EU is ultimately likely to be responsible for more like two-thirds of Russia's external trade. We are its developed neighbour and it is still a flawed partner. Russia is not yet a full democracy. Some 10 politicians have been shot in the past two years. One, the leader of the Russian Liberal Party—no connection—was shot only last week. There is no effective constitutional opposition either in the Duma or the forthcoming presidential elections.
On Tuesday I found myself having lunch with a leading member of Yabloko discussing what it saw as its role in the forthcoming elections and he seemed curiously uninterested in winning a larger percentage of votes than last time. When I joined a minor party, I wished it eventually to gain more than 6 or 7 per cent of the votes and after the local elections I was happy to read in the national press comments that the Liberal Democrats had gained "only" 30 per cent of the vote. Yabloko seems to believe that gaining 7 or 8 per cent of the vote would be a tremendous success and it should not aim higher.
The control of the media in Russia is also extremely flawed, but then some of us are not entirely happy about the control of the media within Britain. It is not yet a market economy. The financial press has remarked again on the concentration of control in the stock market returning to dominance by the oligarchs, all obstacles to the development of effective small companies in Russia, which the economy desperately needs. There is over-dependence on oil and a failure so far to develop a manufacturing sector. That is visible as soon as one arrives in Moscow with the dominance of foreign cars on the streets. No one wants to buy a Russian car, unlike in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, where indigenous car production is well underway.
Capital flight is still an immense problem. The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, referred to Cyprus. According to statistics, in 2001 the country which accounted for the largest percentage of overseas foreign direct investment in Russia was Cyprus. That tells us a great deal about capital flight and the peculiarities still of the Russian economy. It is not yet an effective or, certainly, non-corrupt administration. The police have immense problems; so does the army.
There is a deep ambivalence in the Russian elite towards the West as a whole and the EU in particular. Several noble Lords have referred to the nostalgia for the Cold War and for superpower status. It was clear from a conference I attended on Monday and Tuesday that there is a deep impatience with the European Union and its focus on detail. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, remembered the Russians smothering the West in bureaucracy and jargon. The Russians think that the European Union now returns the compliment.
However, it is the job of the European Union to insist that detail matters—conditionality—are important. You cannot, for example, join the World

467
Trade Organisation unless you have stable laws about how markets are run, how property is developed, and auditing processes for companies which are relatively transparent. Those are all things which as yet have not been fully achieved within Russia. Investment will flow from the West only when conditions are welcoming.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to the need to cajole the Russians in their obligations. We have to continue to do that. For that reason I am not sure that I entirely accept the quotation that criticism from the West should only be whispered. Some criticism needs to be repeated again and again. I refer to the inadequacies of the Russian legal structure and the Russian administrative structure and the extent to which the economy is still dominated by bribery and oligarchy.
However, attitudes to the United Kingdom seem to be relatively reasonable. We are not the most important partner for Russia within the EU. Clearly, that is Germany. Poland will follow after that. The Nordic countries will be of greater importance when that happens. We should also avoid nostalgia for lost great power status in the way in which we behave towards Russia and some others.
We see a gradual emergence of civil society in Russia, which is much too slow. I was immensely enthused at the conference I attended on Monday. There was a real diversity of opinion on Russian foreign policy. When I went to the foreign Ministry the next day I was amused that a number of Foreign Office officials were clearly worried about that. That is what a gradually developing civil society is about. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, rightly said that we do not yet have an independent middle class of sufficient weight. That can emerge only when we have autonomous public institutions, a real small company sector and an economy which is working on a relatively open and stable basis.
There is still clear resistance to integration with the West. I remember people in the Royal College of Defence Studies saying that Chinese generals who had been to the RCDS go back to China and are promoted to valuable positions. Russians who attend the RCDS tend to get posted to north-east Siberia on their return. When George Robertson was Minister for Defence he made a very active effort to persuade the Russian Army to send us large numbers of people for conferences for training and it was deeply and strongly resisted.
There are many problems with getting exchanges fully underway. I encourage the Government to think in terms of British policy about how mutual exchanges should be developed in which British students and British officials are sent to Russia to train and teach, as well as Russians being invited here. Many of us may need to push for an expansion in the Foreign Office budget for precisely those kind of exchanges, with a number of countries sending westerners to teach in their universities, and other such measures which are immensely valuable in helping them to see the world differently.
468
We see noted in the report a slow development of the approach of the European Union to Russia; the energy charter and the whole development of justice and home affairs dealing with trans-national crime which, sadly, is a feature from the Kazakh border to the western border. The report did not spend much time on the development of what is called "the northern dimension", concerned with pollution in the Baltic. I think I am right in saying that the two single largest sources of pollution in the Baltic are Kaliningrad and its sewage works and St Petersburg and its sewage works. Those are not unimportant questions to the Nordic members of the European Union.
We have the problem that to the Russians the European Union looks like a multi-headed monster. During the last Swedish presidency I went to a conference in Moscow on EU/Russian relations and watched as the Swedish Foreign Minister, followed by the High Representative of the Common and Foreign Security Policy, followed by the Commissioner for External Relations, with the ambassadors of all the member states behind them said what they thought EU relations with Russia should be about. I sat there thinking that if I were a Russian I would think that pretty incoherent and I would rather hear it from one person. Therefore, I welcome the proposal for greater coherence.
Briefly, how should we see the future pattern of relations? Many noble Lords have said that we need to avoid rivalry between the United States and the EU in their relations with Russia and between NATO and the EU. Clearly, we do. Sometimes, both the French and the Americans are concerned to promote rivalry and do not always co-ordinate. However, two or three days ago the NATO-Russia Council met for the first time in Moscow. Apparently, it was a very successful meeting. That is the direction in which we should all be going. We should be pursuing close association not eventual full membership, if any of us want the European Union to continue to operate. One of the most important priorities after enlargement should be to develop a coherent policy to our near neighbourhood and to put some meaning into the term "a wider Europe" and a European Union foreign policy towards those neighbours.
1.7 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and the subcommittee members for their work on this important report, which I read with great interest having lead the observer team from the United Kingdom to the first Duma elections. I congratulate them on an outstanding job. These reports from your Lordships' committees are of the highest quality and much respected world-wide. The report before the House today has provoked a fascinating debate, which from my point of view was well worth waiting for.
I should like also to add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield on his maiden speech. It was not only thoughtful but thought provoking. I commend him too for his brevity, the depth of his historical knowledge and thank him for

