Sitting of 22 May 2003

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

    Teacher Vacancies
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What assessment he has made of the number of teacher vacancies. [114994]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): National statistics published by my Department on 29 April show that, between 2002 and 2003, the number of full-time teacher vacancies in maintained schools in England fell by 1,140, or 25 per cent. The national teacher vacancy rate is now below 1 per cent. At regional level, the number of vacancies has fallen in eight out of the nine Government office regions, including a 35 per cent. drop in Yorkshire and Humberside.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am rather surprised by the statistic, because I spoke recently with Barnsley local education authority and I was told that we have fewer vacancies in Barnsley than there have been for a good number of years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that indicates that things are beginning to change and that teachers are being attracted to areas that are regenerating their economies and renewing their social structures, and that at the same time we are retaining teachers with experience, which is beginning to show through in areas such as Barnsley?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The figures confirm the experience of his colleagues in Barnsley and what he is describing, in that the national teacher vacancy rate is now 0.9 per cent. That indicates how well our policies are succeeding in delivering better teachers, better classrooms and better results.
    Richard Ottaway: Is the Secretary of State aware that the teacher redundancy crisis at Edenham high school in Croydon is only the tip of the iceberg? Schools such as Woodcote high, Coloma girls and, as reported in today's Croydon Guardian, another school, Coulsdon high school, are on a four-and-a-half-day week. The problem is that contrary to what the
    1134
    Prime Minister told the House yesterday, the education budget in Croydon is inadequate. To make it worse, the local Labour authority has siphoned off £1.7 million for non-educational purposes.
    The Government blame the council and the council blames the Government. Six years ago, the Prime Minister said that his top priorities were "Education, education, education." Today, we see only shambles, chaos and children caught in the crossfire.
    Mr. Clarke: I am very well aware of the position both in the schools to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and in Croydon generally. Croydon is one of those authorities that has not passported all its money to education, as it should have done. We have made it clear to the local education authority that it should do that. Croydon is also one of those authorities that is working with schools to try to resolve this situation in an effective way. My Department is also working with LEAs, such as Croydon, specifically discussing with them the best way to proceed. I would say to head teachers that they should work closely with the LEA to resolve the situation, rather than taking the sort of steps that were taken yesterday.
    Geraint Davies: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable to parents and to children for pupils to be sent home early from schools? Does he agree that it is time to re-examine regional distributions? Does he agree also that it is time to examine whether funding should be made directly from his Department to schools? Further, will he agree to meet me to discuss with representatives from Croydon a strategy for this year to next year to ensure that there is sufficient cash for our children's education?
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has met colleagues from Croydon, and will continue to do so. [Interruption.] I meant that seriously—it was a helpful question. It is important that we have a proper debate about the funding issues in schools. It is important also that Members represent their constituents' interests in the way that both the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and my hon. Friend have sought to do. It was not an ironic remark.
    I will not inflate the situation by using strong language about what has gone on in the schools, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that schools should not be closing for even part of the day in the current circumstances while the LEA, the Department and schools are working together to resolve these problems in an effective manner.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: May I, too, ask the Secretary of State a helpful question? What sort of message does he think it is sending to potential teachers that there may be vacancies in many areas but there will be 3,000 redundancies throughout the country, and 92 in his and my education authority? Has he yet seen the letter from Dr. Bryan Slater, the chief education officer for Norfolk county council, to his Department, which line by line refutes the arguments advanced by the Department that in some way Norfolk has not passed

    1135
    on all the funds to schools? In those areas where funds have not as yet been passed on, the irony is that that has not happened because of the Department's guidelines. Surely the buck stops with the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, not with schools and not with LEAs.
    Mr. Clarke: I have two things to say in response. First, the survey reported this morning in the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman referred is, as the newspaper itself acknowledged, a self-selecting partial survey in which only one in 17 of those surveyed responded. It bears no relation—I emphasise this—to information that we have had from local education authorities about the situation.
    Secondly, on the Norfolk case, the document that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, which referred to 92 potential redundancies, is a paper that the authority sent in response to recent ring-rounds and which was copied to trade unions and others, and no doubt it is in the public arena. As the LEA said, and I have had confirmation of it this morning, it represents all possible cases. The cause is a mix of budget problems and falling rolls. However, there are as many vacancies as posts at risk, so the LEA is working to re-deploy as many as possible. In addition, the 92 potential redundancies were from before the devolved formula capital announcement that I made a week or so ago, so the actual number, according to the LEA, will be nothing like as big as the figure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. That story is repeated throughout the country. LEAs are working, like Conservative Norfolk county council—I give it credit—with schools, teachers and my Department to ensure that the problems are minimised. The kind of partial survey published in The Times this morning, based on inaccurate and outdated information, does nothing to assist the situation in any way.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: As my right hon. Friend rolls out his specialist schools policy, will he be extremely careful to examine the impact that that will have on teacher shortages in particular subjects, and will he study carefully the Select Committee's report, "Secondary Education: Diversity of Provision", which was published this morning? It might give him some useful guidance in that area.
    Mr. Clarke: I will study my hon. Friend's Committee's report extremely carefully. I have seen the news reports of its publication, but as I am sure he will understand, I have not yet had a chance to study the report itself. I will take account of what it recommends. The overall teacher vacancy position that I described shows the kind of measures that we can take to improve the quality of education in all types of schools throughout the country.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Secretary of State just sought to rubbish the survey in The Times this morning, which suggested that there will be 3,000 teacher redundancies as a result of the Government's funding crisis in schools. If he thinks that that is the wrong figure, how many teachers' jobs does he think are at risk because of the funding crisis?
    Mr. Clarke: We believe that the overall level of redundancies—there are falling rolls in some parts of the country—will be of the same order as in past years. That is the precise question that we are discussing with LEAs, as I described in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). We are not in a position to make an estimate at this stage, but I can say that both the particular figures cited—the 92 in Norfolk and the 3.000 in the self-selecting survey published in The Times today—are massive exaggerations.
    Mr. Green: The Secretary of State seems to be admitting that some teachers at least will be made redundant as a result of the funding crisis. He knows that the redundancy notices will have to go out by the end of this month. His Department underspent by £1 billion last year. Why does he not take some useful action and use some of that money to stop teachers being sacked? The crisis is real, and his response so far has been hopelessly inadequate.
    Mr. Clarke: We debated the matter at length last week. We expect a reduction of about 50,000 pupils in nursery and primary schools this year and over the next two years. That is spread unevenly across the country. LEAs are trying to manage the falling rolls as best they can, but it leads to difficult situations in particular schools. Let me cite another local authority to praise it. Yesterday, a special meeting of Northumberland county council agreed to give £1.5 million to the county's 213 schools in a bid to boost budgets. The funds are being recycled from a contingency fund. According to the council's press release, that will prevent 19 threatened redundancies in 14 schools, and allow other schools to boost their education budgets. Such action is being taken by LEAs throughout the country. I cite only one example. It indicates that we are working with LEAs to resolve the problem, and that is what we will do.

    Higher Education Funding
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What publicly funded scholarships and bursaries are available to assist students from low-income backgrounds to participate in higher education. [114995]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): A number of publicly funded bursaries already exist for students from low-income families. They include opportunity bursaries, learning allowances for student parents, and student awards from hardship funds. The Government also fund student bursaries for those training in public sector work—teaching, social work and a range of health professions. From 2004, new students will be able to apply for the new higher education grant of up to £1,000 each year.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I hope that she will agree that the current system is complicated for potential students. Will she consider a proposal to reintroduce state scholarships that are based on merit and means tested? Such scholarships could be both publicly and privately funded, and would help to achieve her objective of improving access for students from low-income backgrounds.
    Margaret Hodge: I accept that we need to be better at getting proper information out to potential students about the funding that is available to support them during their university degrees. We have a system of what could be termed state scholarships in terms of the fee remission scheme and the introduction of the higher education grant. Going beyond that, we want institutions themselves to accept responsibility for ensuring that they have bursary schemes to support students from low-income families, rather than having further central prescription. However, I am always willing to consider new ideas from hon. Members.
    Mr. James Clappison: Does the Minister agree that one does not raise the aspirations of one group of children by suppressing those of another? Is there not every likelihood that that is what the access regulator, or "Offtoff", will do? Here is a suggestion to the Minister: scrap "Offtor, leave universities free to admit on merit and spend the savings on poor students, of whom there are all too many under this Government's policies.
    Margaret Hodge: I find it very hard to understand how cutting student numbers can open access and increase opportunities, particularly for those from low-income families who wish to attend universities. I also find it very hard to understand how the Big Brother regulator that the Opposition undoubtedly want to introduce to tell universities which courses they can and cannot offer would improve access for students. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman does not like our proposal to introduce OFFA, the office of fair access, which will ensure fair access for students in all our universities, but I am not sure that I think much of the Opposition's idea of simply telling students to OFF off.
    James Purnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proportion of children from poor households going to university in this country is still far too low? Does she know of any other country in the world that does not have a target to increase participation? Can she tell me what proportion of households pay the full tuition fee at the moment?
    Margaret Hodge: I completely concur with my hon. Friend that too few young people from low-income households are going to university. The thrust of all our policies is to ensure that the brightest and most talented young people, from whatever background, get the opportunity to go to university. I also concur that no developed nation that is aspiring to compete economically in the global economy is not increasing the number of people who are participating and going to university. Finally, he is right to draw to the attention of the House the fact that only four out of 10 young people currently pay the full contribution to the fee that we ask of students.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) is absolutely right; information is not getting through to students, as the Minister admits. That is because the way in which she answered the question was about as clear as mud. Why is she spending so much time and money setting up all these complicated schemes that no one understands,
    1138
    when the simple solution is so obvious? My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) announced our policy to great acclaim last week. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State knows that this is right. The way to encourage more young people from all backgrounds to come into higher education is to scrap university fees altogether. Why do not the Government simply abolish the tax on learning?
    Margaret Hodge: I welcome the hon. Lady's guest appearance. I am delighted that the Conservatives have finally introduced a policy on higher education—one of their first—and I am sure that it will unravel very quickly. Underlying it is the clear message that if someone wants their child to go to university, they should not vote Conservative because under their policy there would not be a place for that child.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: It seems obvious that only a minority of students would benefit from a limited supply of scholarships and bursaries. If we want to widen participation in higher education, as we all do on this side of the House at least, we should reintroduce state grants for all students. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the only realistic way forward in the long term?
    Margaret Hodge: I would make three points to my hon. Friend. First, four out of 10 young students do not have their fees remitted. Secondly, with the introduction of a higher education grant on top of a well-subsidised student loan, a third of the student cohort will receive £1,000 a year. Thirdly, by abolishing the payment of an up-front contribution towards the cost of fees, no student will have to contribute to the cost of their education during their time at university. Graduates who benefit personally from gaining a degree should contribute over their lifetime to the cost of that degree from their earnings. It is therefore graduates who pay, not students.

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Mr. Paul Burstow: If he will make a statement on Criminal Records Bureau checks for teachers. [114996]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): The average turnaround time for Criminal Records Bureau checks on teachers is less than five weeks. Head teachers have discretion to allow teachers to start work before receiving their disclosure, provided that they have been checked against list 99 and all other relevant pre-employment checks have been carried out.
    Mr. Burstow: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure he will recall the chaos into which the CRB descended last year, when many thousands of teachers were awaiting checks, schools were in limbo, and children were left wondering whether there would be a teacher in their classroom. Will the Minister confirm that it would be wrong for the CRB substantially to increase its charges for disclosures well above the rate of inflation to make good the cost of its cock-ups? Would

    1139
    it not be wrong for teachers, local education authorities and children to have to pay more to make good the errors of the CRB?
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the CRB is now processing 40,000 disclosures a week, and the backlog to which he referred is all but cleared. The full operation of the CRB is obviously a matter for the Home Secretary, and I understand that he has the various issues under review.
    Bob Spink: If the backlog is all but cleared, why does Essex county council have 400 applications outstanding, 50 of which were made a year ago? That is spectacular incompetence, even by the Department's standards. When will Essex's outstanding applications be cleared?
    Mr. Miliband: The honest answer is that Essex is part of the "but" rather than the "all" in my earlier description of the CRB's activities. It is processing 40,000 applications a week, and I am sure that it will come to the Essex disclosures as soon as possible.

    Connexions Partnerships
    Valerie Davey: If he will make a statement on the publication of the first three Ofsted reports on Connexions partnerships. [114998]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): I am pleased to say that Ofsted has judged all three partnerships to be good. In each case, Ofsted found that the partnership enables young people to reach good levels of achievement; has a good overall quality of practice; has a good understanding of the communities that it serves; and has good leadership and management, together with committed staff.
    Valerie Davey: I thank my hon. Friend. With that positive outcome and, I trust, a further good report from the west of England Connexions Partnership board, will he confirm that Connexions partnerships make a real difference to young people in their progression to their adult working lives?
    Mr. Lewis: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for supporting the work of Connexions in her constituency. While I cannot disclose the results of the Ofsted report in her area, she will not be disappointed. To underline the progress that Connexions is now making, in a recent independent survey of more than 16,000 young people who have used the service, 91 per cent. said that they were satisfied or very satisfied; 90 per cent. agreed that Connexions had a lot to offer young people; 86 per cent. felt that it helped them to understand all the options available to them; and 68 per cent. said that it had helped them make life-changing decisions. Up and down the country, Connexions is beginning to make a real difference to the life chances of young people.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: Those are fine words, but can the Minister confirm that the Ofsted report says that only around half of Connexions staff have direct contact with young people, and that in Lincolnshire and Rutland that figure dropped to just 40 per cent.?
    Can he also confirm that this year, with a budget of £429 million, the Connexions service is spending just £4.5 million—1 per cent.—with voluntary organisations that work with the most vulnerable young people in our society? Does he accept that growing bureaucracy is one of the main reasons why many voluntary organisations often see Connexions as a rival, not a partner, and what steps is he taking to address that problem before voluntary organisations completely lose faith in the Connexions service?
    Mr. Lewis: In a recent debate, I made a commitment to the hon. Gentleman that I would analyse the relationship between Connexions and the voluntary and community sector. I can bring him the good news that in fact the proportion of money that is spent on voluntary and community services in Connexions partnerships areas is not 1 per cent. The guidance said that it should be 5 per cent.; we believe that on average it is 6 per cent. We accept that the development of a new service will have strengths and weaknesses. The weaknesses that were identified in the initial Ofsted report included the need for better quality assurance systems and for a more strategic approach to the involvement of young people. We must address those concerns.
    We do not pretend that an entirely new service has got everything right. It is important, however, to support the positive partnerships that are taking place and to recognise the fact that young people are getting an integrated service that brings together all the professionals in communities to ensure that they can overcome the barriers that too often get in the way of progressing and achieving in their learning and their lives.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that, welcome as the Ofsted report is, it is even more important to get the kind of positive response that he got from parents and users at the Connexions centre in Burnley when he visited it? That shows that the Connexions service is doing an excellent job, and supports what the Ofsted report says.
    Mr. Lewis: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. Burnley is going through difficult times. On my recent visit, it was encouraging and reassuring to meet young people who are benefiting from the Connexions service by seeing life chances and opportunities opening up. We need such policy developments to ensure that people in areas such as Burnley do not turn to extremist parties, but see the direct benefits of mainstream politics and politicians. One of those benefits is the development of the Connexions service, an initiative of which the Government are incredibly proud.

    Tuition Fees
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What evidence he has evaluated on charging different fees for different higher education courses. [114999]
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What evidence he has evaluated on charging different fees for different higher education courses. [115002]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): As our White Paper identified, a number of independent reports have shown that graduate earnings vary significantly, depending on a student's chosen course and university. For example, a new report published this week by the Centre for the Economics of Education confirms that graduates from Russell group universities are likely to earn more than those from other universities. Given that difference in potential earnings, and given the need to increase funding for higher education, we consider that the fairest way to proceed is to have a variable fee regime.
    Dr. Iddon: My right hon. Friend knows that courses in the science and engineering disciplines are far more expensive to run than other courses, and that we are desperately short of good-quality graduates in those fields. If differential fees are allowed, universities might take the option of charging higher fees for those courses. Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the continuing closure of science and engineering departments? The latest announcement is that King's college's chemistry department might close. Would not the introduction of differential fees make matters worse?
    Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's concern about any potential closures of university science and engineering departments. We are discussing with universities and the industries concerned how to mitigate that. I do not accept, however, that a variable fee regime would have the implications that he describes. In fact, there is a good deal of evidence that for both men and women, higher returns over and above two or more A-levels are associated with studying medicine, law, economics, maths and engineering—subjects such as those that my hon. Friend mentions—and it is not unreasonable that the fees regime should reflect that.
    Dr. Naysmith: My right hon. Friend mentioned medicine as a subject that might fall into the category that needs special attention. He knows that there is an increasing need for doctors in the national health service, partly due to the immense investment that we are making in it. Does he share my anxiety and that of the British Medical Association that the differential fee policy could have a disproportionate effect on medical students? Has he evaluated the potential effect on the supply of doctors?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's focus on the state of medical education is correct. I am discussing the way in which we tackle such issues with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. We are considering several alternative routes, including the golden hellos and handshakes that already apply in some disciplines.
    1142
    My hon. Friend is right to raise the matter, but I believe that we have solutions to ensure a continuing supply of good, high-quality medical students who are committed to expanding the health service.
    Mr. David Rendel: Given that the latest evidence shows that some courses carry a negative graduate premium, does the Secretary of State accept that, according to his logic, those who take such courses should be paid to go to university?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that, hon. Members will be surprised to know. The impact of the regime will happen over four or five years as we ascertain the way in which universities and vice-chancellors decide to deal with specific courses. There will be much more variety in fees than people currently believe. Some universities will probably reduce the fees from the current £1,100—possibly even to zero—to take account of some of the factors that the hon. Gentleman described. We will therefore have a more diverse system, which will be generally beneficial.
    Dr. Ian Gibson: Industries in the United States put millions of dollars without strings attached into their local universities, thus allaying many of their financial problems. Why does not that culture prevail in this country?
    Mr. Clarke: I think the reason is that the relationship between the higher education sector and industry is not strong enough. We are actively promoting discussion about that. For example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I hosted a seminar with the Confederation of British Industry and universities to discuss the matter. As my hon. Friend knows, despite the extra money from business to which he referred, American universities charge fees that are massively higher than anything that we anticipate in this country. I do not believe that there is a connection between the issue that my hon. Friend raised and the variable fee regime.
    Adam Price: The Centre for the Economics of Education study to which the Secretary of State referred concluded that the introduction of differential fees would make the signal that is attached to a degree fuzzier to employers and reinforce existing divisions in the university sector. Does the Secretary of State agree?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not agree. The most interesting fact in the survey is the 2.5 to 6 per cent. variation in earnings premium for students at Russell group universities. It concludes that some universities could charge between £3,000 and £7,000 a year more, and that that would be justified by the premium. We suggest nothing like such a variation, but it is reasonable to show clearly and directly that society and the individual benefit from university education. That should be acknowledged.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that excellent regional universities—for example, the University of Northumbria at Newcastle and Sunderland—are anxious that they will be at a disadvantage if an élite group of universities,

    1143
    mainly in the south-east of England, are allowed to raise their fees to figures upwards of £10,000 a year, as today's newspapers reported the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education as saying?
    Mr. Clarke: First, nobody is anticipating putting fees up to that kind of level. Secondly, my hon. Friend's question gives me the chance to pay tribute to the five universities in the north-east that are working extremely well together to promote the kind of collaboration that we have been describing, precisely to avoid the effects about which my hon. Friend has expressed concern. It is through that form of collaboration that we can establish a regime that will enrich the university sector as a whole in an entirely beneficial way.

    Teacher Redundancies
    Mr. Robert Syms: What discussions he has had with teaching unions about teacher redundancies in financial year 2003–04. [115000]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Ministers and officials have regular discussions with teaching unions covering a wide range of issues. We are working with local government to ensure that the growth in teacher and support staff numbers is sustained, as promised in 1997 and 2001.
    Mr. Syms: Does the Minister understand the real concern in Poole that, in an authority area in which more than 100 per cent. of the standard spending assessment has been passported to schools, there are going to be redundancies among teachers and classroom assistants? Parents in Poole do not want excuses; they want an acknowledgment that there is a problem and a will to sort it out.
    Mr. Miliband: I am slightly disappointed by the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question, since he came to the Department with a group of representatives from Poole and had an extremely useful meeting with me about these issues.
    Mr. Graham Brady: It was not very useful.
    Mr. Miliband: The hon. Gentleman might say that, but I have had a letter from the chief executive in Poole saying how useful the meeting was, and that one of the things that had resulted from it was a new dialogue with the schools to try to overcome the problem. That is the kind of action that we like to see.
    Mr. David Watts: May I urge the Minister not to take any notice of Conservative Members crying out for more resources? Many of the authorities that are making people redundant—or claiming that they will have to do so—are receiving vast amounts more than authorities such as St. Helens. Will he resist those calls?
    Mr. Miliband: I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for schools in St. Helens and that he is as pleased as I am by the enormous increase in achievement in both the primary and secondary sectors.
    1144
    The Government's commitment is to a fair system of funding, and I am glad that my hon. Friend thinks that it is working well.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Minister now admit that he has been entirely wrong? Will he come to Leicestershire and see how we are having to set deficit budgets and make teachers redundant because of the Government's failure of policy? Apparently, everyone else is wrong except those on the Government Front Bench. Well, what about the story in The Times which says that 3,000 teachers are to be made redundant across the country? They cannot all be wrong. How about the Minister saying sorry and admitting that he is wrong?
    Mr. Miliband: There are important and serious issues around the country. Thanks to the Government's economic policies, Leicestershire has half the level of people on income support than the national average, and that is reflected in its funding position. It is also significant, however, that the variation in funding for different schools across Leicestershire is one of the highest in the country. There is fully 10 per cent. difference between the schools that have been helped the most and those that have been helped the least.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: The Minister will be aware from his visit to my constituency that standards in all the schools are continuing to rise very encouragingly under the policies of his Government. It would, however, be a pity to see certain schools falling back on account of the very marginal shortfall in Coventry, which got the full 7 per cent. The Minister will be aware that this does not involve a huge amount of money—about £1 million—and if there could be some sort of indicative arrangement as to what we might expect next year, the schools would be encouraged to carry on with their full complement this year.
    Mr. Miliband: My hon. Friend has spoken well about the achievements in Coventry schools. I know that the local education authority is working hard with the local schools to ensure that any problems are overcome, and making use of the flexibilities that were offered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week.

    Vocational Qualifications
    Paul Holmes: What progress has been made on increasing flexibility for vocational qualifications to meet local employer needs. [115001]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is now working closely with the Learning and Skills Council and the Sector Skills Development Agency to develop a high-quality system of vocational qualifications that will respond to the needs of both employers and learners.
    Paul Holmes: I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating further education colleges on the excellent work that they do in meeting employers' training needs. Is he aware, however, that they face two major difficulties in doing so? First, they can offer only

    1145
    the formal qualifications approved by the Government, which are often not what local employers want. Secondly, the provision of training of the type that is wanted at the time and place required to meet the needs of small and medium-sized enterprises is difficult within the funding regime administered by the Learning and Skills Council. Will the Minister assure the House that he will be meeting representatives of the FE colleges to try to overcome those obstacles and to allow the colleges the freedom and flexibility that they need in order fully to meet employers' needs?
    Mr. Lewis: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the centrality of further education in the context of employer training. We think that the new "success for all" investment and reform vision for further education will give colleges incentives to form much closer relationships with employers. We also believe that the skills strategy we will publish next month will be fundamentally concerned with creating an education and training system that is far more focused on employers' needs than has historically been the case. We want, for instance, to ensure that funds give incentives for the development of the right kind of relationships, and that the qualifications framework is flexible enough to make employers want to sign up for investment in vocational qualifications.
    I believe that the reform of further education and the skills strategy will deal directly with the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I am delighted to hear that the education and training programme is to be focused more on employers' needs. Was my hon. Friend—like me when I read about it at the weekend—a little distressed to learn that most resources for training in work tend to be taken by those who are already highly educated? Are the Government not right to focus on those in vocational education now, if we are to close the productivity gap on which the Chancellor is concentrating? Is not what my hon. Friend has just said absolutely right?
    Mr. Lewis: I am always delighted to hear colleagues describe what I have said as "absolutely right"—and relatively non-controversial.
    I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. One thing that the skills strategy will seek to do is to clarify, once and for all, what constitutes appropriate state investment in education and training. We must give priority to those seeking qualifications up to level 2 if we are to narrow that productivity and competitiveness gap, and we must ensure that we get the best possible value for money. That is not to say that higher-level qualifications do not matter, but when it comes to adult learning we must put resources into helping people to achieve level 2 qualifications.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: If more employers, or their nominees, volunteered to serve as governors in schools and colleges, could they not bring influence to bear and create greater flexibility in the sphere of
    1146
    vocational qualifications? Will the Minister pay tribute to employers who serve voluntarily in school and college managements, and encourage more to do so?
    Mr. Lewis: I do pay tribute to those individuals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear his wish to see a daily, dynamic relationship between employers and schools, colleges and universities. One way in which such a relationship can manifest itself is through employers serving on governing bodies. That would also make educational institutions focus more on the needs of the labour market than they have historically.
    Over the next couple of years, we shall be introducing enterprise education into the national curriculum for the first time, and we are building much closer local relationships between employers and schools, especially through the specialist schools programme. That is fundamental to improving educational opportunities for young people, but also to improving the competitiveness and productivity of our economy.

    Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: What plans he has to improve his Department's monitoring of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. [115004]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): Ministers and officials hold regular meetings with the QCA. It is currently focused on the smooth delivery of this year's tests and exams, but a new memorandum of understanding between the Department and the QCA will be published shortly.
    Mr. Stunell: Does the Minister recall that this time last year Werneth high school in my constituency was one of 500 schools that did not receive their English and maths key stage 3 exam papers until two days after the exams? Does he recall that it took four months for the QCA to admit to the schools that it had provided an unacceptable level of service? Is he satisfied that this year he has a tight enough grip on the QCA to avoid a repetition of the stress and the pressure on schools and children that that failure caused?
    Mr. Miliband: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has left us in terrible suspense about whether the exam papers have arrived for this year. Such confirmation would be rather more comforting proof than would fine words from me that the system is working better. I have had no reports that Werneth high school has been suffering problems this year.