469
enlightening us on the importance of St Seraphim of Zarov. We look forward to hearing from the right reverend Prelate often in your Lordships' House in the future. I remember Sheffield with warm feelings when contesting the seat in 1983. It was twinned then with Donetsk, another mining town in the former Soviet Union.
As other noble Lords have said, with the European Union expanding and subsequent changes to the geographical and also political landscapes, it is indeed timely that we are having this debate as stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in his forceful speech. As we have heard, the geographical shift in itself could bring about potential political repercussion, such as the issue of border control between an enlarged European Union and the Russian Federation. That, combined with other issues covered by the report, emphasises why it is so important that we review European Union/Russian relations.
In the short time available to me today I shall concentrate on just three of many issues: first, cooperation in fighting the threat of global terror and organised crime; secondly, trade between the European Union and Russia; and, thirdly, NATO.
I turn first to the issue of combating terrorism and organised crime, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Harrison and Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides will agree that, following the tragic events that unfolded in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, the need for continued vigilance and cooperation in the fight against terror still very much exists. We therefore welcome the report's recognition of the need for co-ordinated action in this fight.
We particularly welcome the stance taken by President Putin, in the face of internal opposition, in aligning Russia with the West in the aftermath of September l1th. That led ultimately to the joint action plan on the fight against terrorism agreed in November 2002 at the EU/Russia summit. Indeed, commitments to exchange information on terrorism issues, plans to work together in combating the financing of terrorism and increases in judicial co-operation on terrorism and organised crime offences are all crucial in effectively combating this global threat. In addition, firm action to tackle corruption and organised crime is crucial to establishing the stability that will lead to the growth of the Russian economy and thus the potential for further trade between the Russian Federation and the European Union.
The second point to which I turn is the relationship in terms of trade, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton. As the potential for further trade opportunities increases, with the consequent potential for growth in the Russian economy, so the need for aid should diminish. We would particularly welcome the movement of the Russian Federation towards the establishment of a fully-fledged market economy. Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation will be key to establishing a market economy for the country and to reintegrating its economy into the world economy, as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
470
The Foreign Secretary has stated that the Government believe that the,
"EU should support the goal of Russian membership of the WTO".
We too support this ambition as it would greatly assist in the development of a Russian trade relationship with the EU. However, we also agree with the report that while this is indeed a noble goal. in reality "membership is still some way off".
We welcome the view expressed by the committee that now is the time to examine ways of hastening the process of institutional reform in Russia. I support my noble friend Lord Jopling and the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, in their suggestion for a single office for Russia in Brussels. I remember that we had one when I was in the European Parliament as Member for Essex, which was my constituency. The office was started by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield and was a tremendous success.
The position of the European Union, as outlined in the report, is that domestic reform in the Russian Federation must progress and change further before trade can take place unhindered. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, about the great difficulties ahead. But it is difficult to do too rapidly. We learnt from the example of the pre-Russian revolutionary thinkers, Lavrov and Tchakov, with their two opposing views that if progress is pushed too fast Russia will end up with the same regimes as before, but with a different name. Tragically, we saw what happened.
We also agree with the committee's assertion that regulatory convergence will be essential for progress towards a genuinely free trade area, as in the proposed common European economic space.
If Russia is first to accede to the WTO, and ultimately move towards membership of the CEES, the need for progress in the areas I have outlined will be of paramount importance. I therefore ask the Minister whether any bilateral action is being pursued by Her Majesty's Government to support this process and what, if any, action is being taken by the European Union towards the same end. I also ask the Minister what progress she believes the Russian Federation has made to date towards accession to the WTO.
Thirdly, I turn to the relationship between Russia and NATO, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Jopling and which was so interestingly covered by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. The report acknowledges the expansion of NATO into central eastern Europe. Many of those countries which will accede to the European Union in 2004 are either already members of NATO or participating in the Membership Action Plan (MAP) for joining NATO. Indeed, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland have all been members of NATO since 1999.
While the report notes the potential impact this expansion will have on EU/Russian relations, it also recognises the tentative progress that has been made. We agree with the committee that further reform of the Russian military will be a factor in Russia's further involvement with NATO. We also acknowledge the

471
progress that has been made in this area to date, including the concept of Russia/NATO peacekeeping as outlined by NATO Secretary-General, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in September 2002. Indeed, there has already been some movement on this, with a Russian contingent to the NATO forces in Kosovo.
However, we must be realistic in our expectations. As the report acknowledges,
"it will take many years and huge expenditure before the Russian armed forces are able to play a significant role alongside NATO".
It does not rule out the potential for further co-operation.
It is also important that we give attention to the proposed European security and defence policy. As this proposal progresses, we shall need to consider the potential impact it will have on the current interrelationships between the EU, NATO and Russia in relation to security and defence. But I would agree wholeheartedly with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, that first and foremost the NATO/Russia relationship should be supported.
In winding up, as I have outlined in relation to co-operation on the issue of global terrorism, there has indeed been progress in the relationship that exists between the European Union and Russia, but, as the report points out, there is more to be done in furthering this relationship. I noted with interest the recommendation of the report that better mutual understanding would benefit the progression of the relationship.
Education, which is of concern to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and many noble Lords, is crucial to an improved understanding. We on this side of the House welcome the bilateral action supported by the Government in this area: first, through the British Council in its provision of language teaching; secondly, through the Internet access to areas in Russia which have previously not experienced such resources; and, thirdly, through the Tempus programme which has allowed Russian students the opportunity to study in the European Union and vice versa.
The report adds that the potential for exchanges arid visits by officials and political figures will help deepen the mutual understanding that benefits the joint relationship. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will therefore welcome the planned visit of the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to the United Kingdom in June. I ask the Minister to outline—either now, if possible, or at a later date—what topics the Government intend to have on the agenda for discussion. Perhaps, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth, that should include the problems of the environment.
That visit will provide the possibility for further dialogue on the evolving relationship between the two countries, as well as an opportunity to discuss the wider EU-Russian relationship and its future direction. We on this side of the House hope that the
472
talks will further enhance the positive relationship that has developed between our two countries. I certainly look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
1.20 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, your Lordships have taken part in an extremely wide-ranging and stimulating debate. Many insightful contributions have been made, as several noble Lords noted. I, too, am especially delighted to welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, whose contribution was most amusing, powerful and persuasive. We look forward to hearing from him on many future occasions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for introducing this most thorough and interesting report, and the members of the European Union Committee for their excellent work. As always, the noble Lord has brought his customary analytical clarity to the breadth of issues that make up EU-Russian relations. He is right: Russia faces a major, uphill task in development which, in turn, presents a major task for the EU. I hope to deal with the seven points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, during my speech. If those points are not covered with the precision that I know the noble Lord usually requires, I shall write to him.
Russia's relations with the West have always been of great interest to the Government. Under President Putin's presidency, on which the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, commented, Moscow has shown genuine openness in its approach to NATO and the EU, as the noble Baroness. Lady Rawlings, also said. Equally, Europe has been far-sighted in pursuing a strategic partnership with Russia.
In the EU, serious and far-reaching thought is being given to developing the relationship and giving it the greater strategic vision for which the report calls. I assure noble Lords that the Government are actively pursuing that agenda within the EU, as the report recommends. Our objective is to give the relationship greater coherence and strategic direction.
The committee's report is a timely contribution to the debate. As noble Lords have said, on the 31st of this month St Petersburg will play host to a special EU-Russia summit. For the first time, the 10 new accession countries will attend. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, asked about the blueprint at St Petersburg. That is perhaps not the word I would choose, but the EU is taking seriously the need to streamline and make more effective the structure of relations.
We shall be presenting ideas for extending the concept of an EU-Russia common space, extending beyond the current economic space to justice, home affairs and internal security on the one hand, and political and security co-operation on the other. We shall also elaborate co-operation in education and culture. That may permit some of the sort of exchanges referred to in the report but, of course, we need to consider what Russia wants and what funding might be available.
As well as proposing the development of new common spaces, the EU wants to make the cooperation council more flexible and able to meet in