    School Budgets (Cornwall and Scilly Isles)
    Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the 2003–04 budget settlement upon schools in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. [115006]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The increase in education formula spending share for Cornwall for 2003–04 is 6.4 per cent., and the increase for the Isles of

    1147
    Scilly is 6.6 per cent. I welcome Cornwall county council's decision to pass on more than 105 per cent. of the increase in schools funding to its schools budget, resulting in an increase in the local education authority's schools budget of 8.9 per cent.
    Andrew George: I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary for that response. When I debated this issue with the Minister for School Standards on 2 April, he accepted the fact that the LEA was passporting—indeed, more than passporting—funds to local schools. Where has all of the Department's promised money gone, and has it got its sums right? What comfort can the Under-Secretary offer to schools in my constituency and throughout Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which are having to make very difficult decisions about issuing redundancies to highly valued teachers?
    Mr. Twigg: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he is doing on this issue following the debate in April. We have made it very clear that this is a shared responsibility between central Government and local government, and the Department is working with the LEA. The additional flexibilities announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week should assist with that process. We want to continue to work with Cornwall to ensure that the money gets to where we all want it to be—in the schools.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Gary Streeter: What proposals he has to help students from modest backgrounds to gain access to higher education. [115007]
    The Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education (Margaret Hodge): Under our proposals, no student will need to pay up-front tuition fees. We will also reintroduce maintenance grants and require universities charging higher fees to offer bursaries. Unlike the Conservatives, we intend to increase opportunities for students from modest backgrounds to access higher education—not cut them.
    Mr. Streeter: Does the Minister accept that one consequence of the existing funding regime for higher education is that increasing numbers of students are staying at home and going to their local university, rather than going away—as many of us did in the 1970s—and enjoying, let us say, the wider benefits of higher education? Is that not regrettable, and does she not agree that her proposal to increase tuition fees will actually make the situation worse? Would it not be better to scrap them?
    Margaret Hodge: When the hon. Gentleman went to university, probably one in 10 young people did so; now, four in 10 do so. There are many and varied ways in which people participate in higher education: some at their local university, some in the workplace, some part-time, and others through e-learning. That should be welcomed. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman's
    1148
    party to abolish any contribution towards tuition fees would simply mean fewer students, less resources and less independence.
    Tony Cunningham: One of the obstacles to access to higher education for many people in my constituency is the distance that they have to travel—the nearest university is almost 100 miles away. Will the Minister therefore agree to study Sir Brian Fender's recent report, which points the way forward for greater access to higher education in Cumbria?
    Margaret Hodge: I am looking forward to reading Sir Brian's report on access to higher education in Cumbria, and to discussing the recommendations with hon. Members representing that area. I agree entirely that we have to ensure proper access for every talented young person, wherever they live.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister not understand that the proposal for a variable fee regime could he the final straw for many students from modest backgrounds? Their parents, if they struggle through the bizarre and byzantine forms of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, discover that they are eligible for various tax credits. But if they struggle through the equally byzantine forms of the Department for Education and Skills, they discover that their children are not eligible for a student loan. Will that not be the final straw for such people?
    Margaret Hodge: The final straw for students from low-income backgrounds, in terms of ensuring access to higher education, would be the Conservative party's policy, which would cut places and yet again centralise university admissions.

    School Playing Fields
    Mr. Andrew Love: What policy his Department has on the sale of school playing fields. [115008]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): We are committed to protecting school playing fields, which is why we introduced legislation in 1998 to stop uncontrolled sell-offs. I will shortly be placing in the Library a portfolio that sets out our policy, and which lists those applications that have been allowed and have resulted in the loss of land capable of forming a school sports pitch.
    Mr. Love: May I raise two concerns with my hon. Friend—about London local authorities selling school playing fields in other local authority areas; and about school extensions that are encroaching, a victim of success, on to school playing fields? Is my hon. Friend confident that the current guidance is strong enough to deal with all eventualities?
    Mr. Twigg: I am confident that guidance is strong enough, though we must keep it under review. We have said that we want to stop the previous Government's policy of forcing schools to sell off their playing fields. Approval is now given only when the remaining playing

    1149
    fields and sports facilities meet the needs of local schools and local communities. We have also introduced the requirement that, when a sale takes place, all its proceeds go to sports provision or education. I am sure that all will welcome that.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Industrial Accidents
    Dr. Vincent Cable: How many successful manslaughter charges have been brought in each of the last three years by the Crown Prosecution Service in cases of fatalities in industrial accidents. [115014]
    The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman): I am afraid that the figures that I can give the House are not 100 per cent. reliable. However, on the basis of national figures held by the Crown Prosecution Service, I understand that in the last three years, 39 defendants were charged with corporate manslaughter. Ten were found not guilty, 13 guilty, and 16 are yet to be completed.
    Dr. Cable: Can the Solicitor-General explain why, after 3,000 deaths at work over the last six years—a third of them due to negligence—and from the cases that she mentioned and others, only one executive or director has gone to prison for manslaughter? If it does not reflect a failure in the prosecution system, it reflects a failure in the legislation. Can she explain why the Government have this week introduced legislation on corporate killing that specifically excludes named individuals?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to concern about that matter. Two aspects need to be taken into account: the substantive law itself, and the implementation of the law. On implementation, it is important that all the prosecution agencies—the Crown Prosecution Service and the Health and Safety Executive—work closely with those who are investigating the problem, which includes the British Transport police as well as the police. Enforcing the law as it stands is vitally important. Whether the substantive law is right is another question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my Home Office colleagues are introducing legislation to ensure that those whose actions result in the death of employees at work are called to account.
    Caroline Flint: May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the case of Steven Parsons, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Parsons in Warmsworth in my constituency, who died aged 18 on 7 March 2000? He was working under a 16-tonne fairground lorry when it fell and crushed him. He was a trainee mechanic working under supervision, and the Government vehicle examiner, Peter Moses, stated that the method used to carry out the job was "unsafe and reckless practice". The case went to court under health
    1150
    and safety legislation, but the family feel that the issue of manslaughter should be taken much more seriously in such cases. This was a life that did not need to be put out.
    The Solicitor-General: I will write to my hon. Friend to explain why it was decided that insufficient evidence was available to mount a prosecution for corporate manslaughter. However, my hon. Friend has just brought this case to my attention and I would like to express my condolences to the Parsons family for the loss of their lovely son at such a young age. I also commend them because I understand that they are working to improve health and safety generally across the board. For our part, the Government will ensure that the substantive law is improved and that no stone is left unturned in the investigation and prosecution of cases.
    Mr. John Burnett: Does the Solicitor-General agree that there would be an increase in successful prosecutions for manslaughter and for other offences if there were a more rigorous case management regime for criminal trials? That is one of the recommendations made by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and it would involve the legal aid regime recognising the importance of the pre-trial phase. Incidentally, does the Solicitor-General believe that a new UN resolution could provide a defence to any unlawful actions that preceded it?
    The Solicitor-General: I detect that the hon. Gentleman has raised two issues. On the first, he is right. We must get the substantive law right, but the success or otherwise of a prosecution depends on issues such as how the cases are investigated, whether the right charges are laid, whether the police are given the right legal advice about what the charges should be, whether the evidence at the scene is properly preserved, how the case is managed and how promptly it is brought to court. As for his other point—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Solicitor-General need not answer the second question.

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Andrew Love: If she will make a statement on her Department's handling of cases of domestic violence. [115015]
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service, which the Attorney-General and I superintend, handles about 13,000 cases of domestic violence each year. Most are dealt with in the magistrates courts, but domestic violence also results in serious injury and death, and such cases are dealt with in the Crown court. The Government and the CPS are strongly committed to effective prosecution of domestic violence, so that women and children are protected and perpetrators are held to account for their crimes.
    Mr. Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I invite her to use her powers of appeal against lenient sentences, so that we can get across the message that such offences will not be tolerated.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend raises an important point about sentencing in cases of domestic violence. If women go through the ordeal of domestic violence, have to go to court to support a prosecution and the man is simply given a slap on the wrist, the impression is that the courts have not taken the matter seriously and other women will think, "What's the point?" The Attorney-General and I take the issue seriously and we have the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal if they are, in our view, unduly lenient. In domestic violence cases, we will send—and have sent—cases to the Court of Appeal, because the lower courts have not taken them seriously enough. On several occasions, the Court of Appeal has agreed with us and increased the sentence. I remind hon. Members that they can refer such cases to us if examples come to their attention in their constituencies.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I thank the Solicitor-General for the answers that she has given on this important matter. She is aware that I have dealt with many domestic violence injunction cases in county courts. Will she recognise that many people are concerned that the police are still too slow to respond to reports of domestic violence? Will she use her good offices to try to liaise with police forces, to ensure that reports of domestic violence receive a prompt response from the police? Will she also recognise that appeal against over-lenient sentences, which she has just mentioned, was one of the most important powers introduced by the previous Conservative Government?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, I acknowledge that the powers introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal were an important change in the law by the previous Government, and I give them full credit for that. The police have changed their attitude and are stepping up their act on domestic violence. Part of that is a general change in attitude and a recognition across society that attacking a woman in the home is every bit as bad as attacking a stranger in the street. The police response is
    1152
    improving and ACPO is monitoring that. It is important that the police have the right powers and information, and a good partnership with the CPS. We want men to realise that if they attack their wives and girlfriends, they are not ordinary, upstanding members of the community, but criminals—and as bad as any other sort of criminal. We must get the issue out from behind closed doors and make people recognise that domestic violence is a crime that will be investigated and prosecuted.

    Gun Crime
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What guidelines the Director of Public Prosecutions issues on the prosecution of gun crime. [115016]
    The Solicitor-General: When considering a case involving guns, the Crown Prosecution Service is governed by the code for Crown prosecutors. In addition, the DPP has issued guidance to prosecutors relating to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. She will be aware that people in Wales and the rest of the UK have been concerned for a long time about gun crime. Does she agree that the recent gun amnesty exercise was very successful, and a step in the right direction? Will she say what more can be done to build on that success?
    The Solicitor-General: I am well aware of the widespread concern in Wales and England about the increasing use of guns—by gangs, as part of their business in drugs and organised crime, and by individuals, who now carry guns much more regularly. I know that there is a problem in Wales, but there are also particular problems in London and Manchester. Again, it is a matter of the police and the CPS working together, and of having the right substantive law. In the case of gun crime, it is also a matter of supporting witnesses. It is often very difficult for victims or witnesses to feel that they can come forward, as they fear that they will be intimidated if they give evidence against a gang. We have been working with the Home Office and the police to make sure that people prepared to come forward to enforce the law against guns will be protected by the criminal justice system, in support of prosecutions.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Dr. John Reid): The business for the week after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 2 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
TUESDAY 3 JUNE—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Fire Services Bill.
WEDNESDAY 4 JUNE—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. Until 4 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Pensions Crisis", followed by a debate on the euro. Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
THURSDAY 5 JUNE—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Accessions) Bill.
FRIDAY 6 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 9 JUNE—Second Reading of the Courts Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 10 JUNE—Motion to approve a money resolution on the Sustainable Energy Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
WEDNESDAY 11 JUNE—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 12 JUNE—Debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 13 JUNE—Private Members Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for June will be as follows:
THURSDAY 5 JUNE—A debate on the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on the Human Rights Annual Report 2002.
THURSDAY 12 JUNE—Debate on reports from the Environmental Audit Committee, the Science and Technology Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee on energy issues.
THURSDAY 19 JUNE—A debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on affordable housing.
THURSDAY 26 JUNE—A debate on the report from the International Development Committee on the humanitarian crisis in Southern Africa.
Mr. Forth: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business.
It will not surprise you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I have brought with me an extract from the New Statesman that I think will interest the House. If I may, however, I should like in that context to do something
1154
that you know I am very reluctant to do—that is, quote myself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Well, it is usually good value.
On 15 May, at column 462 of Hansard, I said that the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) had
"contradicted each other completely on the vital matter of the advice that the Attorney-General had given the Government about the post-war Iraq settlement."
I went on to remind the House that the Foreign Secretary had said that
"all the actions that we have taken have been taken strictly in accordance with legal advice";
but pointed out that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood had said that she believed
"that the UK could and should have respected the Attorney-General's advice."—[Official Report, 15 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 462.]
My question—I hope the Leader of the House will either clarify this today or make provision in our business for it to be clarified as a matter of urgency—is about the fact that in the New Statesman we have what appears to be an authentic document; it is headed "Confidential", addressed to the Prime Minister and entitled "Iraq: Authorisation for an Interim Administration". It is allegedly from Lord Goldsmith QC, the Attorney-General, and is dated 26 March 2003.
I shall read two brief extracts from the document to show its importance. It states, and this is quoting the Attorney-General:
"my view is that a further Security Council resolution is needed to authorise imposing reform and restructuring of Iraq and its Government."
Later, it states that
"the longer the occupation of Iraq continues, and the more the tasks undertaken by an interim administration depart from the main objective, the more difficult it will be to justify the lawfulness of the occupation".
On the face of it, those are astonishing revelations. If they are true, they set completely at odds with one another what the Foreign Secretary told us and what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood—a former Secretary of State for International Development—told us. This is a serious matter. It goes to the heart of our constitution; it goes to the heart of the responsibilities of the House; and I challenge the Leader of the House to tell us whether that document is authentic. If it is not, presumably we can set the matter aside. If it is authentic, however, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, or will we now get the full advice given by the Attorney-General at each stage of the Iraq episode?
I should like the Leader of the House to provide some time for the Prime Minister to come to the House immediately after the recess to give some explanations and, indeed, apologies for the following matters. First, in PMPs on 14 May—[HON. MEMBERS: "PMPs?"] Yes, Prime Minister's porkies. The Prime Minister said:
"What is very clear, as the right hon. Gentleman has just admitted, is that he"—
my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
"wants people to say no to European enlargement".

1155
That was the Prime Minister's accusation. Well, how was it that, last night, on the Bill to give effect to the enlargement—the European Union (Accessions) Bill—every Member of Parliament, including all the Conservative Members, voted for enlargement of the European Union? Patently, the Prime Minister was pathetically wrong, so will he please come to the House and admit it, and tell us where he got that astonishing assertion, which, within 24 hours, was proved to be completely wrong?
It gets worse. The Prime Minister said that the Conservative party
"is now opposed not just to the single currency but to accession by the 10 new states",
which we have just demonstrated to be nonsense. He went on to say:
"There is no point in his saying that he"—
my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition—
"is in favour of accession but opposed to the European Convention, which is necessary to make the accession work."—[Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 306.]
That is another of the Prime Minister's favourite little ploys. But, Mr. Speaker, you will know, because you study these matters, that the Library of the House of Commons, on page 51 of research paper 03/48, states:
"While the Convention is looking at reforms to help make a larger Union function more efficiently and transparently, it has not been part of the enlargement process itself … The Convention and its outcome are not prerequisites for accession, the sole legal basis for which is the Accession Treaty."
The Prime Minister was wrong—plain wrong, factually wrong—and the House of Commons Library says so. Will the Prime Minister come and make another apology to the House for being completely wrong again?
It gets worse. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no!"] Oh yes. Because in PMPs yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
"The true agenda of the right hon. Gentleman"—
my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—
"and many other Conservative Members is to get this country out of the European Union."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1005.]
We know that the Prime Minister said that in his now notorious election address when he stood for election in 1983, so he may have been thinking of his own words, but my challenge to the Leader of the House is this: can he produce any Conservative manifesto, any Conservative policy document or any statement by a Conservative spokesman that bears out what the Prime Minister said? We need time in the House for that to be clarified, and I want the Leader of the House to do so as a matter of urgency because those sorts of distortions cannot be allowed to continue; they must be either apologised for or at the very least clarified, and the Government must provide the time for that to be done as a matter of urgency.
It has come to my attention that there is at least the possibility that two battalions of our wonderful military in Iraq may find that their home leave is about to be postponed so that they may assist in Baghdad. The Leader of the House may or may not be able to tell us whether or not that is true, but at the very least I want him to guarantee to the House that, in such an
1156
eventuality, the Secretary of State for Defence will make an urgent statement to the House because the matter is obviously of great importance to the military and, moreover, to their families. I hope that we will be kept fully informed, within the constraints of time and the coming recess.
There is another question that affects the Ministry of Defence: what is happening in the Congo? If there is a possibility of our military being involved in the Congo in any way at all, not least in connection with the European security and defence policy—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is not telling me how to run my affairs.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House understands that those are important matters, and I know that the Leader of the House will take them very seriously because I am asking him to ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will make a full statement to the House in the event of any military involvement by British forces in the Congo, particularly if it is under the auspices of the ESDP.
I have just two other matters to raise quickly. May we please have an urgent education debate in Government time so that Labour Members can demonstrate their wholehearted support for Labour's policy on student tuition fees? Such a debate would help the Government to show what enthusiasm there is among those on the Labour Benches for the Government's policy and how wholeheartedly they condemn our policy to get rid of student tuition fees. I am sure that that would be helpful to all.
Finally, will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to come to the House to clarify what he said on 19 May:
"I am convinced that this will encourage other Parliamentary Private Secretaries to believe that there is life after bag carrying. I sincerely hope so, as we approach the possibility of a forthcoming reshuffle."—[Official Report, 19 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 729.]
I have heard that there may be a Government reshuffle tomorrow. Can the Leader of the House confirm that? If not, can he tell us when it will be?
Dr. Reid: As ever, it was a great pleasure to listen to the right hon. Gentleman. It was almost worth travelling through the night just to hear him this morning.
May I congratulate him on the breadth of his literary intake, which now appears to include the New Statesman? The right hon. Gentleman refers to an alleged leak. On that serious subject, as he knows, we do not release in detail—nor did any previous Government—the Attorney-General's advice, but we have made it plain that the Attorney-General's advice throughout has been that the Government have been acting lawfully on all those matters.
It was always the case, incidentally, that we wanted a fresh United Nations resolution, and the House will be pleased to hear that we have a reasonable expectation that, in the very near future—perhaps in the next few hours—we might have such a resolution passed. I hope that the House will be pleasantly surprised by the degree of support that we get for such a resolution,

1157
notwithstanding all the predictions of gloom and doom that have been made and that normally accompany the allegations that have been repeated again today.
As regards Europe, I am sorry that I was not here last night to note the exception that proved the rule on Europe—the Conservatives attempting to prove, in a completely engineered Division, that they had moved forward some decades in their view of Europe—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) issues challenges continually on Europe, and he has issued another today demanding that we give some evidence of an Opposition spokesman expressing resolute pessimism about Europe and opposition to it.
Mr. Forth indicated assent.
Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman nods again. He wants me to stand here and say things such as:
"With hindsight the European Union is not acceptable since we joined … the whole thing was probably a mistake."
Those were the right hon. Gentleman's words in his address to the Anti-Common Market League on 21 January—[terruption.] Opposition Members have suddenly stopped nodding; they suddenly appear as stone, with the occasional laugh from the Benches behind. I shall repeat the words:
"With hindsight the European Union is not acceptable since we joined".
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, having issued the challenge, would claim that those words were a deviation from policy or that, as on many other occasions, he is thoroughly unrepresentative of those on the Benches behind him. I know, however, that he is representative of his whole party—to the Conservative party, the European Union is, in the words that he challenged me to find, "not acceptable" Having met that challenge, let us move on to the right hon. Gentleman's other challenges.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a serious matter relating to the movements of our military in Iraq. I can tell him and the House that there are no current plans to deploy UK troops to Baghdad other than the troops who are already there to protect the UK embassy. Of course routine contingency planning continues, as it does for all armed forces, but no decisions have been taken. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to assure him, which I will do, that, as is the normal custom, Defence Ministers will write to the leaders of the main Opposition parties and to the Chairman of the Defence Committee if arrangements are to be put in place regarding the deployment of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which he mentioned specifically.
On the question of the Congo, the House is aware that requests have been made. Consideration has been given to any movements, and I can say with confidence that the Defence Secretary—who, along with the Foreign Secretary, has been more attentive to the needs of the House in terms of bringing information to it over the past few months than perhaps any Defence Secretary in recent memory—would of course wish to keep the House fully informed on that.
On education, I am always looking for opportunities to let the House debate issues pertinent to education, including the massive additional expenditure of £800 per
1158
pupil in this country since we came to office, record primary school results, 25,000 more teachers and 80,000 more classroom assistants. The more opportunity we have to debate those issues the better.
On the right hon. Gentleman's other point, I hope that all members of the Cabinet are around to take part in such debates. I cannot confirm one way or the other whether or when there will be a reshuffle. Of course, we never know. I recall—I hope that it is not breaking any Cabinet secrets—that when Lord Robertson left the House to take up his post as Secretary-General of NATO, and was given the accolade that he deserved in Cabinet and asked to respond, he started with the words, "Prime Minister, this is the last meeting of the Cabinet which I shall attend," looked round the Cabinet and added, "And that is something that no one round this table will be able to say." Reshuffles tend to visit themselves on us with less news in advance than all of us would hope for. I am not, however, aware that a reshuffle is forthcoming, and I am sure that if it were the right hon. Gentleman would, out of courtesy, be among the first to know.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I welcome the Leader of the House back from Seville and hope that he is not nursing a hangover. Will he comment on the text of the letter that the Prime Minister sent to the manager of Celtic saying:
"I have asked John Reid who, as you may know, is a Celtic fan, to represent the Government at the game and to underline our support for your efforts"?
May I ask since when has it become necessary for a member of the Cabinet to be sent to a football match? Does that responsibility lie with the Leader of the House, or would it usually be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? On this occasion, will her consolation prize for not going to Seville be the opportunity to chair a sitting of the Modernisation Committee in the Leader of the House's absence?
I return to the question of the Attorney-General's role and responsibilities. The Leader of the House must recognise that outstanding questions remain, not least the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked the Solicitor-General a few minutes ago. For example, is it possible for a United Nations resolution to give an action retrospective legal sanction? We do not know; we have not heard an answer. The situation draws attention to the fact that, as the Attorney-General is a Member of the other place, there is no way in which elected representatives can hold him to account in this Chamber. Surely that raises an important constitutional issue. Would a way round that problem be for the Attorney-General to attend a sitting of the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department so that he could be questioned on matters of considerable importance such as those raised today?
That situation highlights the difficulties that hon. Members have encountered since the departure of the former Secretary of State for International Development. The new Secretary of State is not a Member of this House. Are the Government adopting a general practice of giving responsibility for major Departments of State to Members of the other place, who are unelected and thus unrepresentative of, and

1159
unaccountable to, the electorate? Surely that shows the importance of putting back into action the current stalled procedure on Lords reform.
When does the Leader of the House intend to resume the talks that were specifically requested and demanded by the motion that was put to the House on 29 October 2002? He will recall that the Modernisation Committee recommended that specific consultation should take place with Opposition parties on the legislative programme, with particular reference to carry-over, which must be a matter of discussion and consensus. He knows that we have only about 10 legislative weeks before the end of the Session, so when will he resume the consultation discussions?
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman's first point was about the UEFA cup final. I think that the Prime Minister was, to some extent—I am not letting any secrets out here—making a virtue of a necessity because I was going to go to the game anyway. I apologise for having a human streak but when you wait 33 years for your team to get to the final, you tend to want to go—despite the attractions of the Modernisation Committee. I congratulate Porto on its victory but I think that Celtic's performance did us proud.
I think I am right in saying that we established the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. It would be advisable for the Committee to issue an invitation to the Attorney-General and to find out what happens—it is not for me to comment on his responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman also asked about carry-over and other procedures, and I shall turn my mind to that soon after the Whitsun recess.
Miss Anne Begg: I am not sure whether this is the right time to remind the Leader of the House that the last time Aberdeen made it to a European final, it actually won. I congratulate Celtic on last night's performance.
Will the Leader of House put pressure on the Paymaster General to make a further statement after the Whitsun recess on the workings of the new child tax credit and working tax credit? She has already made a statement on that issue but problems are continuing. I received yet another e-mail from a constituent this morning outlining continuing problems getting through to the helpline.
Further things have come to our notice since the Paymaster General's last statement. Serious computer glitches are holding up the whole process so that even if MPs manage to get through to their helpline, it is not always possible to resolve problems because the computer system cannot cope terribly well. Local Inland Revenue offices are now making interim payments, which they were not geared up to do before, but it has transpired that those payments—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Leader of the House will manage an answer.
Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful comments on football matters. The Paymaster General
1160
has made it plain that we are throwing whatever resources we can at the problems arising from tax credits, and we obviously deeply regret any outstanding problems that remain. If the system is not working to the extent that it should, as my hon. Friend suggests, there will be an opportunity to discuss the matter immediately after the recess because there will be a Westminster Hall debate on tax credits on the Wednesday after our return. The debate will allow her and other hon. Members to point out any problems and suggest solutions.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I look forward to participating in that Westminster Hall debate. There is an important question about the publication of the Attorney-General's advice. Whatever precedents the Leader of the House prays in aid, the Attorney-General has set his own precedent by publishing legal advice on our engagement in the Iraqi conflict, which supports the claim for publication. Given that the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility is to guard the integrity of the House, is he aware that hon. Members' ability to trust the process is being affected—it is the trust that is under attack? The publication of the Attorney-General's advice would help to sort that out and give us a proper base on which to have knowledge and arguments.
Dr. Reid: Yes, and I think that trust in such matters depends on us being very accurate in what we say. The Attorney-General did not publish his legal advice prior to the military intervention in Iraq. He published a statement confirming that he supported the Government and that the Government's actions were in accordance with international law. He did exactly the same thing, incidentally, on the subject that is currently under discussion when he made it absolutely clear that we had always acted in accordance with international law. As the Prime Minister repeated this morning, the Attorney-General's advice throughout has been that we have acted lawfully. The distinction between what the Attorney-General did on both those occasions and the issue of legal advice itself has always been maintained by previous Governments, as well as this one.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an article in yesterday's Evening Standard that indicated the effective closure of the locomotive and train industry throughout the country? That could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs, including up to 500 jobs at a plant in my constituency that has been producing trains for more than 100 years. The closure would be a tragedy and a loss of major manufacturing capacity and a major strategic industry in this country. Given the huge implications of the losses, will he raise the matter with the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and for Transport?
Dr. Reid: I shall certainly do that for my hon. Friend, although I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will in any case have heard his remarks. Whenever a major industry is threatened in any of our constituencies, I understand that hon. Members such as my hon. Friend who are avid guardians of their constituencies' interests will try to find any opportunity to raise the issue. I hope that when

1161
such events have been unavoidable, the Government's actions to establish taskforces and to allow debate in the House have risen to meet the scale of the problems.
Mr. John Baron: The Leader of the House may be aware that, in the past 18 months or so, I have raised questions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency about the possible risks posed to human health by the activities of a landfill site at Pitsea tip in my constituency. Recently these concerns have been given added focus by the gas emissions and odours emanating from the site. They are causing many residents much distress.
Will the Leader of the House now urge the Minister for the Environment to reply to my letter dated 6 May and to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink)? The letter calls for independent assessments to be made regarding the possible risk to human health posed by the activities at the site and, in particular, by the gas emissions that are causing much distress. It has taken up to six months to respond to many letters that I have written in the past. That is simply not good enough.
Mr. Reid: I was not aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I apologise for that. I am sure that the appropriate Minister is aware of them, however. Although the hon. Gentleman said that it has, on some occasions, taken several months to reply to his letters, the letter that he referred to in this instance was received only two weeks ago. I know from the ministerial correspondence with which I have had to deal that the Minister may want to establish accurately and fully the facts of the case before he responds. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I will undertake to contact the relevant Minister.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: May I welcome my right hon. Friend back from his thrill in Seville? I commiserate with him on the result. I thought that the team played well, but the guy who scored the winning goal had been carried off three times and should not have been on the field when he scored.
Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate in the House—scertainly before the summer recess—on the Child Support Agency and its continued mismanagement and failure to support mothers with children who need support? In particular, I refer to the case of Linda Lynch who, for the past nine years, has been cheated and lied to both by her partner and by officers in the CSA, as have her Members of Parliament. She has two had Members of Parliament in the past few years, and she has been cheated of something like £50,000. There are many people in the country like Linda Lynch and it is time that the House revisited the issue of how the CSA is failing women and, in particular, children.
Dr. Reid: I cannot promise a debate here, but I know that my hon. Friend raises these serious matters on every possible occasion. Perhaps an Adjournment debate would be appropriate to debate the issue, not least because I agree with him in general about the distress caused in some of these cases and in this specific case. He referred to two MPs and, if my memory serves me
1162
correctly, I think that I may have been connected with this case. I probably was the first MP; the name rings a bell.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Yesterday, the Prime Minister said to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
"let me remind him that he is still a member of Conservatives Against a Federal Europe."—[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1005.]
Will the Leader of the House allow the Prime Minister an early opportunity to come to the House to correct yet another misleading statement by him about our party's policy on Europe? Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that it cannot be otherwise, since Conservatives Against a Federal Europe closed down two years ago?
Dr. Reid: It is sometimes impossible to keep up with every development in the plethora of anti-European groups in which Conservative Members involve themselves. For example, there is the fuss being caused over a Convention, which will not make any decisions—they will be made by an intergovernmental conference. Even if it did, it has not even reached the final proposals and, even at this early stage, the Conservatives cannot contain their opposition to the proposals that have been put forward and on which decisions will be made.
The hon. Gentleman referred to accuracy, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred earlier to the accuracy of the research paper that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned yesterday. However, what they omitted to mention is that the research paper also states:
"The Convention is enabling the accession states to have their say in the future structure and methods of the EU and to contribute their views to the reform process on a more or less equal basis to the existing Member States."
In other words, it is quite clear from the research paper that the Convention is integrally related to the extension of the EU to the new accession states. It says so in the paper.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on what is happening on the ground in Iraq? Yesterday, I met a group of Iraqi women who painted a horrifying picture of life in Iraq for women. They say that more than 300 cases of rape have been documented in the hospitals in Baghdad alone since the invasion, and they claim that the coalition is sidelining women, particularly women who want a secular state. In Basra, militant clerics are insisting that women trying to return to higher education have to be veiled. It would seem that there is a dangerous, lawless vacuum and that women are suffering greatly. It is time the House debated what is happening there now and what will happen in the future.
Dr. Reid: I certainly hope that the allegations to which my hon. Friend refers are not accurate. As far as the Government are concerned and, I am sure, the whole coalition, there is no intention, as she put it, to sideline the role of women. In fact, the opposite is true. One of the symbols of how far Iraqis will take an inclusive democratic approach to their own government will be the extent to which women play a role in that.

1163
Whatever deficiencies there are in Iraq, all of us recognise that the system as it is likely to develop is hardly likely to be worse than it was under Saddam. However, my hon. Friend is right to continue to raise these issues and I can tell her that there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on the Wednesday after we return on the role of the United Nations in the reconstruction and development of Iraq. Perhaps she can seek to raise her concerns on that occasion.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As the Press Gallery is celebrating its 200th anniversary, will the Leader of the House send the congratulations of the House to the inimitable Chris Moncrieff, the chairman of the Press Gallery? When we return, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on the reporting of Parliament?
Dr. Reid: I have no hesitation in complying with the hon. Gentleman's request and, especially, in congratulating the inimitable Mr. Moncrieff, the chairman of the Lobby, Jon Smith, and the other constituent elements of the Press Gallery on its 200th anniversary. In view of the result, I am only sorry that I could not attend its dinner last night—
Mr. Forth: No you're not.
Dr. Reid: I am indeed sorry that I could not attend, for reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
There are numerous ways in which the contribution of the press—in all its strengths and perhaps some of its weaknesses—to our democracy can be debated in the House. I shall certainly consider whether Westminster Hall or other mechanisms could be deployed to do that in this, the Press Gallery's 200th anniversary year.
Angela Eagle: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new duties? He keeps us bouncing up and down, because we sometimes do not know whether he has finished his replies. That keeps us all fit.
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1217?
[That this House welcomes the successful passage through the House of Lords of Lord Lester's Equality Bill, which seeks to modernise the structure of equality legislation in the UK by ensuring that it is streamlined, simplified, more inclusive and more effective; welcomes the surprisingly large measure of agreement which accompanied the progress of the Bill both cross-party and amongst anti-discrimination advocates and business; recognises the progress made by the Government in this area, including the publication of the consultation on the future structure of equality institutions in the UK; and calls upon the Government to bring forward a draft Single Equality Bill with the intention of legislating on it in the current Parliament.]
The motion calls for a single equality Act that will modernise, simplify and update the anti-discrimination laws in this country, including the strands of religious belief or the lack of it, sexual orientation and age that receive no protection against discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Will it be possible to
1164
have a debate in Government time on what is now a long overdue modernisation of the protections against discrimination?
Dr. Reid: The Government understand the objectives behind the Bill and share Lord Lester's desire to advance towards a more equal society and more successful Britain. Equality is a priority for the Government, as demonstrated by the legislation that we have passed or have planned and by our policies to promote equality. However, we do not believe that a complete legislative overhaul is the right approach. It is more productive to pursue incremental improvement and to work for culture change.
I hope that I have contributed to the health of the House by keeping Members jumping up and down.
Pete Wishart: I think that we are all grateful for the exercise, Mr. Speaker.
I am quite surprised to see the Leader of the House in the Chamber after the exertions of last night. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating Celtic on a fantastic display last night, and the Celtic football fans. About 70,000 of them descended on Seville, and in the best tradition of Scottish football fans there was not one arrest.
May I turn the right hon. Gentleman's attention to a less than successful team—the one that currently runs the Scotland Office? May we have an early debate on that issue? We have found after four years of devolution that the running costs of the Scotland Office have increased by about 50 per cent. Similarly, there will be a number of new staff. I do not know what they will do. Presumably they will be in place to entertain a bored Secretary of State who is doing a non-job.
Mr. Reid: First, I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the fans. I hope that the situation continues throughout today and tomorrow as well. There were an astonishing number of fans in Seville without tickets. Their behaviour has been a credit to Scotland and to us all.
I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman on the Scotland Office. He says that running costs have increased by 50 per cent., but that is from a base that is about 1 per cent. of what it was previously. It is a tiny budget, considering the efforts that are made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ensure that across a range of issues Scotland does not lose out in terms of industrial policy, telecommunications and North sea oil, for example. There is a range of policies that create jobs in Scotland and maintain the standard of living there. Instead of constantly talking down those who are defending Scotland's interests, the hon. Gentleman would do better to praise the efforts that they make.
Ms Dari Taylor: Will the Leader of the House find Government time to have a debate on the steel industry? Over the past three years we have had one reorganisation after another. Each reorganisation has undermined the competence of the industry. Each time, thousands of employees have lost their jobs. After the most recent reorganisation, I learned from the Financial Times—not from Corus—that Corus is considering

1165
selling off the Teesside site. That will create an enormous problem for my region, involving 3,000 jobs directly and 12,000 indirectly. This is an extremely serious issue for us in Britain. I ask that we have a debate on the industry in Government time.
Dr. Reid: I know the role that my hon. Friend has played as a defender and promoter of the interests of her constituents and of others who are involved in steel production. I have tremendous respect for the role that she has played, not least because I came from a constituency that at one stage was dominated by steel, and which has lost tens of thousands of jobs. I know the hardship that that can bring.
The industry remains a significant employer and contributes to the economy. It underpins many other parts of manufacturing. I am sure that my hon. Friend, through Adjournment debates and by other means, will continually bring the issue to the forefront of our minds in her fight for her constituents and for others who are employed in the steel industry.
Peter Bottomley: The Minister will have seen The Guardian this morning, with its remarkable report on drugs and the "success" of initiatives in trying to reduce the number of victims of criminals and to reduce the number of criminals who are victims of drugs. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to arrange for an early statement on the Government's response to what is revealed in the report, and for a debate shortly afterwards, so that we can find ways of implementing the intentions, of which there have been a stream, and the money and initiatives, of which there have also been a stream, so that we can introduce effective action and make a real difference?
Dr. Reid: There are issues that unite everyone on both sides of the House. The battle against drugs and the poison that is often poured into the veins of young people in this country is not the exclusive concern of any party in this place. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that constant vigilance is needed. Today, in cross-cutting questions in Westminster Hall, the subject of drugs is on the agenda. The hon. Gentleman may have an early opportunity of raising the issue.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1223?
[That this House condemns the decision of the Medical Research Council to close the National Institute for Medical Research at Mill Hill to downsize and to re-site it in Cambridge in the absence of consultation with the employees.]
This world-class research facility employs about 700 people in my constituency, and is under immediate threat of closure by the Medical Research Council after inadequate consultation with the staff and the local community. The decision has been condemned not only by local people but by the scientific community at large. Will my right hon. Friend raise this issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which Department is responsible for the MRC, and find time for an early discussion in the House on an important research facility, which it seems we shall lose for the nation?
Dr. Reid: I am aware of the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend refers. No formal decision has been
1166
taken on the future of the National Institute for Medical Research. The Medical Research Council is developing a long-term strategy for its major capital investments over the next 10 to 15 years, including the NIMR. The results of the recent consultation exercise on this issue will be considered at a council meeting in July. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: The appointment of a Member of the other place as Secretary of State for International Development is seen by many people as reducing the importance of international development, and could be interpreted as an attempt to take the spotlight off the reconstruction process in Iraq. It is being said also that it may be a first step to taking international development back into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Lest this matter should become a scar on the conscience of the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House please arrange for his right hon. Friend to make a statement on the issue?
Dr. Reid: The debates in the House, including one today, and debates at the United Nations, where a resolution was proposed by, among others, this Government and this country, are testimony to the attention that we have paid to the issue.
The budget of the Department for International Development has doubled and the number of Ministers in the Department has increased. I believe that we have gained a Secretary of State of inestimable abilities to deal with the reconstruction of Iraq. That means that there is no need for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or for anyone in Government to have any pricks on their conscience about the matter.
Mr. Derek Foster: Although a late convert to the fortunes of Celtic, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will recognise that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Government's policy of full employment in every region. He will know that 340 jobs have just been lost in the textile industry in my constituency. That brings the total of jobs lost to 1,600 in the past 12 months. Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on manufacturing, with special reference to the north-east and County Durham?
Dr. Reid: Manufacturing has been going through a difficult period for some time. The Government have tried wherever possible to support it. Every job loss is a tragedy. However, it is fair to put that in context and to remember that since the Government came to power about 1.5 million more people are in work than there were before. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and others, such as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who takes a great interest in the regional dimension of our policies, will have heard what my right hon. Friend has said.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Defence on precisely what assistance he is willing to offer to Independent Television News in its sad quest to determine the fate of Fred Nearac and Hussein Osman, who were with Terry Lloyd when he was killed 60 days

1167
ago? On 9 May, the Secretary of State told ITN that until there was evidence of a war crime it would not be possible to have a formal investigation, and that is fully understood. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet issued an instruction to the military police in Iraq to assist ITN with its searches. Will the right hon. Gentleman please bring this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence? We owe a great deal to these brave men, and their families are extremely distressed.
Dr. Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on the interest that he takes in the matter and in military affairs generally. I will certainly bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Paul Flynn: In spite of the valiant efforts of the work force over the past six years to build a successful company, the sad news was announced this morning of the loss of 1,000 jobs at LG Philips in my constituency. That is a result of market conditions. Some of the job losses are due to fair competition and some to unfair competition. More than 1,000 jobs have recently been lost in Newport in the steel industry. Is it not time that we had a major debate on the fate of manufacturing industry and its accelerating decline? It has been the backbone of the British economy, and job losses, as in this case, are terrible tragedies to the 1,000 families involved. There is also a loss of skills and a loss of manufacturing capacity, which are irreplaceable.
Dr. Reid: Of course, the fact that throughout the past few years this country has, both in historical terms and by comparison with any of our competitors, fared far better during the recession is no consolation to anyone who has lost their job, as my hon. Friend described. Wherever there are major job losses, the Government constantly try through taskforces and other means to make sure that, as quickly as possible, skills and jobs are brought back to areas such as his constituency. It is never an easy task, but I am sure that on this occasion, as on previous occasions, the Government will do everything we possibly can.
Rev. Martin Smyth: As the Leader of the House knows, the war in Iraq is over and some troops have already been withdrawn. Is he aware that the Royal Army Medical Corps reserves—consultants who are required in their own institutions, where waiting lists are growing—are still being detained in Iraq, while regulars have been brought home? Is it not possible for the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health to co-ordinate movement better, for the well-being of all?
Dr. Reid: I do not know the specific details to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I know that there are enormous pressures on the medical services in particular in the military, which may mean that it has proven difficult to be as flexible about returning home as in the case of other soldiers or members of the armed forces. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard what the hon. Gentleman
1168
said. On behalf of the whole House, I pay tribute once again to our armed forces. The fact that they have faced a long delay, as the hon. Gentleman points out, is another indication of the deprivations and sacrifices that the men and women who serve this country so well undertake so willingly. We are all in their debt for that.
David Winnick: With regard to Iraq, would it not help to clear the air to have a debate as soon as possible after the recess, dealing with all aspects of the reconstruction and the role of the occupying powers and the United Nations? Hopefully, the Security Council will pass the resolutions today. In any such debate, should not reference be made to the thousands of corpses that have been discovered—people who were executed by Saddam? Perhaps the critics will tell us whether they now believe that, as so many of us believe, it was justified for the country to be liberated. Incidentally, I believe that senior Ministers should be in the House, and I hope that that point will be taken up by the Prime Minister.
Dr. Reid: I hope that the whole House will agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the nature of Saddam's regime and the evidence that is forthcoming. It never ceases to amaze me that some of those who concentrate on the important and legitimate question—I do not deny its legitimacy—of the weapons of mass destruction seem completely blind to the fact that thousands of bodies are being unearthed every week by the other side. A balanced approach, as my hon. Friend mentioned, would benefit all of us. He asks for a debate. I know that there is a continual demand for debates on the issue. I do not think that any previous Government have offered so many opportunities for debates and statements on such subjects as the present Government. Just after the Whitsun recess, there is another opportunity for a debate in Westminster Hall on the reconstruction of Iraq.
Bob Spink: In the light of the recent opinion poll that showed that 84 per cent. of people in this country want a referendum on the European constitution, should we not have a debate so that we can explain why the Opposition support a referendum on a constitution and are prepared to listen to the people, whereas the Government are not?
Dr. Reid: As I said earlier, people must recognise that what is being compiled under the Convention is a series of proposals. No decisions will be made by the Convention. They will be made by an intergovernmental conference. If the hon. Gentleman wants to explain anything to people, surely he should explain why the leadership of the Conservative party happily went through the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act without a referendum, and why the Conservative party is suddenly a convert to a referendum when no decisions have even been made by the Convention. The answer is simple: it is another piece of sheer opportunist anti-Europeanism by the Opposition.
Linda Perham: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding a debate on the cost of home care services? In my Tory-controlled borough of Redbridge, the self-declared party of the poor and

1169
vulnerable is proposing to double the maximum charge for home care from £100 to £200 a week, which has caused great distress to a number of my constituents, including 87-year-old disabled widow, Mrs. Lena Odgers.
Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend refers with a degree of irony, I think, to the Conservative party when she calls it the party of the poor. That will come as a huge piece of news to everyone in Britain, not least the poor, especially after the very limited experiment in compassionate Conservatism which, after several hundred years, the party decided to try, but which it abandoned after 13 months as incompatible with everything else that it stood for.
The Department of Health's guidance, "Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other nonresidential Social Services", seeks to ensure that service users should not have their incomes reduced below basic levels of income support, plus a 25 per cent. buffer, as a result of charges. The guidance provides clear objectives for councils that do charge, to ensure more consistency and fairer charging systems that support social inclusion and the promotion of independence. Sometimes even all those buffers are not strong enough to withstand the assaults of Conservative councils on the poor.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the Leader of the House arrange a statement from the Government on their plans for the millions of people who wish to continue to draw cash from the post office as their benefit and pension books are withdrawn, particularly in view of the revelation this week that hundreds of thousands of disabled people will not be able to use the proposed PIN machines? Such people are already disadvantaged by the fact that many of them cannot access bank cash machines, which are too tall.
Dr. Reid: I know that Ministers have spent a huge amount of time trying to make sure that, as the system is modernised, it provides a range of options so that people can get the benefits of a modern method of withdrawing their benefits, while minimising the disadvantages, including making themselves the target for attacks, in the case of the old, the elderly and the infirm. As ever, I am sure that Ministers will listen to the hon. Gentleman's point, as it is our intention to ensure that the new system is an advance in what people are offered, not a retrograde step.
Julie Morgan: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 947 which has been signed by a large number of hon. Members from all parties.
[That this House notes that after 33 years since the Equal Pay Act was introduced, the pay gap between men and women for full-time work remains considerable at 19 per cent.; further notes that the pay gap for part-time work is even larger at 41 per cent, and that this has remained unchanged for the last 25 years; acknowledges that in retirement, women suffer the consequences of a lifetime of pay inequality as the pay gap grows to become an income gap of 44 per cent.; commends recent research commissioned by the Equal Opportunities Commission that shows only 18 per cent, of large employers and 10 per cent, of medium-sized employers have actually carried out
1170
a pay review or are in the process of doing so; acknowledges that without conducting a pay review employers may be unaware that pay inequality exists in their organisation; welcomes the steps the Government has already taken to address the pay gap; but urges the Government to go further and give the strongest possible lead to employers.]
Will he arrange a debate on the subject? Despite the Government's best efforts, we are not making much progress in narrowing the pay gap, and only a small percentage of employers have carried out pay reviews to try to identify where the pay gap is.
Dr. Reid: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that our commitment is beyond question. As a Government, we are leading by example on these matters through commitment to equal pay reviews in Departments and Government agencies, which are on track to be completed in the course of the first half of this year. We are also encouraging employers to pay fairly through the equal pay questionnaire, which was introduced on 6 April, by providing additional funding of more than £150,000 on top of the £145,000 already provided to trade unions for the training of representatives on equal pay issues in the workplace and by funding the pay review toolkits. We are using a range of measures to tackle the problem, but it is a difficult one and I do not pretend for a moment that we have either solved it or gone as far as we would like. Any opportunities for debate, whether in an Adjournment debate, in Westminster Hall or during the debates devoted to the subject of equality of opportunity that occasionally arise in the House, will be occasions on which this worthy topic should be raised.
Mr. Peter Luff: May we have a debate on the nature, meaning and understanding of time in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will understand the empathy that I felt with Hamlet in his lament,
"The time is out of joint; O cursed spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!",
when I received from that Department this parliamentary answer, dated 1 May:
"The Department will be writing to all livestock fanners in England about the new rules on disposal of fallen stock before Easter."—[Official Report, 1 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 457W.]
I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that Easter fell shortly before 1 May. It took a further question from me, which was answered this week, to drag Ministers back to the same space-time continuum as the rest of us. I was informed that, on 17 April, the Department had indeed written to all livestock farmers regarding the new rules. Even if I cannot have a debate on the more erudite subject that I have suggested, I wonder whether I could have one on that very important subject, as the new rules and regulations are still causing serious distress and anxiety to livestock farmers throughout the country.
Dr. Reid: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having made the most literary contribution to today's business questions. As a matter of fact, Easter occurs every year. I assume that the Department was referring

1171
to Easter this year, in which case it will no doubt have noted his reprimand. On the general philosophical subject of time, we should all read Stephen Hawking's book, "A Brief History of Time", which I recommend even if for no other reason than that it brought to my attention the fact that there are 100 billion suns in the galaxy and 100 billion solar systems in the observable universe, so none of us should take ourselves that seriously.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read early-day motion 1282, which calls for the abolition of the House of Lords Appointments Commission?
[That this House notes that the House of Lords Appointments Commission has, since its creation, recommended one batch of People's Peers in April 2001 and nothing since; further notes from its web site that it is still actively soliciting applications from putative peers; is deeply concerned that the Commission's running costs are estimated at £120,000 for the past year during which time it has met twice; and believes that the Commission no longer serves a useful purpose, if it ever did, and should be wound up forthwith.]
How can we possibly justify keeping this body in existence when it has appointed only one batch of people's peers, more than two years ago in April 2001? It costs an arm and a leg£120,000 a year—but rarely meets.
On a connected matter, may I ask what is happening to the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform? My right hon. Friend's predecessor was instrumental in selecting hon. Members to serve on the Committee, which is clearly deadlocked. It is split three ways, and I should like to know what plans the Leader of the House has to take House of Lords reform forward.
Dr. Reid: On the last subject, I am tempted to say that I have a cunning plan. I am afraid that I cannot tell the House that I have one at this stage, but I am reflecting on the report that the Joint Committee recently issued. My hon. Friend also asked about the abolition of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. I have seen the early-day motion to which he referred. I cannot extend my sympathy and support towards it, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make a statement in the not-too-distant future about appointments to the commission and related matters.
Mr. Win Griffiths: May I commiserate with my right hon. Friend about last night's result, having been a Celtic supporter ever since I could turn on the wireless on a Saturday night and listen to "Sports Report"? It is a tragedy that we lost last night. He probably has not had time to consider the fact that the first test match with Zimbabwe began at Lord's today. I and my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for City of York (Hugh Bayley), as well as the Opposition spokesperson on international development, stood outside the ground handing out black armbands to signify the death of democracy in Zimbabwe. Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate before the second test match begins in about a fortnight
1172
to enable all the Zimbabwean cricketers and exiles, who were out in force today at the ground, to see how the Government are developing their thinking to bring an end to the Mugabe dictatorship and to tyranny, beatings and torture, and to let democracy and the people of Zimbabwe have their say again?
Dr. Reid: The Government's policy on Zimbabwe has not changed. For the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned, we will do our utmost to maintain international pressure through sanctions while using dialogue between ZANU-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change aimed at restoring Zimbabwe to democracy, prosperity and stability. He will know that we have already introduced targeted measures against the regime, which were rolled over unanimously by the European Union in February. We are handling the matter proactively in a range of international spheres. We will certainly continue to do that and I hope that he will find opportunities in the House to raise some of the terrible things that have been happening in Zimbabwe.
I suppose that 1 should conclude by responding to my hon. Friend's making yet another reference to Celtic by pointing out in the even-handed way in which we proceed in this House that it is worth noting that Glasgow Rangers are top of the Scottish league at present. Let none of us be accused of taking a biased view on these matters.
Mark Tami: Earlier this week, Corus at Shotton on Deeside announced the loss of a further 95 jobs at a plant that, at its height, employed more than 14,500 people. It will now employ just over 600 people. Further to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), will he allow time for an early debate on the future of the steel industry, which has been so badly mismanaged in recent years?
Dr. Reid: I accept the importance of the point that my hon. Friend makes. After hearing the points that have been made, it occurs to me that the manufacturing industry might be a very useful and relevant topic for cross-cutting questions at some stage in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: The experience of the past couple of weeks has clearly demonstrated that it is impossible for this House to transact its business successfully and keep to the hours imposed by the modernisation agenda. I have been told that a cross-party consensus is emerging that an acceptable compromise would be to retain the new Wednesday and Thursday hours, but restore the former Tuesday hours. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing an early opportunity to test that consensus?
On a lighter note, if my right hon. Friend is in a generous mood, will he also think about the opportunities afforded to Back Benchers to participate in business questions and see if there is any way of ensuring that we do not have to compete with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whose act is so honed, colourful and entertaining that it now deserves a special slot of its own?
Dr. Reid: On the second point, it is worth commending the contribution that the right hon.

1173
Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) makes, although I note that, not least due to the custodianship of the Chair by Mr. Speaker and yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, everyone who wanted to ask a question today has managed to get in. On the other matter that my hon. Friend raised, we will certainly pay a great deal of attention to that.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend turn his attention to a problem that affects many hon. Members? The Parliamentary Communications Directorate appears to have been allowed to establish a virtual monopoly in providing IT equipment to Members, and has now taken steps to withdraw a proper service from Members whose equipment it deems non-standard. The changes to the PCD network have resulted in any non-standard equipment being denied access to the network. Of course, what PCD means by non-standard is that it is not supplied by PCD. As my right hon. Friend knows, because I copied for him a letter that I sent to the Speaker's Office this morning, I wrote to PCD on 15 May asking why equipment supplied from elsewhere could not have access to the network. I assumed that the problem was the specification of the equipment. I received a response from Mr. Peter Beasley as follows:
"This is not about the specification of the machine. It is about the difference between a centrally supplied machine and a machine purchased from an external source."
I believe that that is an abuse and represents a huge cost to the public purse, as Members who have non-PCD-supplied equipment have been forced to upgrade it at hugely inflated cost, and pay for that from their incidental expenses allowance. I believe that that should be raised with the House administration.
Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention. I accept what he is saying and know that he has brought the issue to Mr. Speaker's attention. Responsibility for the issue rests with the Information Committee and the information strategy board. If there were a change of policy, it would be considered in the normal way by the House of Commons Commission. However, I note that my hon. Friend is pursuing his own case with vigour, and I am sure that he has a great deal of understanding from other hon. Members.

Clergy Discipline Measure
1.41 pm
Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners (Mr. Stuart Bell): I beg to move,
That the Clergy Discipline Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
It is a great pleasure to stand at the Dispatch Box with you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As right hon. and hon. Members who have served on the Ecclesiastical Committee will know, the Clergy Discipline Measure represents a major revision of the disciplinary procedures for Church of England clergy. As those who follow our proceedings intimately will know, it is the result of a long, careful consideration by the General Synod. Indeed, it comes to the House with the strong support of the General Synod of the Church of England, has been found expedient by the Ecclesiastical Committee and has been approved in another place. I therefore commend it to the House.
By way of background, current arrangements for clergy discipline are included in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963, but its procedures—modelled in some ways on those of the criminal courts—have been found to be inflexible, expensive and slow. As a result, the 1963 Measure is rarely used, which has serious consequences for a number of areas. A significant number of complaints have been left unresolved, and discipline has tended to be exercised "informally" and on a voluntary basis. Consequently, resignation has been a frequent but not always appropriate outcome. The situation is unsatisfactory, not least for the clergy themselves. If they are to be respected and trusted, a manifestly credible, fair and transparent system for administering discipline is essential in those rare cases where they fall short of the standards expected of them.
Accordingly, in 1994, the General Synod established a working party to review clergy discipline and the working of the ecclesiastical courts. There followed an extensive consultation and examination of good practice in other Anglican provinces, Christian Churches and professions in the United Kingdom. Legislative proposals were then developed and submitted to a long, careful process of revision in the Synod. The Measure resulting from that lengthy process commanded 100 per cent. support among those voting in the House of Bishops when it was finally approved in November 2000; 99 per cent. in the House of Laity; and 90 per cent. in the House of Clergy. Only 23 per cent. voted against final approval, with 200 members voting for it.
In drawing up the Measure, the Church has sought to construct procedures that are fair to all parties; can be applied to all types of clergy, whatever their rank, experience or circumstances; are easily understood and flexible; and encourage as speedy a resolution as is consistent with the needs of justice. The Church firmly believes that the procedures in the Measure will meet all these requirements and enable genuine complaints to be dealt with effectively while excluding trivial, malicious or vexatious ones.