473
different formats. We hope that that will mean that specialist Ministers can get on with developing close co-operation in those key specialist areas.
Relations with Russia are accorded a high priority by the European Union. The EU holds more meetings on a wider range of subjects with Russia than with almost any other partner. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said in his strong speech, EU enlargement makes EU-Russia relations even more important as the EU's borders with Russia extend and it brings in new member states with a close interest in Russia.
The EU has imaginative and ambitious ideas about how it can ensure that the relationship grows closer still across three over-arching areas of co-operation: our common economic goals; our shared internal security agenda; and our political co-operation. As my noble friend Lord Harrison said in a most reflective contribution, the time is right for a closer EU engagement with Russia. I am glad that he mentioned my former constituency of Birmingham in the context of joint business ventures.
The EU and Russia share the goals of increasing their trade and boosting economic growth. Russia's continued strong economic growth is encouraging. The Russian Government need to maintain the momentum. They need to press on with reform of Russia's natural resources monopolies and develop further reform of the banking sector. Red tape must be reduced, corruption tackled and administrative barriers to business growth removed. Russia must be integrated further into the world economy by joining the World Trade Organisation.
As noble Lords will know, the UK is well placed in the Russian market. On completion of BP's multibillion dollar joint venture, announced in February, the UK will become the largest single investor in Russia.
The EU and Russia have agreed to build a common economic space. Ultimately, that space should provide the framework for greater economic integration and a complete free trade zone. As the committee's report reflects, that is a daunting task that will take many years to achieve, but it is an exciting, visionary project that has the Government's full backing.
In the short term, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, Russian accession to the WTO remains the top priority in EU-Russia economic relations. Implementation of the common economic space can start only once Russia has joined the WTO. Russian WTO membership will strengthen the significant economic reforms already undertaken in Russia.
Russia's terms of entry must support her economic development, but Russia has more work to do to before she is ready to take on the obligations of membership. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked what progress Russia has made to date on entry to the WTO. I shall answer her in greater detail in writing, but suffice it for the moment to say that a great deal must he done to prepare her entry.
474
As well as political support for the process, the EU continues to provide practical assistance to Russia to help her prepare for WTO membership. In the meantime, the EU already provides Russia with favourable terms of access for its exports to the EU. EU enlargement will bring the EU's share of Russian imports to more than 50 per cent. The growth that enlargement generates in new member states should strengthen the EU-Russia economic relationship still further.
I shall touch briefly on energy relations. The report strongly recommends that the EU should look widely for its energy sources, including to Russia for oil. The Government very much agree. Diversity of supply source is a key to ensuring security of supply. But oil from Russia must be sourced in a market-based way. Oil is internationally traded. There are a wide range of oil suppliers besides Russia and the Middle East. The Government agree that Russia should adjust its artificially low domestic energy prices. The EU is pressing for Russian industrial users to pay market prices for energy as part of the terms of Russia's WTO accession.
The Government fully support the aim of enhanced EU co-operation with Russia on internal security issues. The UK shares the EU's priority of combating illegal immigration, including people trafficking, by working with our Russian partners to improve border security and to assist law enforcement agencies in tackling such crime. We want to see prompt and full implementation of the EU/Russia Action Plan on Combating Organised Crime. We are keen for progress to be made on an EU/Russia readmission agreement.
The EU's political co-operation with Russia is a further area of expanding joint work. The EU and Russia are working to prevent and suppress terrorist financing, including freezing terrorist funds. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in a thoughtful speech, spoke of the need to confront terrorism through the younger generation. I could not agree more. We agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, that all counter-terrorism must adhere strictly to respect for the rule of law. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also spoke powerfully on the issue of terrorism.
The EU and Russia are also committed to improving intelligence co-operation post-September 11th. However, given the sensitivity of the issue, the Government's view is that closer co-operation can best be achieved at present by enhancing existing bilateral relationships. In its conclusions, the report presses the EU to continue its work with Russia to tackle the threat posed by the nuclear and chemical legacy of the former Soviet Union. The EU has its own programme on non-proliferation and disarmament. Projects include support to build a chemical weapons destruction facility at Gornyy in Russia.
The Government believe that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol are crucial steps to tackling climate change. Securing Russian ratification of Kyoto is a key objective. The EU regularly underlines the importance