1175
By way of detail, disciplinary procedure under the Measure relates only to cases of misconduct and not to matters of worship or doctrine, and will be activated by a written complaint to the bishop. The exclusion of matters of worship or doctrine is considered significant by many hon. Members, as I can testify from the number of questions that I am asked at Church Commissioners questions. It is therefore worth repeating that matters of worship and doctrine are excluded from the Measure.
Once received, the complaint will have to be examined by the diocesan registrar, who is a practising lawyer. The registrar will decide whether the complainant has a right to complain under the Measure; whether a disciplinary matter is involved; and whether the evidence supplied supports the complaint. On the basis of the registrar's assessment, the bishop will decide whether the complaint should be dismissed. If he decides not to dismiss it, a number of courses are open to him, including taking no further action, leaving the complaint on the record, seeking to promote conciliation or imposing a penalty with the cleric's consent. The remaining option is to refer the complaint for investigation, with a view to it being brought before a bishop's disciplinary tribunal if the president of tribunals—again, a lawyer—agrees that there is a case to answer.
I think that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Measure bends over backwards to be as fair as is humanly possible to a cleric who is the subject of a complaint, and I will allude to that later when I touch upon article 6 of the European convention on human rights. There may be a referral to a bishop's disciplinary tribunal, but it should seldom be necessary to go so far. In the rare cases in which a complaint proceeds to a tribunal, the case will be heard by a tribunal of five members—two clergy, two lay people and a legally qualified chairman, all from provincial panels. Their decision will be by a majority, using the civil standard of proof. Appeals will continue to be dealt with in provincial courts of appeal.
As for penalties, the Measure will give more flexibility than the 1963 Measure. The most severe penalty, for use in the most serious cases, is prohibition for life, which involves a permanent ban on exercising any clerical function. Other penalties include prohibition for a limited period; removal from office; revocation of a licence, requiring the cleric to refrain from offending behaviour; and, lastly, a formal warning. The Measure also provides for the bishop to be able to impose some of those penalties after certain proceedings in the criminal or divorce courts, whose findings are treated as conclusive by the Church, and it gives him a new power of suspension. A similar process is made available for complaints about bishops and archbishops.
The Measure provides for the establishment of a new commission, the clergy discipline commission, to give general advice on the working of the Measure, to issue codes of practice and guidelines, and to maintain an archbishops' list—a confidential record of penalties imposed under the Measure and other matters.
1176
In drawing up these new procedures, the Church recognises that disciplinary proceedings can have very serious implications for clergy, even where the complaint is relatively minor. The Church has therefore been concerned to ensure that the rights of clergy are properly protected. To that end, the draft Measure was subject to detailed scrutiny by leading counsel specialising in human rights law. Counsel was satisfied that the requirements of article 6 of the European convention on human rights, conferring the right to a fair trial, were met by virtue of the rights of appeal to the provincial courts, but he identified ways in which the Measure, as originally drafted, might not have been fully consistent with human rights requirements. A number of changes were made as a result, and the Church is satisfied—or as satisfied as we reasonably can be—that the Measure complies fully with the Human Rights Act 1998.
In that regard, the proper protection of the human rights of clergy was a matter that the Ecclesiastical Committee was entitled to, and did, consider very carefully. Accordingly, one of the principal issues that it addressed was that of the standard of proof where a complaint is heard by a tribunal. Church representatives explained to the Committee that the choice of the civil standard, as opposed to the criminal standard, which applies under the 1963 Measure, was arrived at after thorough consideration and much debate in the revision committee for the Measure and in the Synod as a whole.
The civil standard is increasingly used in the disciplinary procedures of other professional bodies. In the Church's view, it strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of the wider Church and the public in not allowing misconduct by clergy to go unchallenged and the right of clergy to a fair hearing and a safe decision. The level of proof required will vary according to the seriousness of the allegation and the implications for the cleric. Thus, in the most serious cases the standard of proof required will be indistinguishable from the criminal standard—beyond reasonable doubt, rather than on the balance of probabilities. The Ecclesiastical Committee accepted that understanding of the position, and accordingly was content to accept that the adoption of the civil standard of proof was appropriate.
The Ecclesiastical Committee addressed other matters in its examination of Church representatives and its report, but, in its judgment, none of them was such as to render the Measure inexpedient. We are grateful to members of the Committee—right hon. and Members and noble Lords alike—for making recommendations for consideration by the Church. We shall give those recommendations careful consideration in implementing the Measure once it passes into law, with the grace and leave of this House and Royal Assent. The Committee's decision, by a substantial majority, to find the Measure expedient, and the decision of the other place yesterday, reinforces my confidence that the Synod's proposals embodied in the Measure will commend themselves to the House.
In conclusion, the Measure is the fruit of the Synod's long and careful consideration of the needs of all those who are interested in this important matter—not only clergy, their bishops and the lay people of the Church, but the wider public. The Church believes that it strikes a fair balance between their different interests and, in

1177
doing so, will give the Church a fair, credible and open system for dealing with disciplinary measures. I therefore commend the Measure to the House.
1.54 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful for an opportunity to make a short contribution to the debate. I should first apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who is unable to be here as he is under doctors' orders. I am sure that he would entirely endorse my point, which is that we are extremely grateful, not only for the clarity of the exposition by the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), but for the amazingly thorough work of the Ecclesiastical Committee; not being a member of the Committee, I can express my gratitude to it for that.
I do not have a pecuniary interest in the matter, of course, but I have a personal interest in that my brother is a parish priest in the Church of England. I take a close interest in the way in which the Anglican Church operates at all levels, and I have in the past observed, at a distance, misconduct proceedings.
The Measure is extremely timely, perhaps even overdue. Those of us who are practising members of the Church of England understand that this has long been an area of concern to many Church people, and perhaps to some outside it. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Measure establishes beyond peradventure that the civil standard of proof must be the basis of judgments made in future misconduct proceedings.
I have had the benefit of reading the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee, including the very thorough interrogation of representatives from the Synod. I also commend the work of the Synod, which is comprehensive, imaginative and sensitive. Indeed, if Members of Parliament had equally sensitive and humane guidance on the way in which we operate, perhaps we would be rather better at ensuring that we all work positively and constructively to the same agenda.
When reading the documents, one occasionally wonders what is being got at. My heart rose when I saw that the report contained a section on fashion. Those of us who are practising members of the Church of England are often confused when we go to a church that we do not know as well as our own and witness very different fashions in clerical garb. When I came to read the detail, however, I found that it was nothing to do with that at all. That is unfortunate, because some guidance on fashion for incumbents would not go amiss. One sometimes gets the feeling that anything goes these days, and happy-clappy priests—perhaps they would not want to be called that—can look somewhat absurd.
Mr. Robert Key: What is wrong with happy-clappy priests?
Mr. Tyler: There is nothing wrong with them, but I am sometimes disconcerted by their choice of garb. The hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished member of a very distinguished ecclesiastical family, and when he speaks he may wish to give some description of the different garb that can be used in church and the confusion that it can cause.
Peter Bottomley: It might assist the hon. Gentleman's argument if I say that the relevant passage is on page 44, and is entitled:
"Fashion your life and the life of your household according to the way of Christ".
Mr. Tyler: That phrase has an important origin. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was simply making the point that it is important to read the report in its proper context.
At several points, the papers contain a considerable degree of distilled wisdom. They are a good read, extraordinarily, if rather long for those of us who have other preoccupations. I like, for example, the definition of good discipline as
"not to hurt but to help".
I wonder whether that might be a good motto to put above the door of our own Standards and Privileges Committee.
We are indebted to all those who have been involved in the process, but that should not disguise the fact that this is not really a proper matter for Parliament any longer. Although I pay due attention to and respect the work of hon. Members, including several who are present, on the Measure, it is extraordinarily anomalous to subject only one Church among many to such scrutiny. The House can scarcely pretend to be made up predominantly of members of that Church—or perhaps any Christian Church—and should not therefore be given such a responsibility.
Although I agree with our Committee's conclusions, and respect the work of the Synod, I look forward to the time when we can say that it is a matter not for us but for the Church and its effective self-discipline.
2 pm
Mr. Robert Key: I warmly support the Clergy Discipline Measure and wish it well. I do not criticise the absence of many members of the Ecclesiastical Committee because their work is done when they present their report to the House. I shall revert to that point.
The report is outstanding. The 218th report of the Ecclesiastical Committee should be much more widely available and I should like the Church of England to consider putting its evidence on its website. It should be freely available, although, at £12.50 the report is the best value for money that can currently be obtained from the Stationery Office. I warmly recommend it for wider reading in the Church of England.
The supplementary material is especially valuable. The "Draft Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of Clergy" begins with a remarkable theological reflection by Francis Bridger. He points out that, whatever the law in the Church of England, it depends on a cluster of concepts about covenant, agape and virtue. He explains that in such a way that even a layman like me can understand it. At the end of his section, he states:
"We have seen how the Church can no longer stand back from addressing the issue of what it means to act professionally in today's social climate …. Above all, we are reminded that the foundational value for all Christian ethics is the uniquely Christian gift of agape. Without this we are but clanging cymbals, professional or otherwise."

1179
The report raises many issues, and I should like to explore some of them further with the Second Church Estates Commissioner because they have great implications about which I remain unclear after reading all the evidence, the explanatory notes and the Measure.
Clause 24 deals with penalties and is the most serious part of the Measure. Prohibition and removal from office are the most serious penalties. Priests can be subject to rumours, vexatious complaints and gossip. Even if they are innocent and have gone through the new process, a priest and his or her family may find it impossible to continue their ministry in the parish because of the amount of gossip and malicious rumour.
The report compares other professions with the clergy—I commend the Synod for going into such detail in its work over some nine years—and it compared tribunal procedures, including standard of proof, in other professions and occupations such as those of accountants, architects, barristers, dentists, doctors, Lloyd's insurers, nurses, midwives, health visitors, pharmacists, police, solicitors and veterinary surgeons. Synod reached conclusions that informed the decision on the way in which to proceed. My problem with that is that there are some matters that none of those professions has in common with clergy. The most obvious is housing.
Low income demands some benefits, which have traditionally been offered in housing. Sometimes the freehold was part of the deal. Nowadays, approximately two out of five clergy are not beneficiaries of freehold. If somebody is prohibited or removed from office under the disciplinary procedures, what happens to the housing? What is the time scale for leaving the property? Is any assistance provided? We are not considering veterinary surgeons and solicitors but people on clerics' salaries. If we are not careful, we could impose a double penalty.
What is the position on pensions? In some professions, people who lose their jobs for disciplinary reasons also lose the right to their pension. Is that the case under the Measure? I read the documents from cover to cover but I found no mention of that in the interrogation by the Ecclesiastical Committee or the notes.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner referred to complaints about doctrine, ritual and ceremonial. I understand that the bishops made a sensible recommendation to put that on one side and deal with disciplinary matters first. However, I understand that another committee will sit and present doctrinal discipline proposals some time. What stage have we reached on that?
I had always been content to trust the Ecclesiastical Committee to do its work and present us with reports. Last night, a debate on the Clergy Discipline Measure took place in another place. I was worried to read that several of their lordships questioned the efficacy of the Ecclesiastical Committee. Lord Brightman asked about its size and recommended that it should be cut from 30 to 15 Members of Parliament. Only five of the 15 Members of this House who are entitled to attend went to both evidence sessions that the Ecclesiastical Committee held. Lord Brightman said:
1180
"I have examined the reports of nine meetings of the committee. It is usually not possible to tell from the reports how many members of the committee voted on the expediency of a draft Measure. But I can say that in one case only 12 members attended' and voted—12 out of 30."
Lord Campbell of Alloway stated:
"Everything the noble and learned Lord—
Lord Brightman—
"said was right. On our first meeting, 22 out of 30 members attended, but later it had to be adjourned because there was not a quorum of 10. At the second meeting 16 members out of 30 attended. At the end, a member who was leaving the room had to be recalled to establish a quorum for a vote."
Lord Wallace of Saltaire said:
"Perhaps I may tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that the committee, on what many of us thought was an important issue from the outset, failed to start on two occasions for lack of a quorum. It struggled for several months to manage a quorum and to get any notice whatever."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 May 2003; Vol. 648, c. 922–26.]
The Church of England expects the Houses of Parliament to attend to the business of the Ecclesiastical Committee appropriately. Members of the Committee should ask themselves how serious it is. If it is not serious, that throws into doubt and confusion the relationship between the Church of England and Parliament. I deeply regret that because I do not share the views of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about the inappropriateness of a relationship between the Church of England, as the established Church, and Parliament.
I have simply floated some questions. I do not know the answers but I was surprised when I read the report of the debate in the other place.
Having said that, I look forward to hearing some answers from the Second Church Estates Commissioner, and I repeat that I wish the Measure well. I am absolutely confident—having checked with my bishop before I spoke that he, too, was content—that these provisions will rapidly pass into the everyday business of the Church of England.
2.10 pm
Peter Bottomley: I speak without having consulted my bishop, but I was with him in St. Paul's cathedral at the great concert service for the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy. I suspect that a partial answer to one of the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) is that, when clerics find that they cannot support themselves—whether through some fault of their own or not—the range of charities associated with the Church will provide support if it has not been possible to get it directly from the Church Commissioners or from the diocese.
I should declare an interest, in that I have just been elected a trustee of a trust established in 1695 by Dr. Busby for the support of the clergy—although the first thing that he did with the trust was to spend £10 on a dinner for the trustees. Most of the other money is spent in a way that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury would support.
I recently went to the Elizabethan exhibition at the National Maritime museum, which served as a proper reminder that, when Queen Elizabeth I came to the

1181
throne, she had to unite the country in the Church of England, and that, much to the disappointment of both the Catholics and the Presbyterians, she established the middle way. I suspect that one of the best ways of maintaining the middle way, and one of the best ways for the Church of England within Christianity to serve at least the nation of England, is for the Church to remain established. I side with my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on that; I am not taken with what I hope are the short-term modern ideas put forward so elegantly by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
The Ecclesiastical Committee works in mysterious ways, and much of that work is done in public. It is possible to read that two of the noble Lords whom my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury quoted were in dissent in finding the Measure expedient. I should like to pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, for helping us to have a fair go at all the points that were on our minds and to come to a conclusion. Those who argue about the difficulty of achieving a quorum might like to consider the attractiveness of the way in which they speak and of the points that they raise. I am not saying that people left the room to avoid hearing them at length, but it is certainly true that, if these meetings took the amount of time that they properly deserved, we could still cover the ground and come to proper conclusions.
I am perfectly prepared to find myself in a minority on occasions, but I still think that I am right. Measures that I think should get through without difficulty sometimes fail to do so, but I believe that the process is important. I hope that the House will have the opportunity to debate synodical government at some point; it is about 40 years since the last report led to certain changes being made. I remind the House that the reason that we have this debate on the Measure, and this debate alone, is that we have got rid of the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages relating to changes in the laws of the Church of England. I believe that that was progress, although it has led to some difficulties. Anyone who thinks that the Synod and those who serve it do not take this matter seriously has not read the report and the papers presented to us.
I hope that there will be a way of making available to every parish in the country two of the items referred to by the hon. Member for North Cornwall and my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. The reflections by the Reverend Dr. Francis Bridger are useful, and are to be found on page 35 of the report. They are deep but valuable. The parts that I believe should go to every parish are parts I and II. The five pages covered by part I—Guidelines for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy—are basically the charge to the clergy.
Paragraph 12 in part II appears on page 45, and deals with the support and care of the clergy. The question asked at the installation of every incumbent is:
"Will you uphold them in their ministry?"
1182
The answer deserves the attention of us all, and I completely agree with it. It states:
"The officers of the parish, especially the churchwardens, should ensure that their clergy have:
Sufficient time off for rest, recreation and proper holidays.
An annual opportunity to make a retreat of at least a week's duration.

Adequate administrative assistance.

Reimbursement in full of ministerial expenses.

Appropriate release for extra parochial ministry.

Encouragement for ministry to the whole parish not just the gathered congregation."

We all ought to be aware of those words, especially when dealing with disciplinary measures involving allegations against a member of the clergy that may be right or wrong.

I would ask those ministers who might read this debate—I am glad to see some ministers here—to remember that the Church of England has the advantage of article 26, which says that what a minister does is still all right, even if the minister himself is no good. I pay tribute to those in ministry, both in the Church and the Government.
2.15 pm
Mr. Bell: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the points that have been made in this debate, and I welcome the very constructive fashion in which they have been made. May I also echo the words of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? I, too, am sorry that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is not here today. I am aware that he is indisposed and I wish him a quick recovery.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall made the point that the Measure was overdue. Its gestation took six years; it also took a little longer because the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force and had to be taken into consideration. I agree with him that the world moves on very quickly, and something that takes six years to get through the system can find itself out of date by the time it reaches the House. I am sure that we shall take that point on board. He was kind enough, however, to commend the Synod for the work and preparation that it has done, and I will pass on his remarks when the Synod meets again in July.
With the House's permission, I shall avoid any debate on happy-clappy ministers. I often feel that we have happy-clappy Members of Parliament at Question Time here in the House, although they have not given me any difficulty in this Parliament. I would not, however, want to get involved in any debate on happy-clappy ministers or on fashion.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall raised the significant point—as he has done before—about the disestablishment of the Church. I have made the point to the new archbishop that we ought not to be talking about disestablishment; some important points were made on that, to which I shall come in a moment. The hon. Gentleman might, however, like to talk about disengagement, and about how we might disengage some of the aspects of the Church from the state. The Church should get the best out of its relationship with the state, and the state should get the best out of its relationship with the Church. How we achieve that is something that we ought to look at.

1183
The Measure before us today comes from powers emanating from the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919. That Act has not quite been in force for 100 years, but we have nevertheless been acting under its provisions for an awfully long time. I suspect that one of the problems involved is political or parliamentary inertia. There is a tremendous inbuilt inertia when it comes to considering these matters, but we ought to remember that the clergy play a very distinguished and important part in their parishes with their parishioners, and that those parishioners are also our constituents. We therefore have a strong interest in maintaining that relationship.
I welcome the remarks made by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), as I always do. He mentioned the lack of members of the Ecclesiastical Committee here today, but I am happy to say that some members of the Committee are present on the Labour and Conservative Benches. In relation to some members of the Committee, however, I would say that absence makes the heart grow fonder. I sometimes think that our proceedings move more quickly and progressively when some of those members are not here.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the website report. It is certainly true that, in the age of the internet and of mass information, it would be appropriate for these proceedings to be on the website. My own website has just celebrated its half-millionth hit. How half a million people can check into my website over a period of just a few months is astonishing to me; what they do there I have no idea. Nevertheless, websites are an important source of information and I think that the hon. Gentleman has put forward a sound idea. He talked about a cluster of concepts; I often think, when dealing with issues concerning the Church and the state, that I am dealing with a confusion of concepts, rather than a cluster. The hon. Gentleman's point is certainly well made, however.
I outlined a range of penalties. The hon. Gentleman asked how malicious gossip could be dealt with. That is of course a difficult issue, but we have found ways of dealing with it different from those adopted in Massachusetts in 1692, when ladies were taken out and burnt at the stake as witches. We have progressed a bit since then.
Housing is of course important to a clergyman. His vocation and his vicarage necessitate a dwelling. The Church must be very liberal, sensitive and generous when dealing with housing for priests who may be in difficulty.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning pensions. The simple answer to his question is that under the rules of the two Church of England pension schemes, clergy who are subject to disciplinary proceedings will not lose any accrued pension entitlement. Should they have to leave the stipendiary ministry as a result of disciplinary action, they will be treated in the same way as others who choose to leave before retirement age. Their existing pension rights will be preserved, but no further entitlement will accrue, and their pensions will not become payable until they reach retirement age.
1184
As the hon. Gentleman may know, doctrine, ritual and ceremony are still being dealt with under the 1963 Measure, and that will continue. The working party that he mentioned, consisting of bishops, clergy and laity, was established to examine the matter in detail, and will report to the House of Bishops early next year. In due course the House will report to the Synod on its proposals, modelled largely on the new Measure establishing disciplinary procedures to deal with complaints relating to doctrine, ritual and ceremony. The Measure that will enact those proposals will then be presented for synodical approval.
When I think of all the work that lies ahead, I am reminded of the words of St Augustine, who said "Make me pure, but not yet, 0 Lord". I hope that it will be some time before we find ourselves in the Ecclesiastical Committee considering those Measures.
A point was made about the size of the Committee. When I read the report of proceedings in the other place, I noted that one Member had complained that it was too large with 15 members from the Lords and 15 from the Commons, while the other had complained about the presence of the Second Church Estates Commissioner and a Member of Parliament who was also a member of the Synod. In fact the Second Church Estates Commissioner and the member of the Synod are two people who are guaranteed to be present if no one else is, so I thought there was a bit of a contradiction there. Nevertheless, attendance and the Committee's composition are a constant source of worry for the Commissioner. It is extraordinarily difficult to find volunteers for membership, and many Members of both Houses are more or less press-ganged into it. That does tend to impinge on attendance.
Mr. David Drew: I apologise for missing my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, but may I say something about size, composition and attendance? I must confess that I missed the sittings, but I think that part of the problem is that those who become members of the Committee are not entirely sure of its powers and what it is likely to do. As a member myself, I would welcome an opportunity to discuss that informally.
Mr. Bell: As he said, my hon. Friend is a member of the Committee, and he has taken a strong interest in our proceedings. He anticipates a point that I intended to make. We have a busy House, a busy Committee structure and a busy timetable, and it is not always easy for Members to attend sittings of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The change in the sitting hours of the House has had a further impact on attendance. My hon. Friend's point about how we inform new Committee members is well made, and I will certainly return to it. 1 have already discussed the point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury about the Church of England and Parliament.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), who was on the Committee, made some pertinent points. He spoke of the role of the parish priest, and the vocation. It is indeed a vocation, and parish priests are therefore in a rather different category from those in other professions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned when something has happened that must be dealt with.

1185
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Elizabeth I and the middle way. I had visions of the middle way and the third way. Four hundred years later, here we are again, inventing a new way of looking at politics. Incidentally, 30 years ago General de Gaulle also had a third way in French politics—but in the context of the established and the disestablished Church, as I have said, disengagement strikes me as a way forward for both.
I think I have covered the question of the Committee's size. The questions of synodical debate and a debate on synodical government, however, are extremely important to both the Church and the House. The hon. Gentleman made a significant point about our proceedings today, namely that there was no Committee stage and indeed no Second Reading for Church legislation. There is no Department to take over such business. The House of Commons represents the final safeguard of the rights of our constituents who are also parishioners. Today's proceedings are therefore very important, and I am glad that there is a sense of unanimity here.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of connecting parishes with the internet. It is certainly a wonderful source of information, even for our parishes.
I think I have covered all the points made by Members. I thank them all again for their constructive participation. I thank members of the Ecclesiastical Committee, the General Synod, and the representatives of Church House who brief me so well. I commend the Measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Clergy Discipline Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

Municipal Waste Recycling Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
2.27 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Municipal Waste Recycling Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.
The motion concerns the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). On Second Reading the Government said they were content to allow the Bill to proceed to its Committee stage, and that was agreed by the House. The Government also said on Second Reading that a number of amendments would have to be made if the Bill was to receive Government support.
Our first problem is the requirement for a strategy to be prepared within six months to achieve a 50 per cent. municipal waste recycling rate by 2010. We are not sure that that would fit with the rather more comprehensive waste strategy 2000, which involved the whole waste stream rather than just municipal waste and addressed the entire hierarchy rather than just recycling. We think it important to focus on the action needed from central Government and local authorities to meet our published targets and to make progress with the 2000 strategy rather than publishing a further strategy so soon after the production of the others.
Speaking just for England, we considered the issues of targets in our response to the strategy unit's report "Waste not want not". The unit made a number of suggestions for new strategy targets, although they were not as ambitious as the target of 50 per cent. by 2010 proposed in the Bill. We concluded that it would not be fair to change the statutory recycling and composting targets that the Government had set for 2005–06 at this stage. We recognise, however, that national recycling rates higher than the current targets are both possible and clearly desirable. We have said that in 2004 we will review the national recycling targets in the light of progress made by local authorities in meeting their 2003–04 targets. We are not currently convinced, however, that the achievement of a 50 per cent. rate by 2010 is practicable. That rate is far beyond the current target of 30 per cent. by 2010 as set in "Waste Strategy 2000", and the target of 35 per cent. by 2010 as recommended by the strategy unit.
On other parts of the Bill, we intend that the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill should incorporate the requirement for municipal waste management strategies in two-tier areas. These strategies will not be required for "excellent" authorities or for those that can show that they are on track to meet their targets. We intend to table an amendment to this effect on Report. The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill already incorporates the power of direction for a waste disposal authority to require a waste collection authority to deliver waste separated, where that is necessary to meet its requirements under the landfill allowance scheme or recycling targets.

1187
On the motion and the matter of cost, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently doing some financial modelling to forecast the cost of providing such services and of meeting increasing levels of recycling within the UK, although this is not ready yet. The calculation is not straightforward; the modelling is very complex, involving a number of different scenarios. We need to be very clear about the assumptions and fears that we feed into the model; however, we are certainly working on this.
So I think that we can agree that sustainable waste management is a vital policy, and that it will be useful to discuss this Bill further in Committee. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Adjournment (Whitsun)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 22nd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 3rd June.—[Joan Ryan.]
2.31 pm
Mr. Tom Cox: I wish to speak on Cyprus. I am the chairperson of the UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's all-party group on Cyprus, which is made up of Members from all of the major parties in this House. Since the brutal military invasion of the Republic of Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974, we in this House have, over the years, had many debates on, asked many questions about, and tabled many early-day motions on Cyprus. Our group has always made it very clear that we are just as concerned with the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots as we are with those of Greek Cypriots.
In the years since 1974, there have been many attempts to find an honourable solution to the division of the island of Cyprus. It became clear during that time that the lack of progress was due to the attitude of Mr. Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, and his friends and supporters in Turkey. Since 1974, he has done nothing to enable the island of Cyprus—a country that is a member of the Commonwealth, and for which the United Kingdom is one of the guarantor powers—to work together with Greek and Turkish Cypriots to develop their country. Some years ago, he declared the so-called independent state of northern Cyprus. To this day, only one country in the world recognises it: Turkey. The United Nations, the European Union, the Council of Europe and the United Kingdom all refuse to recognise it. So, sadly, we have made no progress on a settlement.
Many Members of this House have fully supported the application of Cyprus for membership of the European Union, and we were delighted when it became clear that it will become a member next year. As those discussions on membership were taking place, the then President of the Republic of Cyprus, President Clerides, asked Mr. Denktash on several occasions to join him to discuss Cyprus's future membership of the EU. He always—always—refused, saying that only if President Clerides recognised his independent state of northern Cyprus would he take part in such discussions.
When it became clear that Cyprus would join the European Union, the Secretary-General of the United Nations sought a settlement to the division, so that next year, when the Republic of Cyprus becomes an EU member state, the whole of Cyprus would join at the same time. I welcome and support the attempts of the Secretary-General to find a solution, but, again, we got nowhere, and again for the same reason: Mr. Denktash.
The voice of the people of northern Cyprus has now changed greatly, however. Turkish Cypriots went on to the streets in their thousands, calling for an end to the division of the island and speaking of the wish of the people of northern Cyprus, whatever Mr. Denktash says, to be part of the Cyprus that joins the European Union next year. The people of northern Cyprus, after years of silence, have clearly asked for an end to the isolation that, sadly, they experience from the world.

1189
The British Government are major players in the affairs of Cyprus. We controlled it for many years, and two of the most important military bases in the British military establishment are still on the island. I have already mentioned the role that Turkey has played and continues to play in northern Cyprus. We also know that Turkey wants nothing more than to become a member of the European Union. This Government support and encourage that wish, but what I and other Members want to know is: just what do my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary say to the Turkish Government about Cyprus and an end to the division of the island? No one can say that Turkey has no influence in northern Cyprus; thousands of Turkish troops are there, and it helps the Denktash regime financially. So we say clearly to Turkey: use your influence in northern Cyprus and make it clear to Mr. Denktash that he must now enter into meaningful discussions with the UN Secretary-General to end this long-running tragedy of the division of Cyprus.
The people of northern Cyprus have clearly said what they want to happen. For the first time since 1974, we have witnessed invasion: people crossing the divide between northern and southern Cyprus to visit the areas in which they used to live and their former homes, and to meet their former friends. So the attitude and wish of Cyprus is now very clear. The people have spoken, be they Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. They say, "We want to live together, work together and prosper together."
So where does the United Kingdom stand in terms of this very clear wish? Do we support these people, and if so what are we doing to ensure that such developments continue and lead to a united Cyprus, thereby ending the division of the island and the suffering of its people, among whom, sadly, none have suffered more in recent years than the Turkish Cypriot community? If that is our policy, what are we doing to pursue it? That is the question to which many Members of this House want an answer, and it is why I have spoken today.
2.39 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: Unusually, I am not so grateful for being called earlier because I would have liked to respond to several later contributions. As is often said in this place, one has to take one's chance when one can.
First, I wholly agree with the hon. Member for 'Tooting (Mr. Cox) on a subject that he has revisited in several recess Adjournment debates. I particularly endorse his point about people power in Cyprus. In a debate earlier this week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) made specific reference to the position in Cyprus. The hon. Member for Tooting is right that we in this country must endorse the demands, requests and pressure from the people of Cyprus to resolve their difficulties once and for all. I happened to be an MP in 1974—a long time ago—when the division of Cyprus took place. I recall the tragic circumstances, which were terrible for the people of Cyprus, and for all the people who love that benighted island when the tragedy continued. I entirely endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman said, and I hope that the Minister will take his points seriously and communicate them to the Foreign Office.
1190
The Minister has heard reference made on several recent occasions to the little booklet produced by the Parliament First group—a distinguished group, apart from myself, of course. "Parliament's Last Chance" has a distinguished authorship, including Members of all political parties. I hope that the Minister has, having been encouraged to do so, now read it. If not, next week would allow him an admirable opportunity to do so. Other hon. Members, who may believe that we live in a parliamentary democracy and—to put it in simple terms—that Parliament's power to hold the Executive to account has decreased, is decreasing and ought to be enhanced, should also find useful material in the booklet.
I should like to draw the attention of the Minister—and, through him, that of the Leader of the House—to several issues in the document, but before I do so I refer him back to the debate of 29 October 2002, to preceding debates and, indeed, to previous weekly encounters with the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on those very issues. They should be of concern to every Member of Parliament, whether they sit on the Front or the Back Benches, and to all who believe that our democracy relies on effective scrutiny of Government legislation and of the Government's Executive actions.
The problems have certainly not developed suddenly—as hon. Members know, I have been in and out of this place for quite a long period—but as a product of a war of attrition between No. 10, Whitehall and the House. The resignation statement of the former Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), underlined the fact that the problems did not suddenly occur in the year 2003, but progressively—or, I should say, regressively—over several years.
"Parliament's Last Chance" would also be of interest to people outside Parliament who take our proceedings seriously. If I had to concentrate on one core issue, it would be the management of Parliament's time. All too often, the management of our time is not only in the hands of the Executive of the day, but is organised to the convenience of that Executive. I am not just complaining about the speedy passage of the business immediately preceding this debate, which meant that my soup is still sitting in the Members' Tea Room getting cold. It is much more serious than that. If Parliament is to reassert its authority over the Executive, we must be able to reassert our power over our own timetable.
Almost all the elected legislative assemblies in the west and other parts of the world—whether they have mirrored our system or adopted a different one—enable the individual members and the parties collectively to decide the priorities for the business. The management of business is not left to the Government, but is recognised as an important power for the elected assembly. That is why "Parliament's Last Chance" emphasises the need for some sort of business committee in Parliament. It is also the reason why the Scottish Parliament has set up, under the chairmanship of a presiding officer, a group of people from all parts of its elected assembly, which can then decide on the priorities for its business.
Furthermore, the motion proposed by the right hon. Member for Livingston on 29 October last year entailed a move towards some form of collective consensus

1191
building on how the business of the House should be conducted. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) knows, it was relatively limited in recommending proper consultation, but as he and I both know, that exercise now seems to have ground to a halt. Why? Because it undermines the hegemony of the Government Whips.
Government Members should take a greater interest in why the House decision in favour of cross-party consultation has lapsed. As I mentioned to the Leader of the House at business questions this afternoon, we should focus on what needs to be done at this stage of the Session. If the Government ask the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and me to carry over some business—I have calculated that we have only a further 10 weeks left for this Session's legislative programme—without proper consultation on the priorities of all the legislation, they might receive a dusty answer. I stress that the House had decided that such consultation should take place. It was not merely an Opposition motion or an afterthought. The motion came before the House and was approved by it, but the process has now stalled. In fairness to the Leader of the House, he responded positively to my point in business questions earlier today, but I hope that we can make further progress.
The booklet includes several other extremely important proposals. None of its authors believes that it is the last word on the subject—far from it—but we believe that all hon. Members, particularly Labour Back Benchers, not only have a right and responsibility to take the proposals seriously, but may have their final opportunity in the coming months to reassert their rights on behalf of their constituents to ensure that Parliament works more effectively.
The right hon. Member for Livingston used to say on many occasions—I hope that I am paraphrasing him accurately—that good government depends on good scrutiny by Parliament. Many of us feel that the position is deteriorating—though, as I said, not suddenly. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would be the first to admit that he and his colleagues were far from perfect and introduced legislation that was inadequately thought through on many occasions. When we were given an opportunity to improve it, we often found ourselves up against the guillotine.
Saying that two wrongs do not make a right does not improve the position, however. It has not been right for some time and it continues to be a blot on the reputation of Parliament. One of the reasons why members of the public do not hold Parliament in higher esteem is that we do not look as if we are in control of our business. We do not look as if we are giving proper scrutiny to issues that require it, and we do not look from outside as if we are doing our job properly.
It is important to recognise that individual MPs of all parties are highly respected in their own constituencies. I have no doubt that many of the usual suspects are in their places on both sides of the House today and they will raise issues that they feel are important to them. The polls show that individual Members of all parties—I shall not embarrass anyone by mentioning names—are highly respected in the local community. However, when the public are asked how they perceive Parliament
1192
as an institution, and whether Members of Parliament are doing their job properly collectively, we tumble down the respect league. We even sometimes come below journalists, and that is a deplorable situation.
Mr. David Kidney: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that the public may be more accurate in their assessment of their constituency MP because they have more personal knowledge of his or her qualities and work, whereas their view of what happens in this place is filtered through, for example, the media's reporting of us?
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is a colleague on the Modernisation Committee and he has given me an opportunity to polish what I laughingly call my peroration. In the Committee, we are trying to find ways to communicate better, not only through the media but directly, using the modern forms of communication that technology has now afforded to us. In that way, we could better communicate to the outside world what Parliament is doing. However, we should remember that the message is dependent on the quality of the work that we do, not on the messenger that we use. We can continue to improve the ways in which we engage with he public until the cows come home, but unless we do a better job, the public's perception—whether through the media or through direct contact at constituency level and the internet—will not improve. The perception has to be that the substance of what we are doing has improved.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I wish all colleagues an enjoyable Whitsun recess. Everyone will be welcome in Cornwall, which will—of course—be very sunny next week.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches for the rest of the debate.
2.52 pm
Dr. Rudi Vis: Cyprus is an important issue, and I too shall address it in my remarks. It has been discussed on many occasions and for various reasons, and we have already heard about it today. It was often discussed after the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974, and numerous UN resolutions have been passed since then. All opposed the Turkish invasion, but none of the resolutions was successful.
The leader of the Turkish Cypriots for the whole time has been Mr. Denktash, whose name is often associated with intransigence. The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, visited Cyprus in late February this year, in yet another attempt to settle the Cyprus dispute. The UN plan, which has been revised several times, was put before the parties and an invitation was issued to the leaders to visit The Hague on 10 March to hear the latest version of Mr. Annan's settlement plan, and to tell him whether it would be put to a popular referendum in both the Republic and the occupied territory of Cyprus.

1193
In the event, Mr. Denktash said no on 10 March, a failure to comply that was subsequently accepted by the UN Security Council. I was deeply disappointed by the UN plan and, for once, Mr. Denktash did us a favour by rejecting it. The matter is further complicated by the fact that Cyprus will formally join the EU in May 2004. A divided Cyprus would complicate that enormously. The Turks also want to join the EU and they have argued hat there can be no solution for Cyprus unless the EU offers them an early and realistic date for formal negotiations to commence on EU membership.
At the same time, presidential elections were held in Cyprus, with the first vote on 16 February. In the event, a second vote was unnecessary, because Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos won with 51.51 per cent. in the first ballot. That brought to an abrupt end the 10-year rule of the defeated President, Mr. Clerides. I have always maintained that Mr. Clerides felt that he had to concede too much to the demands of the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash. I am therefore very pleased with the presidency of Mr. Papadopoulos. Interestingly, he was backed by his own party, DIKO, but also by the Socialist party, AKEL, which is the largest political party in Cyprus. AKEL gained some 34 per cent. in last year's elections and is led by the president of the House of Representatives, Mr. Demetris Christofias. Mr.Papadopoulos was also supported by the Social Democratic Movement, KISOS, and the Ecologists. That widespread political support is reflected in the composition of the Council of Ministers that took office on 3 March. It appears to be the best Government of Cyprus for a long time.
It is my understanding that the President has now informed the UN Secretary-General's special adviser on Cyprus, Mr. de Soto, that the proposed UN deal is dead. Mr. Papadopoulos has undertaken to present a new deal and has pledged to
"work and strive for a workable and viable solution."
I wish him every success and I believe that he can do it. That belief is based on recent developments in Cyprus and the world at large. Those include the facts that Turkish Cypriots are increasingly angry with their intransigent leader, Mr. Denktash; that Turkey has lost much influence, especially with the United States; that Turkey is less important strategically since the fall of Saddam Hussein; that Turkey is now much more focused on joining the EU, and a divided Cyprus is an obstacle to that, rather than a negotiating advantage; and that President Papadopoulos leads a strong and determined Government who will come up with a Fasting solution.
Recently, Mr. Denktash opened the border so that Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and other Cypriots can visit long-lost homes and villages, which they have been prevented from doing for nearly 29 years. I fully understand all the emotions associated with those visits. They also show that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have more in common than what divides them. However, a lasting settlement should not be decided on emotions. I have yet to be persuaded that I should trust Mr. Denktash, or the Turkish Government, on these matters. Furthermore, one should not have to pay to visit one's own home and village.
1194
It is important that the Government of Cyprus and the people develop and propose a lasting solution. However, it is for the UK Government and, in particular, the Foreign Office, who have drifted lately towards a more Turkish-designed solution for Cyprus, to accept the changed circumstances and fully to appreciate the efforts made by President Papadopoulos.
2.58 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: On previous occasions, I have used the Adjournment debate to raise the issue of the Royal hospital, Haslar and I am delighted to inform colleagues who follow the fortunes of that important and grand hospital that—after several Adjournment debates since 1998—it is alive and well, and living in Gosport. The local hospitals trust is studying ways of using the accident treatment centre to a greater extent. I also see, from a recent Government publication entitled, "Keeping the NHS Local—A New Direction of Travel" that a model will be studied in which
"unselected patients receive rapid assessment in a local unit, with doctors from the nearest acute hospital site advising remotely via a telemedicine link."
That would mean that the accident treatment centre at Haslar could be used more widely than at present, and the plan is to expand it by diverting some 4,000 extra patients a year through it. Whether it is the Adjournment debates alone, or common sense that has prevailed, I am delighted to inform colleagues that Haslar is well and we intend that it should remain that way.
Today, I wish to raise a different issue—the Government's immigration policy and political asylum system, which are generally recognised to be in a state of collapse. From small beginnings, about 80,000 people sought to come to this country in 2000. In 2002, the number of people trying to come to this country rose to 110,000, of whom the Home Office decided that about 10,000 were entitled to political asylum as they were genuinely in fear of persecution in their original place of residence. Of the remaining 100,000, about 20,000 were given exceptional leave to remain in the short term. That means that about 30 per cent. of all applicants remained here by permission. About 13,000 applicants left—or said that they were going to leave—and the remainder, who were not given leave to remain, have remained here anyway.
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration told the House three weeks ago:
"Because refugees have to enter countries illegally, one of the perverse effects of the current system is that it has fuelled the rise of the criminal gangs that smuggle people for profit."—[Official Report, 28 April 2003; Vol. 404, c. 1.]
We really cannot go an as we are. We need a different system, and the Conservative party has proposed one. We expected it to be greeted with some surprise, as it is very dramatic, but it seems to have been received quite quietly. The plan is to screen applicants for political asylum not in this country, but outside it. That is the system in Australia, and it has achieved some success. Indeed, this Government are considering screening political asylum applicants outside the country. The Home Secretary has suggested to his colleagues in Europe the possibility that we might screen political asylum seekers in Albania, Bulgaria and Romania. If the Government decide to follow the Conservative line

1195
and screen people outside the UK, we Conservatives will not criticise them for stealing our policies. On this occasion, we will congratulate them.
As matters stand, however, we have to live with the existing system. The Government have proposed some possible locations for accommodation centres, where asylum seekers would be housed on a short-term basis. I say "short term" because it appears that, within two months of being sent to an accommodation centre, asylum seekers will be told whether they are being given permission to stay here, or exceptional leave to remain.
Of course, asylum seekers who are turned down can appeal. That process can take another six months, so the prospect is that people will remain in these accommodation centres for quite some time. Two such centres, at Newton and Bicester, are currently under consideration. In February, the Government announced that they were contemplating establishing a third centre at Daedalus, a former Royal Navy air station at Lee-on-the-Solent, which was closed some years ago.
The proposal was greeted by people in the area with incredulity, dismay and anger. The Daedalus action group rapidly formed, and I pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that it has done. It has raised a petition signed by 32,000 people, and organised meetings—I addressed a meeting of 8,500 people on the cliff tops at Lee-on-the-Solent—and a march through the town.
When the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration telephoned me to tell me of her decision to contemplate Lee-on-the-Solent as a centre for asylum seekers, she said, "Come on, Peter, 400 hundred young men"—which is what the proposal might entail—"is less than 1 per cent. of the population of your constituency." However, that is not the right way to look at the matter. Daedalus's main gates are located next to a very quiet part of the residential area of Lee-on-the-Solent, which is a quiet and attractive seaside location, with a population of just over 6,000 people. The 400 young men proposed to be located at the Daedalus site would account for about 6 per cent. of the Lee-on-the-Solent population. They would have a devastating effect on an area that is very popular with retired people, and which is exceptionally quiet.
The organisations that support refugees' interests, such as the Refugee Council and the Immigration Advisory Service, all say that applicants for political asylum in this country—would-be immigrants—should be located in an urban environment, near to other people from their own countries. In both senses, Lee-on-the-Solent is supremely unsuitable. It is definitely not an urban environment, being very quiet, and it has no immigrant population at all. Very few people from the main immigrant countries—Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Turkey, and the former Republic of Yugoslavia—even visit the area.
If—heaven forbid—the proposal were to go ahead, the burden on local services would be enormous. People living in the accommodation centre would be given primary medical care, but of course would rely on local hospital services for secondary and tertiary care. There is already a strain on doctors' services, and there are no dentists taking new NHS patients in the Gosport
1196
constituency. There are 3,000 people waiting on the Fareham and Gosport housing list, and there are 200 homeless people in the area. The burden on schools would be intolerable. It is no surprise that the residents of Lee-on-the-Solent, as well as the Gosport and Fareham councils and Hampshire county council, have committed themselves to opposing the proposition absolutely and totally. It must not proceed.
3.6 pm
Valerie Davey: I want to put on record my concern, which is shared by many of my constituents, about the future of the UN. This afternoon—perhaps even as we speak—the UN Security Council is considering the latest resolution on Iraq, proposed by the US and the UK. The resolution would lift sanctions, endorse the coalition's right to remain in Iraq until a new Government are formed and allow some UN involvement in Iraq. The resolution also provides for the possible return of weapons inspectors at some time in the future.
It appears that acceptance of the resolution is signed and sealed. All that we need to know now is how Syria will vote, but there has been great disquiet and uncertainly in the lead up to today's meeting. How will the permanent members of the Security Council vote, and what is their motive? Has a genuine and pragmatic compromise been reached? Is self-interest over future oil and reconstruction contracts a factor, or is there—somewhere—a genuine concern over the future of the UN?
For many of us, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the ineffectiveness of UN action in Rwanda was a reason to draw breath and ask what the UN's real role should be. What should it be doing, and who should transform it into a modern body for the 21st century?
We have been experiencing a growing number of conflicts. They have not been of the type that the UN was set up to deal with—namely, the invasion of one country by another. They have been internal conflicts, for which the UN has no obvious remit, as was the case in Rwanda.

Where do we go from here? How do we ensure that, in future, there will be humanitarian intervention in a sovereign state? That is the jargon for the central question: how do we ensure that the human rights of individuals, and the humanitarian concerns on their behalf, are upheld when law and order appears to break down or when a country's Government have no interest in the vast majority of their citizens?
The debate is not new. It is an ongoing concern in the present context, following the Iraq war. I believe that the UN has been abused by people who have sought to use it to support their own arguments. In this changing world, the UN is now unable, in many situations, to intervene. It appears that no one is taking the time to do the boring, time-consuming and detailed work involved in developing the UN charter for the 21st century.
I shall refer to three statements that have contributed to that debate in different ways over the past few years. The first is an article from the Financial Times of 4 September 2000, jointly written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife

1197
(Mr. Campbell). It was that Lib-Lab collaboration that got publicity rather than the content of a very important statement.
The article noted:
"Wars in the past decade have claimed an estimated 5 million lives. More than at any time, these wars have violated civilians, not borders".
In other words, they were internal disputes. To cope with the problem, the authors said that there should be a clear framework for intervention and that
"humanitarian intervention could in itself serve as a deterrent to future conflicts".
In recent months, we have all asked: why, why, why did the UN not have the power to intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq? Why does it not have the power to intervene in Burma or Zimbabwe? Why do peacekeeping forces have no role in those countries? The sovereign state argument holds sway, as we all know, but we need an international grouping—the United Nations—to try to work out appropriate protocols. The article discussed the enlargement of the Security Council to comprise 10 permanent members, including Germany, Japan and one each from Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The second document is entitled, "The Responsibility to Protect" and was published in December 2001. It is the report of a commission, established by the Canadian Government, of highly capable international leaders who set out some of the principles for such protocols. The foreword included a compelling plea from the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, for the international community to try to find a new consensus on humanitarian issues. He said that
"if humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to Rwanda, to a Srebenica—to gross and systematic violations of human rights that affect every aspect of our common humanity?"
We need to revisit the ideas set out in that document.
The third document is a speech sent to me by the Polish consulate in Bristol. It was made at the UN by the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, setting out Poland's concerns about the need for more UN work to establish human rights. The Minister called for a "group of sages", people from different parts of the world, to get together to reinforce a new UN mandate—not a challenge to the UN charter, but a mandate for humanitarian intervention.
There are many such documents. When I inquired at the Library, I was issued with a tome. The work that I have described is not eye-catching; it is not immediately inspiring, yet its outcome could be of supreme importance to the world. On behalf of many of my constituents, I ask the Government to ensure that we take a full part, as a member of the UN, in furthering the debate and implementing its conclusions. Recently, I have been concerned that we seemed to be distancing ourselves from the UN and to be talking about it as though we were not a member. We need to take on our responsibilities.
I have not sought the permission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston for the proposal that I am about to make, but as he cut his teeth on the modernisation of this place he might be a good candidate for membership of the Polish Minister's group of sages. My right hon. Friend could take up another modernising role in the UN.
1198
Will the Department for Education and Skills ensure that, in the new citizenship education programme, the work and role of the UN is at the fore? Like other colleagues, I can remember when the UN flag was raised at school on United Nations day. How many young people nowadays know when United Nations day is? Do they know anything at all of the work and structure of the UN?
With reference to early-day motion 538, will the Government support the UK civilian peace service? We are calling for a non-military force including not only doctors, nurses and teachers but people who could establish civilian government within a country; for example, people who know about local government or who could set up police forces. All those groups could come together—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.
3.16 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: Since 1950, life expectancy has increased by nine years for men and by 11 years for women. That is not bad. Currently,14 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland is elderly. According to estimates from Age Concern, in Northern Ireland there will be a 50 per cent. rise in the population of pensionable age in the next 20 years. In 25 of the 26 existing district councils, there will be an increase of at least 15 per cent. in that age group over the next 10 years.
We have a responsibility to ensure that all our elderly citizens are adequately protected. Crime knows no boundary of age or geography. According to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, 3 per cent. of recorded crime in the Province is directed against the elderly. They are subject to the same crimes as the rest of the population—sadly, they suffer from criminal damage, burglary, theft, vehicle theft and assault—but the impact of those crimes on their quality of life is very different.
Recently, there has been a sharp increase in reported vicious attacks against the elderly. Almost daily, newspapers and television news programmes carry reports of such attacks. The number of violent crimes against older people rose from 140 in 2001 to 204 in 2002—a rise of 45 per cent. in one year.
We all agree that older people should be able to live safely and securely in their homes and communities, without fear of harassment or attack. The individuals who carry out such attacks are little more than cowards who desperately prey on those cannot defend themselves.
It may be reassuring to learn from the PSNI crime prevention unit that, of almost 31,000 reported incidents, only 6 per cent. were directed against people aged between 50 and 74, and only 0.5 per cent. against people aged over 75. However, although it could thus be argued that older people are actually at low risk of experiencing crime, there is media concern that many crimes against the elderly are unreported.
I welcome the development of the community safety strategy in Northern Ireland and our local community safety partnerships. Families, friends and neighbours have an important role in helping to protect the elderly and in contributing to community safety as a whole.

1199
Charities and the voluntary and community sector must be congratulated on their constant work for community safety, especially among the elderly. Over the past 10 years, Help the Aged and Age Concern have developed a range of direct services for older people and initiatives for practitioners. They have promoted a balanced approach for practical measures—personal alarms, free phone advice, bogus-caller buttons and locks and bolts—all of which have their place, but our elderly should not be prisoners in their own homes.
In my constituency, there is a prime example of where the PSNI, the community sector and local government agencies have successfully come together to address the community safety needs of the elderly. In Larne, there were 59 crimes against the elderly between 1 July last year and 30 April, representing 4 per cent. of total crime reported in the district. Burglary and criminal damage are the two main offences committed against the elderly in Larne. There were seven bogus-caller incidents and three robberies, representing less than 1 per cent. of all crime in the district during the period studied.
In part, the success of those community safety results can be seen in the vulnerable persons scheme introduced last September. Lame PSNI, in conjunction with Lame borough council, Age Concern and the Housing Executive, is taking a proactive role in securing the safety of the elderly in their homes through the joint vulnerable persons scheme. It distributes kits, consisting of door latches, security mirrors, attack alarms, to the elderly and others who feel at risk. The kits have proved very successful and more than 500 have been distributed.
The crime prevention officer and community police teams have had numerous face-to-face meetings with local residents and groups to discuss and offer advice on safety. The meetings are very important because they reduce the perception of fear, which is greater than the reality. Indeed, reports of failed bogus-caller attempts have already increased from both communities, who are now co-operating well with the PSNI in my constituency.
The scheme has recently been awarded more than £17,000 from Northern Ireland Office community safety funding to extend the scheme's success, and that is to be welcomed. Larne PSNI has also set about raising awareness of bogus callers by regularly highlighting the issue through the Crimestoppers column in the local press. It is my understanding that, based on that success, the Larne vulnerable persons initiative will be extended across Northern Ireland.
I encourage other local councils—not only in Northern Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom—to adopt similar schemes to address crime against the more vulnerable members of society. It is time for the Government and society to get tough on those who attack the isolated and vulnerable elderly in our society. I also believe that it is time to revise legislation, with a view to ensuring that enhanced sentences are made available for those who attack and assault the elderly.
I also encourage the elderly in my constituency and elsewhere to contact their local police station or charities, such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, at the
1200
first sign of anything that causes them fear or apprehension, in the confident expectation of a prompt response. We all have a responsibility to do what we can to protect the elderly in our communities, and I urge the Government to fund the PSNI adequately so that it can achieve that objective.
3.23 pm
Mr. Tom Watson: As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has returned from his cold soup, may I thank him for his kind invitation to his constituency during the Whitsun break? If hon. Members feel that they cannot make it to Cornwall, they are welcome to join me for a special arts weekend in West Bromwich, organised by the highly regarded Jubilee Arts project, which will include a number of action-packed events and performances during the weekend of 31 May and 1 June.
Hon. Members may know that the arts run deep in West Bromwich. Unfortunately, I am afraid that Mr. Andrew Pierce of The Times did not know that when he wrote last month that
"West Bromwich has never been regarded as at the cutting-edge of artistic expression",
so I should like to take this opportunity to invite him to West Bromwich as well. He might like to join in a scavenger hunt, organised by the artist, Joshua Sofaer, in which teams of four will compete for a £1,000 prize by chasing 100 clues to find the hidden West Bromwich. I hope to take part in that myself.
We in West Bromwich and across the whole black country are trying to transform the perceptions of our area through regeneration. In the next five years, West Bromwich will have a new bus station, a major retail development, a high-tech police headquarters and a new one-stop health centre, and we are undergoing something of a renaissance. I am delighted to say that the centrepiece of that regeneration project will be a new arts and technology centre—the c/Plex centre—which has been organised under the leadership of Sylvia King through Jubilee Arts.
C/Plex is due to open in the summer of 2005 and will house business units, learning facilities, a gallery, an education centre, a conference base and cafes and restaurants. I hope that it will have a premiership football team as well, but it will certainly not be Norwich City. I say that to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who is big fan of the Canaries. As well as being a key part of Sandwell's regeneration, the c/Plex project will form a major national centre that will partner the new art gallery in Walsall—again, another great midland arts centre—but hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that there are some problems with funding.
The European Commission has helped to fund the c/Plex project, as part of its energy efficiency budget for buildings and museums. I understand that there are some problems with the funding, and I thank the region's MEPs, who are trying to intervene in Brussels on our behalf, but I hope that the Commission can be persuaded, perhaps by our Government, to continue its financial involvement in that landmark project.
Sandwell will also be the home of the first urban regeneration company in the west midlands, following the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement last month.