475
of early Russian ratification. Like my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, we believe that Russia stands to benefit economically, particularly in the energy sector, as well as environmentally, from ratification. We believe that it is in Russia's own interest.
The dialogue between the European Union and Russia on European security is developing well. Topics that would have been inconceivable only a few years ago have become established agenda items at recent summits. A troika from the EU Political and Security Committee now holds monthly meetings with the Russian ambassador to the EU. Russia has appointed a representative to the EU military staff. The EU's High Representative and the Russian Foreign Minister hold regular consultations on international developments and crisis management issues.
The EU's relations with Russia go beyond dialogue. Russia has pledged to send five police officers to the EU's first ESDP operation, the EU police mission in Bosnia. The EU has agreed to invite Russia as an observer to its first crisis management exercises. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, is right. We should take seriously Russia's military contribution in the future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Park, reminded us in her elegant contribution, as did the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, it is important that Russia's relationship to the European security and defence policy remains in balance with the EU's security interaction with other third countries. The UK's main security dialogue with Russia will continue to be through NATO.
Your Lordships' report looks at assistance to Russia. The EU is the largest donor of such assistance. This year, 94 million euros of technical assistance is being provided in support of institutional, legal and administrative reform and for justice and home affairs, environment and nuclear safety programmes. The EU's Russia programme is now managed from an office in Moscow which has greatly increased its effectiveness and impact in Russia. Russia has welcomed EU efforts to make assistance more responsive to the Russian Government's own reform priorities.
We agree that there is scope in deploying our assistance even more effectively. The Department for International Development is working with the EU to increase member states' scrutiny of EU assistance programmes in Russia as part of the wider objective of improving the effectiveness of all EU assistance.
One of the strengths of EU assistance to Russia is that projects are chosen following consultation with the Russian Government. Assistance is most effective with Russian buy-in. So while the Government share the committee's view that increased awareness within Russia is important, we would be reluctant to divert EU funding from projects already agreed with the Russian Government. We will study seriously the committee's recommendation on this matter.
476
The EU supports the reform and restructuring of Russia's education system through the Tempus programme. The priorities assigned to Tempus are jointly determined by Russia and the EU, and include the contribution of higher education to the strengthening of democracy and citizenship. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned education exchanges, as did other noble Lords. Tempus also provides grants for Russian students to study in EU higher education institutions. Some 30 million euros have been allocated to programmes in Russia from 2004 to 2006.
At the inception of the committee's enquiry, the question of transit for Russian citizens across the enlarged EU to access the Russian Baltic Sea region of Kaliningrad was high on the EU/Russia agenda. That issue has now been largely resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth rightly called for greater co-operation with Kaliningrad. The EU is also co-operating in other areas on Kaliningrad including economic development, energy, environmental and health issues. To date the EU has committed 40 million euros in assistance to Kaliningrad. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, referred to visas and the Schengen regime. He is right. The EU is not yet ready to give Russians visa-free access to the EU. However, the arrangements now in place for Kaliningrad will ensure that Russians can move with the minimum hindrance and cost between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia without disrupting the Schengen acquis.
I turn to the issue of human rights. The conflict in Chechnya remains a source of serious concern for the EU. Chechnya has not featured in recent joint communiqués from EU-Russia summits because it has not been possible to agree joint language with the Russians. That does not mean that Chechnya has slipped down the agenda; on the contrary, it is a sign that the EU is not prepared to pull its punches on the issue. The EU has tabled resolutions on Chechnya at the past four sessions of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised the issue of press freedom. Constraints on freedom of the media, particularly in Russia's regions, and the closure of Russian television stations are issues of concern for us.
As is so evident from today's debate, EU/Russia relations span an increasingly large area of substantive co-operation. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, referred to the Iraq situation. We believe that the effects of the Iraq campaign have not significantly impacted on EU/ Russia relations. Member states and Russia alike are committed to deepening co-operation and are focusing on the tasks at hand to achieve that.
I should like to touch on the structure of EU/Russia relations. The committee's report comments that the EU/Russia Partnership and Co-operation Agreement has become outdated. It is always wise to listen to noble Lords—especially to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on piecemeal advocacy. The Government believe that the agreement provides a

477
flexible framework for relations. It needs constant renovation, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, rather than reinvention. It allows new forms of co-operation to he developed without laborious renegotiation of its terms. The agreement has accommodated significant changes to the relationship, such as the establishment of the high-level group tasked with designing the common economic space. The Government believe that the agreement should remain the foundation upon which the EU and Russia should build relations for the medium term.
Many noble Lords discussed the report's recommendation of a new Russia office in the EU. The committee's report further recommends that the EU should establish a single office to deal with relations with Russia. In his learned contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, called on the Government to take seriously the motivation of the committee's call for a single office. We take it seriously. However, we regard that role as being played by the office in the Commission headed by the external relations commissioner, Christopher Patten. It performs a co-ordinating role on the EU side, for example, in preparing for EU-Russia meetings. It has an excellent working relationship with Dr Javier Solana, the EU's High Representative. However, the Government agree that there is a need for improved coherence in the EU's approach to Russia, and the UK is pressing for that.
If I have missed questions because of time, I shall ensure that noble Lords receive answers in writing. I conclude with a comment from the report, which correctly states that the development of relations with Russia must be based on realistic expectations about the pace of change within Russia. In some spheres, that means that progress is painstaking. We must proceed at a speed that builds on the reforms Russia is implementing. But we are ambitious and have set ourselves strategic, long-term objectives for cooperation. We want to develop the shared values prompted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in his very well structured speech. As my right honourable friend Jack Straw wrote to the noble Lord. Lord Jopling, on 13th March, the Government support the thrust of the committee's findings, and the report represents a thorough and illuminating analysis of the issues at hand. I can only agree wholeheartedly with my right honourable friend and thank all noble Lords who participated in this excellent debate.
1.43 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the entire sub-committee in saying how grateful we are for the kind words about our report, not least from the three Front Benches. We are particularly grateful to all noble Lords who have come to speak in the debate today, not least the Minister, who went to much trouble to cover many of the points raised. Much expertise on the issue has been put into speeches by noble Lords throughout the House. That is what we have come to expect from your Lordships' House.
478
I wish to single out the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, had the pleasure of being the first to congratulate him and did so from the point of view of having very long and distinguished connections with Yorkshire. As a Yorkshireman, I add to those congratulations. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate has ever heard the remarks of a former highly distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Halifax. After he had been Foreign Secretary, he became British Ambassador to Washington during the war. When the war was over, he addressed an American audience and said that he hoped they would all take the opportunity to visit Europe and England again. But he added one piece of advice, saying that if you go to England, you should never ask anyone whether they come from Yorkshire, because, if they do, they will tell you within the first 10 minutes, and, if they do not, it is very bad manners to draw attention to their disadvantages in life.
The words of the right reverend Prelate that we should shout praise and whisper criticism will ring in our minds for a long time. I do not want to break the conventions of the House, but I must say that I had some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who questioned whether it was always right only to whisper criticisms. Another who might have had some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was my noble friend Lady Park, whose criticisms were some decibels higher than a whisper—but that is what we have come to expect from her.
This has been a fine debate. It has gone extremely well. The reception of our committee's report is very gratifying to us all.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Harbours Bill [H.L.]
1.46 p.m.
Read a third Time.
Clause 1 [Amendment of procedure for dealing with applications for harbour orders]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Amendment of procedure where harbour revision orders are made by the Secretary of State of his own motion]:
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) After section 14(2)(b) (Ministers' powers, on application of harbour authorities, or others, to make orders for securing harbour efficiency, &c) of the 1964 Act, insert "and
(c) unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that the making of the order will not prejudice the conservation of natural beauty, flora, fauna, geological or physiographic features and all other natural features.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Conservation and Wildlife. That declaration applies to my speeches on the subsequent groupings. I owe an explanation to the House as to why I did not move Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The RSPB's general support for the principle of the Bill was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, at Second Reading on 5th March, as reported at col. 916 of Hansard. He quoted from a briefing document of the RSPB dated February 2003. But the document ran to three pages. The RSPB had subsidiary concerns that are reflected in these amendments.
While wishing to see the Bill streamlined, the RSPB believes that the balance was perhaps tilted too far towards the interests of the ports. The first two amendments were intended as paving amendments for the remaining four that I shall move. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, for a letter that I received yesterday evening about an analogous case in which he was interested, and that had not been quoted in earlier debates on this Bill. I was, and am, persuaded that the first two amendments were—I seek language as neutral as I can manage—inimical to the purposes of the Bill. I therefore did not feel that I could move them as paving amendments. But the concern about imbalance in the Bill that they sought to imply remains and underlies the remaining amendments. I hope that some reassurances can be expressed in responses on behalf of the promoters to the three remaining groups.
The RSPB had the opportunity to meet the promoters of the Bill during the recent Recess to discuss their concerns. But the Recess was not the easiest time during which to organise amendments for Report, which took place immediately after our return.
Amendment No. 3 would allow the Secretary of State to make a harbour revision order for the purposes of furthering the conservation of marine wildlife and the wider marine environment. The current situation, in brief, is that the Harbours Act 1964 allows the Secretary of State to give duties and powers to harbour authorities in relation to the environment. But, in practice, the Secretary of State can do so only if these relate to economic considerations. It is therefore very difficult to employ the environmental duties, and that is what my amendment seeks to address.
In my view, the making of a harbour revision order with the purpose of furthering the conservation of marine wildlife and the wider marine environment need not be incompatible with making such an order in relation to economic considerations. I hope that I might be reassured that the Government recognise that this is the case and will look sympathetically on harbour revision orders which can deliver wide benefits in the future.
The rationale for Amendment No. 4 to facilitate the making of a harbour empowerment order for environment and nature conservation purposes is
480
exactly the same as that behind Amendment No. 3 which related to harbour revision orders. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I remind the House of the Long Title of the Bill. It is a Bill to,
"Amend the procedure for dealing with applications for orders under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964 and for making orders under section 15 of that Act; and for connected purposes".
These amendments have been drafted and redrafted in such a way that formally and technically they cannot be excluded from consideration by your Lordships' House. In the view of the Government, they are not in their intention—as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke—relevant to the Bill before us and should not have been introduced. In particular, the amendments should not have been introduced at Third Reading.
The amendment is not connected with the procedure for dealing with applications for harbour orders in its intention, as explained. Amendment No. 3 to Section 14 addresses the difficulty but still seeks to widen the scope of a Bill entirely about procedures by introducing policy considerations. I do not believe that it is necessary, nor does it fit well.
The amendment requires the appropriate Minister to be satisfied that an order under Section 14 of the 1964 Act will not prejudice conservation and related interests. Schedule 2 to the 1964 Act lists over 20 purposes for making these orders—some could not conceivably prejudice conservation. One, indeed, expressly refers to an order conferring additional conservation functions on a harbour authority. Others relate, for example, to the procedures of a harbour authority committee or the authority's power to levy charges.
There are substantial environmental constraints on port development—for example, in the Habitats and Environmental Impact Directives. Section 14 already requires the appropriate Minister to be satisfied that,
"the making of the order is desirable in the interests of securing the improvement, maintenance or management of the harbour".
That test allows all the interests mentioned in the amendments to be addressed, but in a balanced way, along with other factors such as the future viability of a port, its trade and its local community. That is how sustainable development policy works. It takes full account of economic, social and environmental considerations. The Government are fully committed to their conservation obligations, but it would not help to unbalance decisions on harbour orders—as these amendments would—at the expense of other important considerations.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, for not moving Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Had he done so, I would have had to say to your Lordships that these would have effectively wrecked the Bill in its entirety and would have defeated the main purpose that lies behind it, as explained by my noble friend Lord McIntosh.