1201
The new URC will be a reality, and the current redevelopment of West Bromwich town centre could be just the tip of the iceberg for the six towns in Sandwell. Hundreds of millions of pounds of investment will come into the borough, thousands of well-paid jobs will be created and the borough's appearance and economy will be dramatically changed. The URC will breathe new life into a corridor of land shadowing the Midland Metro from Hill Top in Wednesbury, through West Bromwich to Smethwick, and helping to build a successful future for the area—a future in which we can attract more inward investment and become a magnet for jobs and businesses.
All those who have been pushing the project are grateful to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister for its support and commitment. We now hope to drive the project forward and learn the lessons from the URCs that have been created in other parts of the country, but we are not just using the big multi-million pound projects to improve the local environment and people's quality of life. The Government's drive to tackle antisocial and yobbish behaviour is also about making our communities better and safer to live in, and in that crusade the Government have the support of the people of West Bromwich, East.
Local people always tell me on the doorstep, at my surgeries, when they stop me in the streets and in their letters and e-mails that they are sick and tired of graffiti. fly tipping, noise, vandalism, the misuse of fireworks and air guns, drunken and loutish behaviour, rubbish and litter on the streets, abandoned cars and neighbours from hell. The problem of noisy fireworks going off, all year round, at all times of the day and night, and the misuse of fireworks by those who are not even old enough to buy them legally seems to have got worse each autumn and winter.
This year things will be different in one important respect. The industry has come together to produce a voluntary code to ban the noisiest fireworks—air bombs—that drive all our constituents to despair. However, in future years, my constituents hope to have far fewer rude awakenings and sleepless nights, thanks to new legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan); the Fireworks Bill is long overdue. I hope that the powers it gives the Government to regulate the noisiest fireworks and to ban their use late at night will be introduced as quickly as possible when those measures reach their completion.
The range of measures contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill will also help to tackle the kind of behaviour that we should not have to tolerate—for example, the misuse of air guns. A seven-year-old boy from the Hamstead area of my constituency—Hamstead, not Hampstead—was nearly blinded by teenagers misusing air weapons. A pellet lodged in Aaron Clarke's eyebrow, just a quarter of an inch from his eye, after he was fired on while playing near his home. Air rifles can seriously injure people, and are a great danger to animals. In fact, the number of attacks on children and animals rose from more than 7,500 in 1997 to more than 10,000 last year. Sandwell Swan Watch, run by Ian Carroll in my constituency, reports a growing number of wild animals and birds being killed by air guns in our area. We must stop that.
1202
In West Bromwich, East, we also welcome the Government's success in increasing police numbers. We want to see more bobbies on the beat, to act as a deterrent against crime and to reduce the fear of crime, especially for the most vulnerable and insecure in our communities. Recruiting more officers is one way of getting more police on the streets, but employing community support officers is another, and we hope for the first tranche of those in the west midlands as soon as possible. The rolling out of fixed penalty notices, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last week, will help to cut bureaucracy and the amount of time officers spend doing paperwork in the police station, when they could be out in the community and on the streets.
I also want to take this opportunity to make a plea for closed circuit television. The tenants association of Hamstead house and Scott house, led by Mr. Reg Hackett, has for many years been pressing for a grant from the local council to improve the security of its homes. I hope that the Government will be able to maintain their support for local CCTV initiatives.
Another initiative is working well in our community: a technological advance in policing, the automatic number plate recognition system. It works—in one afternoon, I saw seven arrests made using the new digital system, including some seriously hard-core criminals such as crack cocaine dealers and people with dangerous and offensive weapons. I hope that the Government continue to support community police initiatives.
I reiterate the offer to all Members to visit West Bromwich; perhaps after a few days in Cornwall, they could drive up the M5 to see us, and they would be very welcome. If they want tickets for the scavenger hunt, I have some leaflets, and they can catch me at the end of this debate.
3.33 pm
Tony Baldry (: Ministers should be concerned at the growing disillusionment about their ability to deliver public services. It is not just a question of people being cynically concerned about spin over substance; a growing concern exists about betrayed expectations, and there is a loss of confidence in the machinery of government. I want to give two examples from my constituency relating to health and education: Bicester community hospital and funding for schools in Oxfordshire this year. I do not seek to make a partisan political point, as, sadly, my observations could be made in practically any constituency in the country at present.
Almost immediately after coming to power, the Government published a White Paper, "The New NHS", which emphasised the value of community hospitals. Page 41 stated that
"too often in the past community hospitals have been sidelined. Their potential contribution to managing the pressures of rising emergency admissions has often been ignored. Patients will be able to use local community hospitals to the full rather than having to travel to more distant acute hospitals."
The Government's early commitment to community hospitals was especially welcome in Bicester, because it had been clear for many years that our existing community hospital needed expanding, refurbishing and rebuilding.

1203
In 1998, shortly after the Government took office, Oxfordshire health authority undertook a local consultation on the future of community hospitals in Oxfordshire. The health authority claimed that it was anxious to reduce community bed numbers in parts of Oxfordshire, where there was supposedly relatively generous provision, and to increase bed numbers where there was a greater need, such as in Bicester. In short, it wanted to ensure fairness of access to community health services.
In a debate in the House on 3 June 1998, the then Minister of State, now the Secretary of State for Health, said:
"Two options are being considered by the health authority and the NHS trust. Both options would mean that the 12-bed hospital in Bicester would be replaced by a new 30-bed hospital".—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 346.]
The capital and the revenue for the new community hospital at Bicester was going to be realised by closing Burford and Watlington hospitals and reducing the number of beds at five other community hospitals.
The community health council opposed the proposals, so the final decision had to be taken by the Secretary of State. On 24 November 1999, the then Minister of State, now the Secretary of State, wrote to the then chairman of Oxfordshire health authority, Dr. Peter Iredale, confirming the decisions made about the proposed changes to community hospitals in Oxfordshire. What he said in his letter could not have been clearer, more unambiguous or starker:
"I am delighted to support the development of a new hospital with additional beds at Bicester. However, I have decided to endorse the closure of Burford and Watlington and 18 beds at Abingdon community hospital …I expect the Health Authority, Trusts and Primary Care Groups to work closely to manage the change."
Understandably, locally, in Bicester and surrounding areas, there was considerable relief that at last there had been clear ministerial recognition of the need for a new enlarged community hospital in Bicester and a clear and unequivocal commitment that one would be built.
Matters progressed. A planning application was submitted for a new community hospital on the outskirts of Bicester. It is a matter of record that Chesterton parish council objected to that site, as a consequence of which the planning application was called in by the Government to be determined by a planning inspector. There was a public inquiry, as a result of which a different site was identified. Although the delay was extremely frustrating, I, like everyone else in Bicester, assumed that work would go ahead and that in due course, in the not-too-distant-future, Bicester would have a new community hospital. That was the expectation.
The reality is that the Department of Health and NHS officials appear to be reneging on building a new community hospital at Bicester. Matters have come to a head. North East Oxfordshire primary care trust, which is responsible for taking forward the project, has applied to Thames Valley strategic health authority for funds to work up the detailed project costs of building the new hospital. It has been told that there are no funds for that simple, straightforward project work. The response of
1204
the Thames Valley strategic health authority is deeply disturbing and seems to indicate that it is clearly reneging on commitments made by Ministers.
We in Bicester, and everyone else in Oxfordshire, thought that the money saved from the sale of Burford and Watlington community hospitals would be recycled into a new community hospital in Bicester—not so, it now seems. Thames Valley strategic health authority says:
"the fact that those hospitals are closed is now the status quo. Those savings will have been re-invested in the system"—
not held in reserve so that they are available for relocation—
"and will not be affected even if the Bicester development does not go ahead."
In other words, the health authority says that any moneys saved previously have been used up elsewhere rather than being earmarked for Bicester community hospital, which means that there is no capital for a new hospital.
As for the running costs, I understand that the health authority has told North East Oxfordshire primary care trust that the NHS will support a community hospital for Bicester only if every other PCT in Oxfordshire makes a commitment to help to meet the cost of running any future community hospital in Bicester. As the health authority put it:
"Financial contribution from other PCTs depends on them agreeing to changes in patient flows and agreeing with the Acute Trusts that they will switch investment into the expanded primary care facilities at Bicester."
It is a totally crazy situation. The NHS is effectively saying that there is neither the money to build a new community hospital in Bicester, nor the money to run an enlarged community hospital even if it were to be built. The hopes of the people of Bicester for a new community hospital are being seriously betrayed. How on earth can that situation be reconciled with the Secretary of State's clear and unequivocal statement in 1999, when he said:
"I am delighted to support the development of a new hospital with additional beds at Bicester"?
I also want to talk about schools' budgets. Expectations were very simple. There was an indication last year that schools' budgets would increase by 6.4 per cent. However, pretty much every school in my constituency is facing a funding crisis. I have received a letter from Bicester community college, a comprehensive school in my constituency with a sixth form. The letter says that
"the College is £180,000 short of what it needs this year to run everything smoothly at last year's levels. Even after making certain cuts from staffing levels which were set out in the first draft of the budget to account for the rising roll, we are forecasting a deficit for the coming year in the region of £120,000."
The letter outlines why the school is in extreme difficulty and says:
"We are not sure that the government understands that we are already in the current financial year, and even the staff cuts we might be able to make from September will affect only 7/12ths of the year's budget."
The letter concludes:
"We have a commitment to raise standards, and yet, despite a rising roll, will need to cut staff. The government expects schools to implement its workforce reform agenda—and we had some

1205
creative plans for doing so in September. Now we have no money to do this, and instead of taking on additional support staff, will need to reduce, hopefully by natural wastage, the number of staff in the school … This is a disappointing picture. It has lowered morale and made sensible planning impossible."
The situation is all the more disappointing because this year Oxfordshire has had the "benefit" of damping worth £4.7 million. It will not receive that next year, so it will effectively have a standstill budget, which will make the situation much worse. Head teachers, teachers and governing bodies throughout Oxfordshire are facing the fact that the reality of what the Government deliver is entirely different from their expectations. That has an extremely corrosive effect on any confidence in the machinery of government and Ministers and officials' ability to deliver. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State for Education and Skills simply to blame local authorities, the National Union of Teachers or anyone else who comes into his sights. Ministers must accept that there is a real problem with school funding that must be sorted out.
3.43 pm
Mark Tami: Last week the House debated a difficult but vital matter: the suspension of the elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly. In an ideal world, I am sure that no one in the House would have wanted the debate, but as we unfortunately do not live in such a world it was essential that the House took the decision that it did.
Holding elections while knowing full well that there was no realistic prospect of forming an Executive, regardless of the outcome of the elections, would have been folly indeed and would have achieved nothing. Indeed, I believe that it would have endangered the whole peace process. Without an Executive, the agreement requires another election to be held within six weeks of the first election. The whole process would have gained a momentum of its own, which would almost certainly have ended in collapse.
There are clearly some people—and some hon. Members—who would have welcomed such a chain of events because they have not supported the process from the very beginning. They might have and honestly hold that view, but I am sure the majority of the people of Northern Ireland neither hold that view nor want such events to happen—quite the reverse. Opinion polls continue to show that the majority of both communities in Northern Ireland support the Good Friday agreement and want it to deliver and work.
This has always been a difficult process and the Assembly has been suspended in the past to ensure that the process is not derailed. Some are depicting the postponement of the elections as if the whole democratic mandate of the Assembly is somehow being undermined or even being cancelled for good. It is not—far from it. It is not an ideal situation, but postponement was the only sensible option open to the Government. The elections will be held, and held as soon as possible. If progress is made, I hope and believe that they could be held in the autumn of this year. Postponement, therefore, is a temporary pause and not a step back or an acknowledgement of failure. However, it allows for more time to complete the vital work that needs to be done.
1206
We should not lose sight of the incredible progress that has been made since the signing of the Good Friday agreement—progress that many would have thought unachievable not so long ago. Indeed, much credit goes to those politicians, including the previous Prime Minister, who took brave and some may say risky decisions and actions to open the door to a peaceful and, I hope, lasting solution to the situation in Northern Ireland. 1 only wish that some of those who sit on the other side of the Chamber would follow that example.
The Government have built on those foundations. The process has been supported by many cross-community groups, and much credit also goes to the trade union movement, which has long bridged the sectarian divide in its support for working people in Northern Ireland. It has not been and could never be an easy process. Difficult decisions and compromises have had to be made, but who could seriously deny that the process was worth going through? It has delivered and is delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. It is not perfect, and I am not saying that people in Northern Ireland are dancing in the streets in support of the agreement. There are still many problems, but that does not mean that those people are not directly benefiting from its success.
Let us remember where we came from. When I was in my youth—believe it or not, that was not as long ago as some Members may think—I recall that news reports on the death of civilians and British soldiers in Northern Ireland were an everyday occurrence. Indeed, such news often appeared well down the reports, because it was such a regular item. The image of Northern Ireland was bleak. It was seen as a place in which companies would be foolish to invest and it would not have been at the top of people's possible holiday destinations or places to visit. It had so much to offer, but its image was tarnished and it was held back by the troubles that had dominated its politics for so long.
Since the Good Friday agreement, we have seen a very different picture. I agree that that does not apply in all areas, but considerable progress has been made in improving people's everyday lives. Let us look at the facts. Unemployment is down from 7.5 to 4.5 per cent. of the work force, the lowest figure since 1975. Importantly, there has been a drop of 65 per cent. in the same period in the number of the long-term unemployed. That is a major achievement. Gross domestic product per head is rising faster than in the United Kingdom as a whole. Perhaps one of the most telling figures is that manufacturing investment has increased by 15.7 per cent. rather than falling as it has in the UK over the past five years. Again, that is a major achievement. It demonstrates a renewed confidence in the economy in Northern Ireland, a confidence that was clearly lacking before the Good Friday agreement.
As a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I have the pleasure of visiting Northern Ireland on a regular basis. One can clearly see the investment that is going into Belfast and many other areas. That renewed confidence is spreading through all sections and all ages of the community. Even those who disagree with my view of how things have changed since the Good Friday agreement surely cannot deny that there are many people alive today—both civilian and military—who would have been killed or maimed had the agreement not been made and signed. If nothing else,

1207
it is surely a success on that basis. However, I believe that it has so much more to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. We now have to do everything in our power to ensure that the agreement delivers that goal, and the suspension is just one step and one part of the process. Last week's legislation, therefore, gave us some breathing space to clinch and to close the final gaps that exist.
The IRA's recent statement is a major step forward. It is a statement that few would have believed possible before the signing of the Good Friday agreement. However, further clarification is needed. The IRA needs to spell out clearly, without any doubt or question, exactly what it means. An end to paramilitary activity must mean exactly that.
We have seen great progress. However, we cannot ignore the fact that while we have not seen the headline-type of attacks, there have continued to be punishment beatings and related activities taking place in the communities of Northern Ireland. That must not and cannot continue. Equally, if paramilitary activity is at an end, there can be no question of carrying out training, surveillance or the targeting of individuals. Clearly there can be no question of buying arms, or seeking to buy them. All that must stop.
To move the process on, the IRA needs to make clear, and spell out in detail, exactly what it means by an end to paramilitary activity. If that is achieved, I believe that genuine progress can be made, and we can move the agreement forward so that elections can be held as soon as possible. When these elections are held, I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will look to embrace the opportunities that the agreement offers and not return to the conflict and suspicions of the past.
We are at a crossroads, but we have been at a number of crossroads in the past. By the sheer determination of all the parties involved that want to find a solution, a solution has been found and we have moved on further. We can do that again. Let us not go back. Too much has been achieved to throw everything away. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland do not want to go back to the troubles of the past. Many people, including politicians, and political parties, deserve credit for their courage and determination in achieving what we have achieved so far. I appeal to those who have for so long sat on the sidelines and have sought to make political capital out of the agreement's difficulties and problems to play a full part in its implementation and to embrace the opportunities that it offers. Only in that way will we have a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
3.52 pm
Bob Russell: I shall talk about cystic fibrosis and prescription charges. People with certain medical conditions are exempt from paying prescription charges, and the list of these conditions was drawn up in 1968 when, sadly, most of those with cystic fibrosis died as children. Children, plus people older than 60, as well as those on means-tested benefit, were, and still are, also exempt from paying prescription charges. So in 1968 the charges were not an issue of particular importance to those affected by cystic fibrosis. Fortunately, the outlook for those with cystic fibrosis has improved
1208
markedly over the past 35 years and most live until adulthood, although still with a considerably reduced life expectancy compared with the population as a whole.
However, adults with cystic fibrosis have to pay prescription charges. Most of them are 30 years of age or younger and often they are not earning high salaries as health considerations have affected their education and employment prospects. They and their families bitterly resent having to pay for drugs for this life-threatening disease, without which they would soon deteriorate rapidly.
The situation is made worse when sufferers of cystic fibrosis learn that others get free prescriptions for conditions that do not seem as serious as CF. That is even worse when we know that the national health service funds those who deliberately inject themselves with illegal drugs and other substances. The NHS funds and treats people with self-afflicted conditions but does not help those to whom mother nature did not deal the cards of life very fairly.
Once a person is on the exempt list they get free prescriptions for everything, including routine complaints such as coughs and colds. Cystic fibrosis patients have to pay for all of their prescriptions unless they develop diabetes, which is a complication of the disease that affects about 15 per cent. of CF patients. However, 85 per cent. of cystic fibrosis patients do not have diabetes; many eventually die, usually of lung disease, without ever developing diabetes. Therefore, they are never exempt from prescription charge payments as a result of their condition.
Some adults with cystic fibrosis are exempt from prescription charges for other reasons, such as those still in higher education, those on income support, those too ill to work and those on very low incomes. Some who are in receipt of state benefits such as disability living allowance still have to pay prescription charges.
The Cystic Fibrosis Trust believes that all adults with CF should be exempt from prescription charges for the following reasons: CF is a life-threatening medical condition for which daily medication is essential; adults with CF are often considerably disadvantaged in economic terms by their condition, and further financial hardship is caused by having to pay prescription charges; and for adults with CF who are in financial difficulty, there is a danger that having to pay for prescriptions may act as a disincentive to take essential treatment.
It is illogical and unjust that others with similar or less serious conditions are exempt from prescription charges, whereas those with cystic fibrosis are not. CF meets the requirements laid down by the British Medical Association in 1968 and accepted by the Government as criteria for exemption. Specifically, the conditions to be included on the exempt list should be
"readily identifiable conditions, which in virtually all cases call automatically for prolonged continuous medication".
CF fulfils all those conditions exactly. The only reason that it was not included on the list in 1968 is that as all children were exempt from prescription charges that included all those with CF at that time.
Mr. Watson: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his early-day motion 1, which has been signed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. He is exposing an anomaly. It may be helpful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to be reminded that it was a commitment in the 1997 Labour party manifesto that we would abolish prescription charges.
Bob Russell: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention and for drawing attention to early-day motion 1, which has been signed by 146 right hon. and hon. Members. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the leading role that he has played in drawing attention to the anomaly.
As children with the condition rarely lived beyond childhood, there were no adults with cystic fibrosis to exempt in 1968, so their case was not considered at that time. The Government should act now, as the case is clear-cut and just. When in opposition, the Labour party indicated its intention of reviewing prescription charges. Indeed, it went further, and in its consultative document of 1994 entitled "Labour 2000", it used CF as an example of current injustices that it intended to put right and stated:
"We will seek to provide free medication as part of on-going treatment for long-term requirements. For example, those suffering from Cystic Fibrosis who reach adulthood should not have to rely on some other category, such as diabetes, in order to obtain free prescriptions."
However, the Labour Government, now in their second term, have not yet honoured that commitment. The issue of prescription charges was considered in the Government's initial comprehensive spending review, but in November 1998 the then Minister of State, now elevated to the position of Secretary of State for Health, wrote to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust:
"The list of medical conditions conferring prescription charge exemption was introduced in 1968 after being agreed in discussion with the medical profession and no clear consensus for extending it has since emerged."
In March this year the Welsh Assembly announced the setting up of a review group to examine the existing arrangements for charges, exemptions and remissions, with a view to exploring the possibility of adding some chronic conditions, including cystic fibrosis, to a list of exemptions for Wales. For the past two years the Welsh Assembly has exempted all young people under the age of 25 from prescription charges. If that is good enough for Wales, it is good enough for England.
The Cystic Fibrosis Trust has consulted extensively with consultants caring for CF patients, with CF adults and their families, and with professional bodies involved in health care. All those consulted agree that CF meets the criteria for inclusion in the exempt list. It must be assumed, therefore, that the Government have received no advice from any professional body that it would be inappropriate to include CF on the exempt list. It would seem, then, that the lack of clear consensus refers to other medical conditions.
The Cystic Fibrosis Trust does not accept that an adjustment to the exempt list could not or should not be made for cystic fibrosis because of a lack of consensus on other conditions. The case for including cystic fibrosis on the exempt list is made and accepted. It is wrong to continue to discriminate against young adults
1210
who clearly meet the criteria of the exempt list, but may not be covered by any other category of exemption. The cost to the national health service would be minimal, at less than £100,000 a year, in comparison with a drugs bill of £6.6 billion.
It is estimated that about 7,500 people have cystic fibrosis in the UK, of whom about 3,000 are aged 18 or over. Roughly one third of those are in higher education and another third are too ill to work, which leaves about 1,000 people who have to pay prescription charges. As they have the option of paying by item or by season ticket, most people pay using annual or four-monthly season tickets. That involves a pre-payment of £90.40 for a year or £32.90 for four months. The total cost of including cystic fibrosis patients in the exempt list would therefore be about £88,000 a year—or, to put it another way, less than David Beckham gets each week.
The time for excuses and fudging is over. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust is hard pressed to meet its commitments on research both to improve symptom control and to make progress on the gene therapy work that, it is hoped, will lead to a cure for cystic fibrosis while it is also subsiding the NHS. The trust's research commitments alone account for more than £5 million a year. In addressing the problems of clinical care, almost £1 million a year is given back to the NHS to pay for doctors, nurses and other clinicians. The trust is also addressing the problem of unacceptable wards in respect of in-patient provision for many young adults with cystic fibrosis, and it is working to bring cystic fibrosis care in the UK up to acceptable standards.
The trust wants to help and is prepared to co-operate positively and constructively with the Government, but a charity cannot arid should not be expected to do the job of the NHS or of the Government. The current arrangements for prescription charges for adults with cystic fibrosis are demonstrably unjustifiable. Those charges should be abolished. The Government should remedy the situation, both because the case is just and to honour the promise that they made when they were in opposition.
4.2 pm
Linda Perham: I should like to start with my interest in the situation in the middle east and Cyprus. According to the latest census, the London borough of Redbridge has the third highest Jewish population in the country. On behalf of my Jewish constituents, I raised anxieties about the security and future of Israel with the Foreign Secretary on 28 April. I welcome the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as the Palestinian Prime Minister, but I am still worried about whether the will exists in the Arab world and Israel to follow the road map to a peaceful settlement within the given time frame. I have grave doubts about the likelihood of progress while Yasser Arafat retains any power or influence. I had a meeting with Mr. Arafat about five years ago; I did not believe then—and I am not persuaded now—that he is genuine about achieving a resolution of the conflict.
This Government and Prime Minister are friends of Israel. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have always strongly condemned the terror to which the Jewish state is continually subjected in its struggle for existence. I commend the Prime Minister for taking a lead in persuading the US Administration to commit to pursuing the path to peace in the middle east.

1211
As for Cyprus, I am one of the lead signatories of early-day motion 1116, which welcomes the opening of the green line on 23 April, when Cypriots separated for almost three decades proved to themselves and the wider world that, as Cypriots, they have so much in common. I and my Greek and Turkish Cypriot constituents and Friends of Cyprus, which has campaigned for so long for peace and reconciliation in Cyprus, are more hopeful than we have been for years that we will see not only the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the EU in 2004, but the real prospect of an end to the heartbreak of partition of that beautiful island, so that all Cypriots can look forward to a prosperous future within the family of European states.
On domestic issues, I am glad to see some of the results of extra Government funding for public services in my local area. I recently opened a children's information service centre at the Hainault Forest Community Association, of which I am president. Last week, my local paper, the Ilford Recorder, reported a £400,000 Government award to provide an additional 131 nursery places in the borough, including a project with Barnado's—its headquarters is in my constituency—which will receive £92,000 to provide 51 extra nursery places. I am pleased and proud to support the excellent work of Barnado's, and am leading its campaign in Parliament against child prostitution. My early-day motion now has 236 signatures, and I urge more hon. Members to sign it. A Home Office Minister told me last week that the Department has been deluged with letters of support for the campaign from members of the public.
Extra investment in fighting crime and disorder and the excellent work of Chief Superintendent Michael Johnson and Superintendent Bryan Horsley, the new partnership leading Redbridge's police, resulted last year in reductions in street crime, auto crime, residential burglaries and gun-related violent crime. Street wardens are in place in my local area, and we look forward to the allocation of community support officers to help make our borough a safer place. Another candidate for extra investment is the Crossrail project, which is of enormous importance to east London. The loss in the first part of the year of the Central line tube service, which seriously inconvenienced many of my constituents and me, illustrated the urgent need for transport improvements for existing commuters as well as the need to contribute to the regeneration of the Thames gateway. A favourable "in principle" Government decision is needed urgently so that Crossrail can come closer to being realised.
Health services have been a major beneficiary of extra public funding. King George hospital in Ilford, which most of my constituents use, is opening a new urology centre and developing an angiography suite, allowing patients to be treated locally, rather than having to travel to other London hospitals. Whipps Cross hospital, which my Woodford constituents attend, met all NHS targets in April for in-patients and out-patients, including 90 per cent. of accident and emergency admissions being treated within four hours, thus becoming the most improved hospital in the UK for that target. The emergency medical centre will soon be
1212
completed, improvements have been made to the maternity ward, and there is an ambitious project to redevelop the whole hospital.
In primary care, the reconfiguration of local primary care trusts within borough boundaries has presented some challenges, but the Redbridge PCT is moving ahead with improvements to speech and language therapy services, an issue of particular concern to parents of children with special needs. Waiting times for GP and podiatry appointments are being cut. My local medical centre in Hainault is to be part of the LIFT—local improvement finance trust—programme to expand and improve health and community services to one of the most deprived areas of the borough. Those improvements are making a real difference to people's lives.
Locally and nationally, the Tories complain about Government funding while promising to cut public spending, but they refuse to take responsibility for their own policies. For example, the Tory council in Redbridge is proposing a hike in the cost of home care by 100 per cent. in some cases. Disabled, widowed 87-year old Lena Odgers of Barkingside faces an increase of £70 a week. Showing the true spirit of the party of the poor and vulnerable, local Tories have described these swingeing rises of up to £100 a week as "affordable".
Whoever the Tories are purporting to represent this week, in the past six years the Labour Government have proved that they represent the entire nation by achieving increased support for the poorest and a business climate far superior to the boom and bust of the Tory years. Speaking to the CBI this week, the Chancellor commented on his budgetary strategy and highlighted the reforms that reflect the modern role of Government. His recent Budget introduced new rights for working people, including paternity pay, enhanced maternity rights and a review of pay, training and employment needs of 16 to 19-year-olds. I am glad that the new deal 25-plus gateway to work pilot will run in my constituency. An extension to the new deal 50-plus is planned, but I urge the Chancellor and other Ministers to keep under constant review measures to meet the needs and aspirations of older jobseekers.
I was also glad to hear of the Chancellor's intention to remove more than 500 regulations introduced by previous Governments. The last Conservative Government introduced more than 3.000 regulations in each of their last three years in office. However, I would advise against any dogmatic response either for or against regulation. My own attempts at legislation on age discrimination and corporate social responsibility have taught me that the voluntary approach can achieve results, but less scrupulous companies and directors will always need a legislative bottom line before they recognise their responsibilities.
Although I was disappointed by the decision in the Budget to raise the price of cigarettes only by the annual rate of inflation, I pay tribute to the seriousness with which the Government have treated the need to improve public health by reducing the number of people who start and continue to smoke, but more has to be done, including banning smoking in the workplace and in public places in general. I commend the action that is taking place in my area, including the "Together" initiative and the assistance offered by local pharmacies to help smokers to give up that death-dealing habit.