481
It has denied me the opportunity of sharing with your Lordships the story of the Whitehaven harbour commissioners and the bond-holders. But my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to that at Second Reading and, indeed, it was one of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill; namely, the ability of a tiny number of objectors effectively to hold to ransom a desirable planning application.
I have not had the opportunity to speak to my noble friend Lord Berkeley about what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, said in terms of the RSPB briefing for Second Reading. But I have looked again at the paragraph to which the noble Lord referred. My noble friend Lord Berkeley said:
"'The RSPB has no objection to mounting strong opposition to port development proposals where we believe that the environmental damage which they will cause cannot be justified, but equally we have no wish to see unnecessary constraints and costs imposed upon the ports industry. That is why we support the Harbours Bill"".—[Official Report, 5/3/03; col. 916.]
As I say, I cannot put to the noble Lord the allegation that that is perhaps slightly selective reporting, but those words are in direct quotes. Certainly, I believe that my noble friend said those words in good faith at Second Reading.
I cannot add to what my noble friend Lord McIntosh said about whether Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 come within the scope of the Bill. My advice is that they fall outside and are not appropriate for this very narrow piece of legislation. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for the manner in which they have responded to these amendments. I was seeking to indicate at the beginning that all my amendments are of a probing nature. We have received a very comprehensive reply from the Government. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for what he said.
I take the points that the Minister made about these issues being perhaps outside the spirit of the Act, although he was kind enough to say that they were within the letter of the Bill in terms of consideration by your Lordships' House. In that respect we have had the opportunity of learning both the attitude of the Government and that of the promoters. I should, of course, say that I was not in any way seeking to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, had been selective in his quotation. I was alluding to the source of the quotation because it was a much larger document than the particular paragraph quoted. It indicated that the RSPB had concerns. I am, of course, sorry that those concerns have only been raised at Third Reading. But that was the first opportunity that I was able to raise them. In the light of what has been said and in line with earlier assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) After section 48A of the 1964 Act (environmental duties of harbour authorities) there shall be inserted—
"48B CONTRIBU11NC TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
( ) In the exercise of any function under section 15 of this Act, the appropriate Minister must have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development."."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, enshrining the objective of sustainable development within legislation is an increasingly common goal, and this amendment would do so by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to that objective when considering applications for harbour revision orders. I appreciate what the Minister said about sustainable development and the answer that he gave to the earlier grouping.
Section 48A of the Harbours Act 1964 gives harbour authorities a duty to have regard to the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside and of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest. They also have a duty to take into account any effect their proposals may have on the aforementioned features. However, no similar duty applies to the Secretary of State when considering applications for harbour revision orders. This amendment was intended to address that. I support the drive to put sustainable development objectives at the heart of legislation.
During the consideration of the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, supported by Mr John Randall MP, marine industry interests supported the inclusion of a clause that would require any functions under that Bill to be exercised with regard to the objective of sustainable development. If it is deemed appropriate for a Bill relating to marine nature conservation to have regard to sustainable development, it might be regarded as appropriate to require decisions concerning marine development also to have regard to the same concept. I beg to move.
2 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this amendment would place on the Secretary of State a duty to have regard to the desirability of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in exercising any function under Section 15 of the Harbours Act 1964.
Let me explain what Section 15 is about. The usual procedure for making harbour orders requires someone to apply for one, usually the harbour authority. However, Section 15 allows the Secretary of State to make a harbour order on his own initiative, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has just said, in response to an application. A Section 15 order is for strictly limited purposes and is not used to authorise port development. The power is occasionally used, for example, to reconstitute a harbour authority. The duty proposed in this amendment does not fit within Section 15 of the 1964 Act and, because it should not be in that place, is seriously defective.

483
If the issue here is sustainable development, the Government's ports policy paper, Modern Ports, is quite clear. It states:
"The Government and the devolved administrations will work with the industry, its users and other interests, to achieve four key objectives".
The fourth of those objectives is,
"to maintain a balanced policy on development which aims to make the best use of existing and former operational land, secures high environmental standards, but supports sustainable projects for which there is a clear need",
So sustainable development is certainly a policy consideration in relation to the consents required for any harbour development. This is important to our obligations under the environmental impact assessment and habitats directives, and more generally. The amendment is wrong and it should be withdrawn.
Lord Roper: My Lords, on these Benches general sympathy is expressed for any amendment which includes the words "sustainable development". Therefore, when we saw Amendment No. 5, we had a natural sympathy for it. Having listened to the explanation from the Minister, however, we do not feel it would be appropriate to add our support were the matter to be pressed to a vote.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, there is little I can add to what has been said by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The promoters feel that this amendment falls outside the scope of the Bill, as did the earlier one, and therefore should not be considered for this piece of legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Faulkner, for their responses to the amendment which again was of a probing nature. The probe has produced an extremely clear response, in particular from the Minister. Again, in line with the assurances given prior to these debates, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
"Rules in connection with objections
(1) Schedule 3 to the 1964 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 18 there shall be inserted—
"Rules in connection with objections
18A (1) The Secretary of State may make rules as to—