1213
As secretary of the all-party group on ageing and older people, I am delighted, as is the Redbridge Pensioners Action Association, with the announcements about the abolition of the reduction of pension entitlement to pay for hospital care and the increase in the winter fuel allowance for people over 80. As my parents and parents-in-law are aged between 80 and 88, that measure is a cause for family celebration.
The Government would not be able to propose those excellent changes in the Budget and to increase investment in public services were it not for their achievement over the past six years in maintaining a robust economy. The Labour Government have not only provided the foundation for establishing and sustaining strong communities and public service improvements, but made available the means to tackle poverty and deprivation in developing countries.
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you aware that given the number of remaining speakers and the time available, if every Member took seven minutes, every Member would be able to speak?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I am sure that Members will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said. and will perhaps respond.
4.12 pm
Mrs. Iris Robinson: Before I commence my speech, I should like to respond to comments made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami). As hon. Members might expect, I do not agree with his sentiments. I find it rather patronising that he should think that he is in a position to know what is best for the people of Northern Ireland and therefore try to justify the cancellation of democratic elections. If he is so sure that the majority of people in Northern Ireland support the Belfast agreement, let us have elections immediately.
This Parliament is regarded as the cradle of democracy, yet within recent weeks this House was prepared to abort a democratic election in Northern Ireland because it was unhappy with the probable outcome. Democratic elections conflicted with Government policy on Northern Ireland, and Government policy took precedence. A famed political author once wrote:
"The right of election is the essence of the constitution".
In their generation, statesmen such as Edmund Burke spoke out against the manipulation of parliamentary procedure in restraining the people's right to elect their own representatives. More than two centuries later, in May 1997, the Prime Minister appeared to endorse that position, stating:
"What the electorate gives, the electorate can take away."
Unfortunately for the electorate in Northern Ireland, they will not now have the chance to elect the representatives whom they see fit to speak on their behalf. Nor will they be given the opportunity to express their opinions on the Belfast agreement, which has been disastrous for the application of democracy in Northern Ireland. As with so many promises and pledges that the Prime Minister has made, that one, too, has been forgotten or simply discarded.
1214
In the face of international pressure to preserve the integrity of democracy in Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister bowed to the pleading of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who came to him, cap in hand, asking him to abort the election. In the face of overwhelming support for an election from both sections of the community in Northern Ireland, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the Prime Minister contrived to rob the people of their democratic right to elect those whom they believe best represent their views, and to remove their right to influence the way in which their country should be governed.
The Prime Minister has now separated himself from the democratic world and joined the infamous ranks of dictators in moving to prevent the application of democracy through free elections. One is reminded of former Argentine premier Juan Peron, who came to power in a landslide election only to take on the role of dictator. As Peron put it:
"We are no longer interested in elections, except as a means to reach our objectives".
Is not our Prime Minister emulating that doctrine by his action in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister tells us that because elections on 29 May would not provide the outcome he wanted, there was no point in holding them. He asked:
"What would be the point of holding an election if a government could not be set up afterwards?"
The answer is simple: to provide politicians in Northern Ireland with a mandate to negotiate. Twice in recent years, the Government held elections in the Province to establish who had the mandate to negotiate and to determine the strength of each party's viewpoint.
The democratic authority of Assembly Members has expired. The term of office and the mandate that they were given in 1998 is now spent. In the past five years, the Government have sought to have it both ways in Northern Ireland. They have attempted to create a society in which democracy and terrorism operate in parallel. Of course, that is practically and intellectually impossible.
Democracy will never flourish in any country where terrorism is lauded and rewarded. The Government say that they would eventually like elections to take place, but only when the outcome is likely to concur with their political agenda. At every stage of the struggle, democracy has come out second best. The people of Northern Ireland have been relegated to the status of Europe's democratic backwoodsmen.
The Prime Minister told the world that elections had been aborted because of a lack of clarity by Sinn Fein-IRA on future acts of terrorism. Five years ago, he told the people of Northern Ireland:
"Those who use or threaten violence will be excluded from the government of Northern Ireland".
Sinn Fein-IRA activity has continued unabated since 1998, yet at no stage did the Government move to support the exclusion of IRA-Sinn Fein from government. The Belfast agreement is founded on providing concessions to terrorists in return for a tactical restriction on terrorist activity.
If the Government seriously believe that IRA-Sinn Fein behaviour has prevented elections, why did not the Prime Minister hang them out to dry? Why not say,

1215
"No. The people of Northern Ireland have had enough of your double dealing. There is no place in government for you until you completely disband, disarm and disown violence, but democratic parties will not be punished for your bad behaviour"?
Although we are told that IRA-Sinn Fein have not done enough to allow an election to take place, they appear to have done enough to be gifted the concessions in the joint declaration that were supposed to be conditional on IRA acts of completion. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who is the leader of a segment of the Ulster Unionist party, claims to be taking a hard line against the concessions that we now discover he already agreed to at Hillsborough.
The time has come for the electorate of Northern Ireland, so long denied the opportunity to cast their vote, to have their say. For five years, those of us who have respectably, justifiably, democratically and effectively opposed the Belfast agreement have been marginalised and rebuked. We were dispatched to the political dugout by the press and the Government alike. Those whom we represent and those who would have us represent them were to be ignored and denied a voice. None the less, we decided democratically to enter the institution that we opposed and to argue for change. We have been so successful that we now command support from the majority of Unionist voters, yet the Government deny us a democratic means of effecting change. Have they thought what alternatives that leaves?
Much is made of suspect polls carried out by local newspapers and TV stations, so I would ask the Government to publish the findings of their own poll that prompted the cancellation of the election. What kind of policy is it that cannot survive the outcome of an election or which will wither, should the light of democracy fall upon it? There is only one way to gauge the feelings of people in Northern Ireland and that is to hold elections and to let the people speak. The election for the Assembly was to have taken place on 1 May; the Government then postponed it until 29 May. Now they say that they hope it can take place in the autumn.
The truth is that the Prime Minister will allow only an election that he thinks will deliver the result that he wants. This is similar to his attitude to a referendum on the euro. The Government need to come to terms with the reality that the Belfast agreement is dead; it has failed and it cannot be saved. A new deal is needed, and the sooner the process of negotiation starts, the better. The Government cannot run away from the electorate for ever. It is time to let the people speak.
4.21 pm
Mr. John Smith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly, in this afternoon's Adjournment debate. The subject that I wish to bring to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members—and, indeed, the country as a whole—is article 17 of the Warsaw convention. I am sure that a lot of Members will be thinking, "What on earth is he talking about?" but in fact, this is a crucial convention that every Member in the House and most members of the public should be clear about, because they will find it on the back of every airline ticket that they buy.
1216
It is particularly appropriate to be discussing this just before the Whitsun recess, because I am sure that a lot of people will soon be setting off to Heathrow airport to take holidays abroad. In fact, I have just received a message on my pager from the Government Whips telling me to give myself an extra hour if I wish to head to Heathrow, because there are considerable traffic jams on the approach to the airport.
The convention was drawn up in 1929 to govern the liability of air carriers internationally. It was drawn up at a time when air travel was in its infancy, and still a novel form of travel. People hardly ever travelled by air in those days—certainly not commercially—but the rules that were put together that long ago still govern the liability on air carriers today. That has resulted in an absurd anomaly. Airline companies have no legal liability whatever for the health, welfare or psychological well-being of their passengers. I stress this because I am sure that most Members of the House and members of the public will not be familiar with this information.The absurdity of this anomaly is that airline companies have a statutory liability and obligation towards the welfare, health and well-being of the animals that they carry. They have a duty to provide animals with enough room, to feed and water them properly, and to ensure that they get exercise, yet they have no duty whatever towards the human beings whom they carry on their planes.
Air travel is now the fastest growing mode of transport in the world: 55 million people a year travel abroad from this country alone. Every time those people get on to a plane, they put their lives at risk. It is not the risk of accident or injury, as common sense might suggest; the greatest risk that they face is to their health and their welfare. They have entered an environment that is both completely artificial and completely controlled by the airline company, but the airline company has no responsibility whatsoever for their welfare.
Airline companies do not just control where and how passengers sit. Today American Airlines, the biggest carrier in the world, announced its decision to cram even more people on to its aircraft because of its severe economic problems. I know of those problems, but the fact remains that people's health and even their lives are being put at risk. They are being forced to sit, unable to move, for long periods, which leaves them open to the common condition of air travel-related thromboembolic disease.
Mr. Tyler: As the hon. Gentleman may know, I supported his effective campaign relating to, in particular, deep vein thrombosis. I have also looked into the important issue of air quality in aircraft cabins. There is no proper exchange of information about that, and no analysis of what may have gone wrong in many cases throughout the world. International references to such problems are totally inaccurate.
Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. Many people in this country are dying unnecessarily from a condition that goes largely undiagnosed, and on which the clinical profession remains silent.
Flying poses other threats to health. As I have said, airlines control not just where and how people sit—that can involve prolonged periods of inertia and

1217
apathy—but the food that they eat and the very air that they breathe. Twenty years ago the air going into aircraft was fresh air, but that has not been the case since the mid-1980s. Now the companies control the amount of oxygen in the air and the temperature in cabins. There is evidence that passengers risk contracting airborne diseases, SARS being the current worldwide problem. Article 17, however, exempts the companies from any liability. In effect it is a licence to kill, and it needs to be changed.
Only limited evidence is available to us, because unfortunately no statistical studies have been conducted. The World Health Organisation's current research will not be conclusive or definitive, because of the 9 billion euro shortfall in the funds it needs to be able to reveal to us the full extent and cause of deep vein thrombosis among air travellers. We should be in no doubt, however—because no serious clinician doubts— that there is a direct correlation between long periods of inertia on aircraft and the deaths of passengers.
Professor John Scurr estimates that one in 10 passengers who travel long haul—for more than four hours—develop blood clots, while 43 per cent. of those people develop deep vein thrombosis. Such a thrombosis can be dislodged, move to the lungs and kill a person. That happened in the sad case of Sara Newman, aged 29, of which Members may have read in the national press last week. It is the second case I have encountered of a 29-year-old woman travelling across the Atlantic and developing deep vein thrombosis. In the other case, although the thrombosis was almost fatal, the woman—was—thank God—saved.
Article 17 is absurd, and must be changed. People are dying unnecessarily. Although airline tickets imply otherwise, people cannot insure themselves against death, serious injury or loss of income resulting from deep vein thrombosis developed during flights.
This is a serious matter of public concern. Today I wish merely to flag it up, to say that this absurd provision must be changed, and to conclude that if any Government in the world should be embarking on negotiations to change it, it is the British Government The British Government happen to have a first-class record in leading the international field on air health issues.
4.30 pm
Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess, I have a number of constituency points that I wish to raise, all of which arise from the Government's complete failure to deliver on their promises. Ministers are arguing with each other, No. 10 and No. 11 have fallen out big time—I understand that they no longer share cups of sugar—and the Government's failure to have a referendum on the European constitution is an absolute disgrace. I am delighted that the Daily Mail, enterprisingly, will conduct a ballot on Thursday 12 June, so that everyone in the country will be able to vote on the issue.
I want to begin with education. What is happening in education is typical of a Labour Government, in that socialism is having one's hand in someone else's pocket. In 1997, Labour used the phrase "education, education, education." In Southend, we have had a 6.6 per cent. increase in funding for schools, most of which has gone
1218
towards special educational needs, but the estimated increase in costs is 9.5 per cent. Education Ministers have got the civil service working overtime putting out letters to Members of Parliament, pretending that things are not quite as bad as they actually are. This is absolute nonsense, because all our schools have had the money given to them taken away through teachers' salaries and pension costs.
The excellent chairman of secondary heads in Southend, Mr. Frank Keenan, has written to heads about the existence of a shortfall of between £80,000 and £200,000 per secondary school. In fact, for some the shortfall is as bad as £400,000, which means that any number of options will have to be cut. Many of our excellent primary schools have written to me, pointing out that they face cuts of as much as £70,000 to £80,000, the average figure being £50,000. Essex county council faces a cut of £7.6 million. This is simply not good enough. The Government are trying to hoodwink us into believing that they are putting more money into education, but in fact they are taking it away.
The second issue that I want to discuss is crime. On Monday, I attended an emergency meeting of Leigh crime prevention panel, which was chaired by the excellent councillor, Mrs. Gwen Horrigan.
Bob Russell: Is she a Tory?
Mr. Amess: Yes, she is a Conservative councillor. Southend has a wonderful Conservative-controlled council, which was re-elected on the first Thursday in May. The meeting was attended by certain senior police officers, members of the neighbourhood watch and others. My point is that there is a crisis throughout the country, but particularly in Essex, in terms of disparity in police pay. Metropolitan police officers get £6,000 more than Southend officers, who are consequently leaving to join the Met. The haemorrhaging of officers is particularly severe in Thurrock, Harlow, Basildon and Castle Point.
In April, the Government suggested that our police forces should reduce overtime by 5 per cent. during the next three years. That is having a huge impact on our efforts to contain the unfortunate problems that we all face in our constituencies with criminality. It is no good Labour Members suggesting that that is not the case; they always seem to be saying that they have problems, while pretending that the Government are doing something about them. The Government are certainly letting the general public down on pay and conditions for our wonderful policewomen and men, who are doing an excellent job in Southend. I ask the Minister to try to do something about pay for Met officers and the cut in overtime.
My next point is about the health service. There are several single-handed general practitioners in Southend. They do an excellent job, though they are still reeling from the way in which the Prime Minister insulted them at Prime Minister's Question Time last summer, when he suggested that they were not ideally suited to continue on their own. That is not the case.
About 75 per cent. of the health budget now goes through the primary care trust, and I am disappointed at the failure of my PCT to deliver. I have also noted a huge disparity in what local GPs are paid per patient.

1219
One GP who came to see me has 3,563 patients and receives £8.48 per patient, but another doctor in another part of the town receives more than £18. That is not the result of differences in the work that they perform, which makes the disparity more serious.
Another issue relating to the behaviour of the local primary care trust was brought to my attention by an excellent local GP, Dr. Lawrence Singer. On the corner of the next street, a local GP with many patients retired. It is the duty of the primary care trust to write to all the patients and offer them a choice about whose list they wanted to join. That did not happen in this case. The doctor was initially—insultingly—offered 17, an offer that was later withdrawn. The PCT completely failed in its duty to offer choice to patients.
Mobile phones are the next subject that I want to discuss. Yet again the Government singularly fail to do anything about problems caused by mobile phones. People drive around with mobile phones stuck to their ears, the law is not being enforced and there is hardly a public building or rooftop in my little urban constituency of Southend, West, that is not having one of those blessed poles installed on it. The latest one was at 839 London road, opposite two schools. Everyone protested, helped by the excellent leadership of Mr. Ian Robertson. I have a petition containing more than 500 signatures, but absolutely nothing gets done. We had little tea parties downstairs in our dining rooms, organised by Hutchinson, Orange and the rest. I attend them faithfully. They know my position, but nothing at all changes. Apparently, the London marine underwriting agency has some responsibility for the London road development. It failed in its duty. As usual, it is a case of passing the buck. We have debated relevant issues in the House and I remain convinced that there is a cancer risk, but the Government fail to do anything about it.
I have the honour to be the chairman of the all-party rheumatoid arthritis group. The excellent Ailsa Bosworth is the chair for the whole country. A survey of problems suffered by people with rheumatoid arthritis was recently published. Other hon. Members and I are shortly to visit Guy's hospital and a hospital in Sidcup to examine the facilities first hand. The summary tells us that diagnosis, referral and waiting lists for patients with rheumatoid arthritis are poor as judged against Government targets. About 40 per cent. of patients believe that they do not have access to the best treatment. Many people with rheumatoid arthritis do not have access to services that they need, such as occupational therapies, physiotherapies and hydrotherapy. Once again, the Government are letting people down.
My final point relates to a constituent who is in prison awaiting trial in Egypt. I am delighted to say that, at long last, a meeting with the Egyptian ambassador has been arranged for myself, the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 3 June. 1 hope that justice will be done. The trial has been postponed again until the middle of June. I hope that it will be a happy Whitsun for my constituent and others awaiting trial in Egypt.
4.39 pm
Gareth Thomas: When Parliament reconvenes after the Whitsun recess, it will be visited by the Richard commission, which is not terribly well known. The commission will take evidence on a matter that may not be of immediate concern to many of my constituents but which is none the less important—the way in which democracy operates in Wales under the National Assembly.
I am proud to be part of a ruling party that has introduced a substantial measure of devolution to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The National Assembly is a recognition of Wales's separate national identity, and represents a genuine attempt to create a more democratic society there.
The commission chaired by Lord Ivor Richard has two tasks. First, it will assess the current state of play, and determine whether the Assembly should have extra powers—and especially whether it should have primary legislative powers. Secondly, it will assess the electoral arrangements, which are rather complicated and involve the additional member system and the application of the d'Hondt system.
I am very concerned about the view of some members of the chattering classes in Wales. In particular, people in the academic community have shown some disdain for the Welsh model of devolution. Their opinions should not go unrefuted. Although devolution in the UK is not symmetrical, being somewhat a la carte—Scotland has a Parliament, Wales an Assembly—I believe that the present settlement in Wales is entirely sustainable.
Llew Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Gareth Thomas: I will give way to my hon. Friend, as I know that he takes an interest in these matters.
Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that just about the only reason given for establishing the Welsh Assembly was that Wales had become a quango state? It was necessary to rectify that wrong by making what was called a "bonfire of the quangos." Research that I and some others have done shows that there are now just as many quangos in Wales as when the Assembly was first set up. Moreover, the amalgamation of quangos and the formation of bodies such as ELWa mean that the quango state is even more powerful. The only reason for a Welsh Assembly was to make a bonfire of the quangos, but no one has struck a match yet. Will my hon. Friend explain the reason for continuing with the institution?
Gareth Thomas: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I admire and respect his views, even though I do not always agree with him. The process of democratising Wales and getting rid of the many quangos that blighted our democracy has a long way to go. I therefore agree that more of a bonfire is needed, but my point is that the present settlement is sustainable. Primary legislative powers are retained here in Westminster, but the Assembly has a wide range of powers in connection with administration and secondary legislation, and it controls the very large budgets conferred on it by this Labour Government.

1221
The Welsh block has increased very considerably over the past six years, which has meant massive extra investment in public services such as health and education.
My point is that the current arrangements are working satisfactorily. The Assembly is a new institution, and it needs time to bed in. Importantly and significantly, the Welsh model of devolution was endorsed by the people of Wales: first, when the general election manifesto commitment of the Labour party received the approval of the people; and, secondly, in the yes vote—albeit narrow—in the referendum held in 1997.
For the avoidance of doubt, I played an active part in the devolution campaign and remain a strong supporter of the Assembly. It has genuinely added value to the administration of Wales. It has brought decision making much closer to the people of Wales and given Wales the opportunity to develop its own policies. I am pleased that my colleague, Alun Pugh, the Labour Assembly Member for my constituency, was returned. He is now the Minister for Culture, Sport and Welsh Language.
Welsh is widely spoken in my constituency, even though we are close to the English border. Within 15 minutes, one can be in the large conurbations of Chester or Merseyside. I am pleased that the Welsh language has revived. The decline in the number of Welsh speakers has been halted and, for the first time, there is a substantial increase. That is a tribute to the cross-party support for the language in Wales. The Welsh language remains the strongest Celtic language—long may that continue.
The present administrative system is sustainable; it is working satisfactorily. Primary legislative power for Wales should remain here. Devolution is a process, not an event, but only in the limited sense that the Government of Wales Act 1998 envisaged that further secondary legislative powers would be conferred on Wales as a natural consequence. Primary legislation should be drafted so that it gives proper discretion to the Welsh Assembly to develop its own policy solutions.
It is essential that Home Office and policing powers remain here in Westminster where they are dealt with satisfactorily. Wales and England are inseparable in terms of their legal system and courts service.
There is room for improvement in the proportional representation system. In my constituency, it led to the rather perverse result that every candidate from the four main parties was returned to the Assembly. My colleague was returned under the first-past-the-post system, but the three defeated candidates were returned under the list system, because they held favourable positions in their party's regional lists. Such a result discredits the PR system.
Although the present arrangements are sustainable, we need to work on them. We need especially to reduce hospital waiting lists in Wales. The Assembly should use its existing powers to the full to deliver for the people of Wales.
4.48 pm
Bob Spink: May I start with a pleasant bedtime story? On 1 May, when the good people of Castle Point went to bed their council had a strong
1222
Labour majority. When they woke up the next morning, there were 39 Conservative councillors and only two Labour councillors remained.
The people of Castle Point showed good judgment. That does not surprise me, because Castle Point is a special community. It is a great place to live, with historic buildings, such as the ninth-century St. Mary's church in Benfleet, Hadleigh castle, overlooking the magnificent Thames estuary, and the wonderful Dutch cottages on Canvey Island.
Castle Point people are wonderful. They are hardworking, self-reliant, enterprising and energetic. They deserve a decent environment in which to live, and that is a problem; they do not have one. They are plagued by bad smells-by an awful odour, which is getting much worse. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members to laugh, but for my constituents it is not a laughing matter. The Environment Agency described the smell as
"extremely pungent, nauseating and unpleasant"—
a bit like the Labour Government, really. It includes sulphurous gases and causes serious anxiety and stress to my constituents. I congratulate the local newspapers on their battles to raise this issue on behalf of residents. They have done splendid work. In particular, I wish to mention the Yellow Advertiser campaign, "Stop the Smells".
Castle Point borough council is doing all that it can, but the smell emanates from a source not in Castle Point, so it is limited in what it can do and the Environment Agency must take the lead in the solution. I congratulate the borough council and Mr. Alan Longford, the environmental health director, and his staff on what they do for the people, but the Environment Agency could and should have done things years before to prevent the problem from arising now and to monitor and identify the sources of the smell and provide a contingency plan in the event of such smells occurring again. None of that has been done, but it should have been because I raised the problem in the 1990s when I sat on the Government Benches.
My recent written question reveals that the Environment Agency has recorded 562 recent complaints, which shows how serious the matter is. Last week, the Environment Agency promised me that it would write to all the residents who have complained to it this week, but letters have not yet been sent and I call for them to be rushed out urgently so that people know is happening with this very serious problem.
I have raised the issue in an early-day motion and several interventions in the Chamber and with the borough council, the Environment Agency and neighbouring colleagues. In fact, next Tuesday, I will visit the Cleanaway site, where the problem exists, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), who is doing excellent work—I congratulate him on it—not only on the recent problem of the smell, but on the longer-term issues about what has been tipped at Pitsea, what material is held there, what dangers to health the materials may pose and how best to remove any problems. My hon. Friend and I are calling for an independent assessment of the risks to public health from the operation at the Pitsea site, and I hope that the Government will provide such an assessment, with the emphasis on independence.

1223
The Environment Agency has not yet taken the proper, necessary action. According to the Minister for the Environment, the smell has two sources, both at Pitsea tip. He says:
"Work to prevent the escape of landfill gas from one of the two sources of odour has already begun. The Environment Agency has required that this odour source be abated within three months and it is expected that this will be completed within that time."—[Official Report, 20 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 684.]
He also says that the second and most prominent source of odour has also been attacked, but that a number of additional measures are also being considered and implemented for that source.
It is just not good enough to say that three months are needed to clear up the enormous problem caused by the first source, as the smell has been around since February this year and has been recurring year on year. We have known about the problem for at least 10 years, and it is intolerable that proper action is not being taken now. Much too little is being done much too late.
I am more concerned about the Minister for the Environment's response on the second, more important source, as he implies that, as yet, no solution has been found and says that additional measures are being implemented. We need to know what measures, when they will be implemented and whether the solution will be sustainable so that the smell does not recur next spring.
In another written answer to my representations, the Minister for the Environment says:
"The Environment Agency has acted to ensure that more robust procedures are put in place to monitor for odours more actively at Pitsea landfill site. This will enable such odours to be detected and dealt with promptly."—[Official Report, 20 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 684.]
What a laugh! I asked for that 10 years ago and I did so again a year ago—nothing has been done. Again, the Government have done too little, too late; they seem to have stopped listening. In yet another answer to one of my questions, the Minister for the Environment said:
"Research into the health effects of the landfill gas is currently being undertaken by the Environment Agency at the site. The research will look into any health impacts that may have been caused by the odours."—[Official Report, 20 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 684W.]
In another answer to one of my questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Health stated:
"The existence of intermittent bad odours … in the Castle Point area has been known for some time",
and that the
"Primary Care Trust are unaware of any medical evidence that people in the area are clinically affected."—[Official Report, 19 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 602W.]
My constituents want to know who to believe. Is the Environment Minister or the Health Minister right about the health risks? They also want to know who is to be blamed for the health problems that they are suffering. They are reporting to local newspapers and to me a whole range of serious health problems: loss of sleep, nausea, sickness and breathing difficulties. In fact, somebody collapsed and, sadly, died of an asthma attack on Canvey Island a few weeks ago during the height of one of these problems. My constituents are asking me to investigate whether there is a link.
1224
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology pamphlet on the health effects of air pollutants states:
"Mostly elderly and young people and those with respiratory diseases such as asthma or bronchitis are affected."
It says that SO2 causes
"coughing, tightening of chest, irritation of lungs",
NO2 causes
"irritation and inflammation of lungs",
and PM10 causes
"inflammation of lungs, worsening of symptoms of people with heart and lung conditions, linkage of long-term exposure to coronary heart disease and lung cancer",
and goes on to list other air pollutants and their effects on health.
We are talking about serious health problems, and we must have clear, definitive answers for our constituents. The Government must state exactly what is held in and what comes from Pitsea tip. They must say what the possible health consequences are, how and when the problem will be removed once and for all, and who is to blame. The strongest possible legal action must be taken now by the Environment Agency against the perpetrators to bring the matter to the earliest possible sustainable resolution.
The Secretary of State for Education has totally botched the new funding system—yet another display of this Government's spectacular incompetence. We must stop the political buck-passing. When it suited him, the Prime Minister said that education was his priority—"Education, education, education." Now we have redundancy, redundancy, redundancy—3,000 of them are predicted in The Times today. Now, the Prime Minister does not want to know about education. Let me tell him one thing: the buck stops at No. 10. He is responsible, and he should accept that responsibility and deal with the problem. The Government said that Essex should passport the funds, but Essex dealt with what the Government said in a line-by-line rebuttal. It is the Government's responsibility.
Let me quote from a letter that I received from a headmaster in my constituency:
"Heads are having to make difficult, irrevocable decisions, including redundancies and larger classes, and a halt to curricular developments. A local example is that we are unable currently to fund our Summer Literacy School for the first time"—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
A number of hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. If they can be concise with their remarks, I should like to think that all would be successful.
4.58 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I want to report briefly on a conference that I held in my constituency of Stafford in April on a subject that is of national importance: positive parenting. It is the kind of subject on which much can be done locally and nationally to make a big difference to any society. That is what I want to achieve in ours.
Features of positive parenting include discipline, monitoring, supervision, warmth and affection and being emotionally responsive. Negative features of parenting would include authoritarianism, neglect, conflict and coercion.