(a) the making of objections to an application for orders under section 14 or 16 or the making of orders under section 15;

(b) the information to be comprised within or submitted with an objection;

(c) the submission by the person making the application of written representations or information in relation to objections;

484

(d) the submission of further written representations or information;

(e) such other matters relating to the consideration of objections as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not make a determination under paragraph 19 to make an order without first taking into consideration the grounds of any objection in respect of which rules under this section have been complied with.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment, entitled "Rules in connection with objections", seeks to cast light into an area where clarity has not always been easy to obtain. It would ensure that the Secretary of State publishes rules to clarify how objections to harbour revision orders and harbour empowerment orders are to be made and how they may be dealt with. Perhaps I may interpolate at this point the fact that, in line with the Bill, the opportunity for these matters to be settled by written representations underlines the need to make certain that there are rules which those submitting representations in writing can follow.
The RSPB has advised me that it has experienced problems on, for example, recent orders for Dibden Bay in Hampshire and Shellhaven in Essex, with a lack of written procedures to follow in the event of an objection. This simple amendment would make things clearer for everyone and could deliver benefits for harbour authorities as well as for conservation organisations such as the RSPB. Of course it may be that the Secretary of State can already make such rules under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, although some clarification would be welcome. If that is the case, I would be grateful for any undertaking that the Minister can give that the Government intend to develop such rules with respect to harbour revision orders and harbour empowerment orders made under the Harbours Act 1964. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unlike the amendments that we have been considering so far, this amendment does fit in with the Long Title of the Bill. However, it is unnecessary. The amendment proposes to empower the Secretary of State to make rules not for the conduct of any public inquiry into a harbour order, but in relation to the making of objections and representations. I acknowledge that it is modelled on a provision in Section 10 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, but the Bill itself already contains all the rules needed for the making of objections. Indeed, the text of the Bill is modelled on the very rules that have been made under Section 10 of the Transport and Works Act.
I do not see what other rules are required for the making of objections and representations. The House would not wish to be unduly prescriptive about the way that ordinary citizens go about making their case. The provisions in the Bill are entirely sufficient without this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spoke of the relevance of inquiry rules. He suggested that the Bill might make provision for inquiry rules for harbour orders. There are such rules for planning cases and for Transport and Works Act orders, but not at present for harbour orders. This has never caused any

485
difficulty. In several recent cases there has also been a planning application or a Transport and Works Act order, and those rules have been adopted for the inquiry as a whole. In other cases the planning rules have been adopted by analogy.
If there are any real difficulties we would like to hear about them. We would be willing to discuss with the industry and other interests whether there should be harbour rules and what they should say. But there is no need to amend the Bill to give the power to make them. The power is already found in Section 9 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am in the curious position of again having little to add to what has been said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, except to make one point. If this amendment were accepted, it would have the perverse effect of making life more difficult for objectors rather than making it easier. That is because if more rigid rules of procedure are adopted, then that might well have the effect of invalidating what might otherwise be perfectly appropriate objections. I cannot believe that that is the aim lying behind the amendment.
I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, would feel that the offer just made by the Minister to hold discussions with the industry over the question of harbour rules goes all the way to meeting the requests he made in moving the amendment. For
486
that reason and for the other reasons given by my noble friend, I hope that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I again thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for their responses. I appreciate and welcome the constructive suggestion made by the Minister in the context or any problems that may exist.
The RSPB's advice that it had experienced problems with recent orders at Dibden Bay in Hampshire and at Shellhaven in Essex implies that there are at least pieces of grit in the shoe which need addressing. The RSPB will have had the opportunity of hearing the Minister and will be able to read what he said in the debate. The opportunity will be available to take up the Minister's offer, if that would be helpful and desirable in the light of previous experience.
In other regards, I accept what the Minister has said and the quite clearly genuinely intended to be helpful advice of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. As on previous occasions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Faulkner of Worcester.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at tell minutes past two o'clock.

  Iraq: Humanitarian Relief
  Iraq: Humanitarian Relief
  Poverty: World Bank Data
  Poverty: World Bank Data
  EU Aid Budget
  EU Aid Budget
  London Congestion Charge: Payment Arrangements in Palace of Westminster
  London Congestion Charge: Payment Arrangements in Palace of Westminster
  ODPM: Annual Report 2003
  ODPM: Annual Report 2003
  Cabinet Office: Departmental Report 2003
  Cabinet Office: Departmental Report 2003
  Advanced Sound Ranging Programme
  Advanced Sound Ranging Programme
  Military Service: Compensation
  Military Service: Compensation
  Baton Rounds
  Baton Rounds
  UK State Pensioners Living Abroad
  UK State Pensioners Living Abroad
  Notification of Deaths
  Notification of Deaths
  Food Standards Agency: Departmental Report, Spring 2003
  Food Standards Agency: Departmental Report, Spring 2003