1225
We do not say as often as we should that parents do a great job raising their children, often in the face of multiple challenges. In the formative years from before birth until a child starts school, who will influence how new human life will turn out if not parents? That time is so vital in shaping the lives of little citizens, whose brain activity peaks at the age of three.
It is important to recognise that not all parents are birth parents. Death and other tragedies or misfortune may rob children of their parents, which means that grandparents, other relatives, foster carers or adopters bring them up. Social services sometimes have to provide staff to take the place of parents.
Most people who raise children value help and support from their friends and family but studies show that many parents are not aware of the implications of helpful and unhelpful parenting. Even those who are aware are sometimes at a loss to know how they or others can improve things. However, studies show that if parents are given the opportunity to develop their understanding of their babies and children's emotional world and receive help to learn new skills and more helpful ways of relating to their children, the insight changes their attitude and behaviour and improves their health and that of their children.
Parenting starts with the unborn child, and I have emphasised already that the early years are crucial. There are other key times in later childhood when help and support may be beneficial, such as when a child moves up a school, when there are hormonal changes and when children get their first boyfriend or girlfriend.
Education and support is available for parents, but its provision is patchy. There are parent support groups, parenting programmes, sure start initiatives, drop-in centres and helplines—the list goes on. Universal parent education and support services can encourage the spread of helpful parenting from one parent to another, which avoids any social stigma due to parents feeling that they are being singled out as inadequate in some way. I hope that it is obvious to hon. Members that more intensive help and support should be available for families who face greater challenges.
My aim is a public policy under which all parents can get advice and information when they need it and if they want it. Some parents might want to go further by attending parenting programmes or receiving home visits, at which more in-depth help and support may be given. Professionals in all walks of life, such as doctors, nurses, midwives and health visitors, will encounter parents and children who need help. The same mix of universal and targeted services should be accessible when parents and professionals agree that it would be useful.
Unhelpful parenting can lead to harmful outcomes, such as children not learning social skills or feeling emotionally excluded, stupid and incompetent, or frustrated and angry. Long-term consequences for children include: having little attachment to their family and schools; having no good friends; failing in love and having violent and unsatisfying relationships; poor confidence; low qualifications; and a poor work record. In serious cases, the consequences include antisocial and criminal behaviour.
Positive parenting means being warm, affectionate, caring, supportive, emotionally attuned and emotionally literate. It is worth society giving more help
1226
and support to parents because it leads to good outcomes for the health and well-being of parents and children, the result of which is stronger families. It is worth it for the savings to society because children who do not settle well into school and have a tendency to be difficult and antisocial go on to cost society 10 times more than the majority who behave in a more usual way.
The Government are willing to help and their good moves include setting up the parents' centre, which is a website that provides information for parents. They established the National Family and Parenting Institute, which is a think-tank for family and parenting issues, and Parentline Plus, which is a free and confidential 24-hour helpline—I must mention the fact that its number is 0808 800 2222. Such services show the Government's commitment. However, it is also important to provide universal services that support parents, because that will save us a lot of money. Universality does not mean that we must spend a lot, just that services are available to everybody who wants them at the level that they want.
Many provisions exist to help parents including Parentline Plus, the NFPI, Government services, health visitors, primary health care services, social services and the voluntary sector. I know of great work by Home-Start, Relate and church groups in my constituency—they are all very helpful. More demanding situations require parenting programmes and home visits from more resource-intensive sources such as health visitors with special skills, child psychologists and senior social workers.
We have to start somewhere, so I suggest that pilot schemes should be established. I volunteer my constituency of Stafford as somewhere to base an early pilot scheme. If the Government give me the money, I shall set up the scheme for them. The Government are soon to publish a Green Paper on children at risk and that could provide a good opportunity to make an announcement. I suggest that parenting is a good way to stop children being at risk in the future.
I shall end with the comments of my friend, Norman Crockett. I was a councillor for 10 years, but he served for 27. We were in the same ward and we sat every Thursday night in a draughty church hall seeing people at our advice surgeries. In our quiet moments, he would always say, "David, if all children in their formative years had the sure and certain knowledge that they were loved and wanted, we would live in a very different world and we could throw away the keys to prisons." The final comment might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I would like to think that Norman, who is now 90 and in a residential home, could see this change in public policy in his long and productive life.
5.5 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I would like to take a few minutes of the House's time to bring to its attention the plight of a countryman of mine who is currently on death row in Ohio. Kenny Richey, a 39-year-old Scot from Edinburgh, has been on death row since 27 January 1987 when he was convicted of killing a two-year-old girl in a fire. I very much regret that this case does not show the United States criminal justice system in a good light. In particular—this is relevant to the debates in the House on criminal legal aid—it shows the state-funded public defenders office in an especially poor light.

1227
The case also highlights other inadequacies relating to the appellate system in the United States. Whatever the inadequacies there might have been in the trial, new evidence—principally forensic evidence—has been found subsequently, and it raises substantial doubts about the safeness of the conviction. That is not even disputed by the prosecution authorities in Ohio, and Prosecutor Dan Gershutz has said:
"Even though this new evidence may establish Mr. Richey's innocence, the Ohio and United States constitution nonetheless allow him to be executed because the prosecution did not know that the scientific testimony offered at the trial was false and unreliable."
I regard that rigid and procedural attitude to justice to be complete anathema. It turns on its head any notion of natural justice.
The events that brought Kenny Richey to his current position started in the early hours of 30 June 1986. A fire started in an upper flat in an apartment building in Ohio and flames rapidly spread and engulfed the flat before firemen were able to extinguish the blaze. Minutes later, the body of a child, Cynthia Collins, was carried out. The mother's position was that Cynthia's babysitting was to have been carried out by Kenny Richey, but his position has always been that he was too drunk to do any such thing and that he never made any such agreement. It also transpired that there is evidence that, when the mother of the child arrived at the hospital, she told the doctor that the child had set fires in that flat on previous occasions. That was known to the prosecution at the time, but the information was never imparted to the defence. As a former procurator fiscal depute in Scotland, I must say that an attitude that does not compel the prosecution to give to the defence every single aspect of information that could be of use is repugnant. Again, that is anathema to me.
Just about everything that could wrong with Kenny Richey's case, its investigation and prosecution did go wrong. Right at the start, the local fire chief decided that it was an accidental fire and, accordingly, all the furnishings and, vitally, the carpet were removed from the flat. It was decided only later that the case should be the subject of a criminal investigation, and the stuff was recovered from the dump to which it had been taken. Ironically, it was then stored next to a petrol station.
It also transpired that the prosecutor in charge of the case at that time was running for judge. He was dealing with the first capital case in Putnam county since the 1800s and, not surprisingly in these circumstances, the case against Kenny Richey dominated the local news for months. That obviously brought with it concomitant publicity for Prosecutor Basinger. He was eventually elected to judge, and a major plank of his campaign made it clear that he would be seeking the death penalty in the Kenny Richey case. In the election, the prosecutor promptly offered a plea bargain, indicating that if Kenny Richey would plead guilty to second-degree murder, he would receive a sentence of 10 years with the possibility of parole after six years. Not surprisingly, that offer was refused, so the case was sent to trial.
There were a number of difficulties, not least the fact that the lawyer of the public defenders' office who was assigned to Kenny's case was somewhat green. He
1228
seemed not to take a great deal of care in the preparation of his case. He did not avail to Kenny the many opportunities that should have been made available to him. To take one example at random, he did not, incredibly, hire a fire expert to give evidence. Instead, he took in someone who was an expert in metal fatigue. He never challenged the state's report or carried out his own examination of the scene or the evidence. I understand that he advised Kenny Richey not to testify. Not surprisingly, Kenny Richey was convicted.
There were forensic questions that should have been asked but were not. Not least, if, as it was claimed, paint thinner and petrol had been sprayed about the flat, why was none found on the clothes of Kenny Richey when they were forensically examined?
There is much that I could say about the case. However, I am mindful of the number of Members who wish to participate in the debate. I leave the last word with Kenny Richey, who said:
"I want the opportunity to prove my innocence. I want a fair trial, and I'm not going to give up until I get it or they kill me."
In these circumstances, I very much hope that given that we are dealing with a Scottish citizen, the Foreign Office might in time be able to render some assistance.
5.11 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is the second occasion this afternoon that I shall begin my contribution in your presence with a procedural point, Madam Deputy Speaker. There must be a better way to conduct Adjournment debates on recesses. Colleagues who have sat in the Chamber throughout the afternoon have been cutting down their 10 minute speeches to nine, eight, seven or six minutes. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will have a positive contribution to make when he replies on behalf of the Opposition. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will also respond to my specific point. There is no reason why we cannot have a list of speakers who are allocated 10 minutes, or even why the day cannot be extended to ensure that a given number of Members get in.
I was going to talk at some length about the difficult and complex issue of Iraq. However, I feel that now that time has been compressed, I would rather talk about something a little closer to home.
I was at a helpful and educational meeting in the House the other evening about citizenship, and the fact that citizenship is increasingly appearing on the school curriculum. The issues included how young people connect with wider society and how we end the alienation from and the lack of participation in civic society. That is all very commendable. However, in the context of my constituency, which consists of eight large working-class estates within which there is extremely low educational attainment, even citizenship, as a concept, would go over the heads of most of the young people. Many of them do not have even the basic emotional and intellectual tools to make the best of their education at school, let alone to consider the slightly more esoteric realms of civics and how to participate in democracy.
Often, those young people are unable to take part in educational opportunities because of the way that they are raised at home. I hope that all Members received

1229
from one of their parents, or both, the sort of background—the understanding and the emotional currency, as it were—to engage in the exchange of ideas and to develop themselves personally and emotionally. That enabled them to take part in education and social activities, and then to develop because of all the opportunities that existed around them.
I was about to refer to bad parenting, but that implies that on occasions parents are acting deliberately to the disadvantage of their children. However, the cost of ignorant parenting is extremely high, not only because the child cannot make the best of himself at school, but because when some children go wrong, the result is exclusions and contact with the social services. There may be an element of criminality. That may lead to the involvement of counsellors, Members, housing officers and police officers. All of us pick up the pieces when the basic family environment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) described so eloquently, does not exist.
I do not wish to be cast as big brother, but where that basic human element of parenting is not present, somebody has to pick up the pieces, and the earlier we do that, the better. The earlier we intervene to ensure that young people can make the best of their lives and the best of everything that society has to offer, the cheaper it will be in terms of the expensive resources and person-power needed to get them back on the straight and narrow. It may take many years. It may be after a lifetime of drug addiction, criminality or missed opportunity. If we can get to those young people early, if—as in the case of many of my constituents—we can support and underpin them pre-school and even at school, we will do them a favour, and we will also do ourselves a big favour, because of the benefits that can accrue to society.
We can talk about the big picture, but I shall give an example. At one of the secondary schools in my constituency, 20 per cent. of the kids are on the at-risk register. Six young girls at that school were raped at home last year. In such circumstances, we have a duty to intervene, to help, to develop and to make better. That is one of the most ardent and certain duties that hon. Members should feel.
Where do we go from here? One of the key requirements is to ensure that we develop and broaden the teaching of citizenship, which is now a compulsory subject in the national curriculum, and give every young person the ability to be a good parent. My goodness, what an investment that would be, and what a money saver, were we to underpin our young people, not necessarily to change their parents, but so that when they mature and have children of their own—often far too early—they have the social and human skills to pass on to their children, as every parent would want in the rational world.
I hope very much that the issue is taken seriously. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for raising it in the debate. It is an issue of the greatest importance in social policy, but in all our desire to deliver on public services it often gets forgotten. It is an essential part of the national curriculum and is far more important than any academic subject, as it is the key to attainment not only in academic subjects, but in life itself.
5.18 pm
Richard Younger-Ross: First, I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). There must be a better way of organising debates such as this. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will consider the timetabling of these debates.
I intended to speak on a complex issue and present a number of quotes. Mindful of time, I will not try to do that now. I hope to raise the issue at a later date. Instead, I shall briefly bring to the attention of the House the proposals of the university of Plymouth announced last November for the closure of Seale Hayne college in my constituency; the closure of the arts college in Exeter, the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office; and the closure of the arts college in Exmouth, in the constituency of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire).
The consultation period allowed by the university for such a dramatic change was one month. I do not believe that one month's notice of the closure of a college is adequate. I do not believe that that is enough time for people to collect their thoughts and suggest alternatives to the governors. The university has acted in a disgraceful manner in claiming that there was a consultation process. It was a farce. I had a meeting with the deputy vice-chancellor, Peter Evans, shortly after the announcement was made. I asked him what was going to be done with the Seale Hayne campus. At that time, he did not know. He said that there would perhaps be a conference centre there. Those involved had not thought the matter through very far.
I must congratulate the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the south-west chamber for rural enterprise and others who have been part of a group considering alternative uses for the site. They have now come up with positive proposals for a centre of rural excellence, but the heart of the college, undergraduate education, will still be lost.
I shall give one quote. The college was established at the bequest of an hon. Member of this House, Charles Seale Hayne, who wrote in his will that his money should be used after his death to
"endow a College for the promotion of technical education of Artizans and others without distinction of creed primarily and especially with reference to the Manufactures industries and products of the County of Devon such college to be established in the neighbourhood of Newton Abbot."
That will and covenant, and the trust that was placed, has been destroyed by the removal of undergraduate education. I hope that the college will reconsider its proposals and look at how it can provide undergraduate education on that site.
The vice-chancellor, Professor Roland Levinsky, was not available to talk to anyone immediately after making the announcement, as he was away. Eventually, after some time, he agreed to meet me when another case arose in which students were suspended from the college. I hasten to add that they were suspended in relation to a magazine that they had issued. They were guilty of an injudicious use of words and I do not support what they said, but they were suspended for more than a month while their case was heard. Two students were suspended for a month on the basis of a fairly minor incident, but the entire community of

1231
Newton Abbot and all the students have only a month to make representations about the future of the college. I used the word "disgrace", and I emphasise that that is what it is.
I asked Professor Levinsky what studies had been done on saving and keeping undergraduate education. He could not answer that question. All he would talk about was the new plans for the big new university in Plymouth and academics coming together and being cuddly together, as well as making some other comments, which I shall save for another debate. What he could not answer was the question whether those involved had looked into how the college could be saved or how they could bring in more foreign students. He could not say why the college, as an agricultural and rural affairs college, had no presence at all the county shows to encourage students to go there. Remarkably, it was at the Devon county show last week; I do not remember it being there the year before.
I appreciate that time is short, so I shall leave my comments at that, in the hope that I will be able to debate the matter fully at a later date.
5.23 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: Like the last few speakers, I shall apply the self-denying ordinance and cut down dramatically what I had intended to say. I am sure that that will be a blessed relief to most of the hon. Members who are now gathering in the Chamber, who will have come back in anticipation of the winding-up speeches rather than the last few Back-Bench speeches.
I wish to spend a moment or two speaking about Stansted airport and its proposed expansion. The consultation period is running to a close and will expire at the end of next month. There are a number of vital issues, and they can fairly rapidly be put before the House.
Stansted itself lies in the parliamentary division of the Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst). My parliamentary division is some 10 miles distant, but a number of its villages are close to the area that would be severely affected if the expansion went ahead.
One can summarise very quickly the difficulties that would arise if one, two or three extra runways were built, depending on the final number that would be settled on if the worst occurred. With any number of runways, the first thing that would occur is an increase in flight traffic and the noise and other pollutions that flow from aircraft travel.
In some ways, aircraft travel is the smallest part of the problem. The motorised travel that follows on the back of it creates enormous environmental burdens for people living in the area. Not only will there be 25 million, 50 million or 60 million extra passengers—or whatever figure the planners have in mind—but there will be an almost unimaginable number of extra vehicles on the road system. Some people argue that the airport will bring extra jobs, but houses in picturesque and historic villages are not property that baggage handlers and other airport workers are likely to inspect, let alone be able to afford. Those houses will go to people commuting to Cambridge, London, Chelmsford or
1232
further afield. The extra houses that will be built will be of no benefit whatsoever to the local community. Expansion will impinge on a countryside that, although it may lack the grandeur of the Scottish highlands or the romanticism of Dartmoor, is gentle rolling hill country with streams and woods—in many ways, it is an idealised picture of the way England once was. Within that countryside there are villages, historic houses and communities, all of which would go if airport expansion took place.
We need to consider other issues. How do we deal with the airport problem if in fact somebody does not have to take a decision? I see that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who represents an area that would be affected by Heathrow expansion, is in the Chamber. I cannot see anyone from an area that would be affected by expansion at Gatwick. However, they would make a case similar to the one that I am making. There is a legal maxim that equality is equity. If we are to deal with the problem of airport expansion, the load must be spread as widely as possible and as far north as possible so that parts of the country that need regeneration can benefit, rather than the overheated economy which the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) and I believe exists in our county.
I shall conclude with some observations on the expansion of Stansted airport:
"I stood at numerous vantage points around and within the safeguarded area"—
the area outside the present boundaries—
"and visualised the utter devastation which development would wreak on this virtually unspoiled and particularly attractive tract of typical Essex countryside …. It would constitute an environmental invasion on a scale without precedent in the history of the UK …. I am convinced that such a monster cannot and must not be inflicted on this precious landscape".
Those are not my words or the words of a Stansted protester—they are the words of Mr. Graham Eyre QC, the Government-appointed inspector in the Stansted inquiry of the 1980s. I shall say nothing more, and shall simply rely on the words of the Government's own inspector as the answer to Stansted's expansion.
5.28 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I am delighted to speak in this traditional and amiably pointless debate. It is reassuring to see the usual suspects in their places. They are a fairly eclectic group—there are supporters of good causes, espousers of lost causes, local press release junkies, sad whingers and, of course, the mad professor types. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one are you?"] In my time, I have been in all those categories. I wish to raise two particular issues this afternoon. First, I shall speak in my capacity as a former world statesman, now fallen on hard times, and talk about the Olympic games. Secondly, I shall speak as a mad professor type.
There will be opportunities to discuss the Olympic games in future. I am delighted that the Government have announced that they will support the London bid. I have an interest to declare in that if we are successful, much of the site will be in my constituency of West Ham in the east end, and we will enjoy a legacy there. We will get the legacy of the Olympic village, which will provide good social housing in the area, and an Olympic stadium, which, I trust, will be the home of West Ham

1233
United football club, or of Tottenham Hotspur or Arsenal: clearly, it must be a football legacy. The legacy of facilities is important and must be taken into account.
The only other comment that I would make on the games is that it is easy for everyone to cheer us on now, but when difficulties are encountered—as they will be, given that every bidding city has experienced them—sI hope that those who came along to the champagne receptions will stay with us. Alas, I fear that they will not, particularly the press, who will of course immediately start to blame the Government, and everyone except themselves, for the fact that we ever entered a bid in the first place. That is sad, but we need to bear it in mind. We are up against very stiff competition in the shape of Paris, where the Government take a much more direct and hands-on approach towards such big sporting occasions. Our Government—understandably, given that the dome and Picketts Lock are still around to haunt them—perhaps feel that they can take a more hands-off approach. Unfortunately, that will not work, because when difficulties are encountered, they will undoubtedly be blamed. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will keep a close watch on the issue. Let us hope that we are successful in our bid, because it would be great for sport, great for the country, great for London and particularly great for the area that I am privileged to represent.
Right hon. and hon. Members can easily read about my second point, which I raise in my mad professor role, if they turn to early-day motion 1252. For some time, I have advocated the establishment of a mandatory national register of DNA. It is about time we seriously considered that. It would be of enormous benefit in terms of crime detection and deterrence, and a valuable aid in identifying people who have been involved in catastrophes such as the twin towers. It is sad to have to mention such things, but we live in an increasingly dangerous world, with the continuing possibility of terrorist attacks. To those who say that it is an intrusion into civil liberties, one has to reply that the greatest civil liberty of all is the ability to live in peace and safety in our own countries and communities. A national DNA register would assist us in doing that. The process is non-invasive—it simply involves swabbing in the mouth. Of course, we already have a significant DNA register, but it does not extend to us all. Perhaps, as Members of Parliament, we should all volunteer our DNA to a register. Certainly for babies, it could be done at the same time as the registration of the birth.
I hope that Members will not see this as further evidence of my lurch to the right, but will realise that in a world that is more dangerous and where people move around far more freely than they ever have in the past, a system that would enable us to keep track, in a benign way, of all our citizens at home and abroad, would be of great advantage to the country.
5.33 pm
Ross Cranston: I want to say a few words about two matters, the first of which is the apparent resurgence in the past couple of days of international Islamist terrorism. We must be thankful, of course, that in the past year there have been no acts of Islamic terrorism in this country, although we are designated a special target. Writing in The Times earlier
1234
this week, Amir Taheri pointed out that acts of international terrorism have in fact declined, but rightly said that we cannot be complacent. We have taken effective action in several areas, and must continue to do so. The international Islamic terrorists have lost bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The article mentions terrorist finance. I want to ask the Treasury about two aspects of that.
We have introduced effective laws for financial institutions and their disclosure obligations and we have also frozen considerable amounts of terrorist finance. However, there is a need for international co-operation and there are gaps in international controls on terrorist financing. Last year, Ukraine and Nauru were on the black list because they did not have effective controls on money laundering and terrorist financing. There is also the problem of the alternative remittance systems; the hawala money transmission systems. We have brought those into the regulatory net, but even in the International Monetary Fund there is doubt about whether we can ever effectively control payment through those systems. I should therefore like an assessment of the effectiveness of the controls that we introduced last year.
I turn to consider Iraq and our responsibilities there. Under the Hague convention of 1907 and the Geneva conventions of 1949, we are an occupying power. That means that, first, commanding officers of our armed forces are charged with the duty of maintaining peace and order, punishing crime, and protecting lives and property in the area of their command. An issue arose about United States forces and the protection of the national museum and national library. I do not have time to go into that and whether effective steps were taken. However, I note that several items have come back to the national museum under an amnesty. The draft United Nations Security Council resolution, which, I hope, will be passed this afternoon, imposes an obligation on all member states to take effective action to ensure the return of objects looted from the national museum and the national library. They will have to have laws to prohibit the trade or transfer of suspected items.
Secondly, we have responsibilities for the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war. In the past day or so, there have been press reports about an investigation into claims that a British Army officer has mistreated civilians and prisoners of war. I am sure that the Army's special investigations branch will scrupulously pursue those allegations. However, it is plain under the Geneva conventions that an occupying power has an obligation to prevent violence to life and person and the humiliating and degrading treatment of prisoners of war and civilians.
Thirdly, there is a general prohibition on transferring civilians out of occupied territories. Prisoners of war and their civilian commanders can be transferred for trial for war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity, but the transfer of persons to places such as Guantanamo bay, if they are detained without trial, is wrong. I raised that matter and the detention of Britons who were captured in Afghanistan in the Easter Adjournment debate. In a recent written answer, the Foreign Office said that the Government were pressing the United States at senior levels to resolve the position of the British detainees. I can only urge the Government to keep on pressing.

1235
Fourthly, there has been some discussion about the legality of rebuilding Iraq without a UN Security Council resolution. I hope that such a resolution will be passed later this afternoon. The accusation that our actions in the past five weeks have been in breach of international law is misconceived. Under the Hague convention and the Geneva conventions, an occupying power is precluded from annexing territory and appropriating assets. It must respect and maintain existing institutions. However, there must be qualifications. For example, there can be no obligation on an occupying power to respect and maintain all the institutions and laws of a dictatorship.
We can have political arguments about the role of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq. The draft resolution adopts a different approach from that in Kosovo and Afghanistan. However, it is important to note that in the draft resolution, the UN will play a vital role in humanitarian relief, Iraq's reconstruction and the restoration of institutions of representative government. To that end, the draft requests the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative. Paragraph 9 of the draft resolution underlines the important role of the special representative in rebuilding the political institutions of Iraq. The Secretary-General will also appoint someone to sit on the international advisory and monitoring board of the development fund for Iraq, which will be subject to international auditing. To my mind, therefore, there is clear transparency of the fund.
I also wanted to discuss the obscene levels of executive pay and the measures needed to control them. I was very attracted by the Bill introduced earlier this year by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is about to introduce a discussion document on the subject. I very much look forward to hearing what she has to say.
5.40 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I am a great believer in convention in this House, but I am inclined on this occasion to break our conventions almost gratuitously. Today, the Minister and I agreed very readily that we would reduce the amount of time that we would require for summing up so as to allow more Members to make contributions. I am happy to say that that has worked, although Members have had to cut their contributions dramatically. The effect of this will be clear to all, however. We have heard more than 20 contributions in the debate, and by my reckoning they have covered well over 16 very different subjects. Frankly, for me to attempt to sum that up on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in any meaningful way in 10 minutes is faintly absurd. I am therefore not going to attempt to do so.
Part of the problem was touched on in a peevish comment by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who then beetled off and is sadly even now not in his place. I blame the modernisers for this problem, because it is those folk who insisted on leaving at 6 o'clock on a Thursday. In the good old days, we would have been here until 10 o'clock, and all the
1236
Members who wanted to speak would have had all the time in the world. But this insistence by the modernisers that we must cut our hours and work so-called civilised hours has brought us to where we are now.
Now we have to make a choice: either all Members get to say something, although some have had to cut their remarks to an almost ludicrous extent, or the summing up cannot be in any way meaningful. I extend my sympathy to the Minister in this regard; he will find himself in exactly the same position. He will do his best, of course, but Members want a meaningful Government response. I know that that is what they want; they do not particularly want one from me. Nevertheless, I am going to stay on my feet for a few minutes; that is all that I have left. Members want some response from the Minister and he simply will not be able to do justice to their contributions. We have a dilemma, and I hope that the powers that be on the Procedure Committee, the Modernisation Committee or whatever will turn their thoughts to it. Otherwise, this process will become less and less meaningful in parliamentary terms.
Having said that, the debate has ranged across subjects as varied as Cyprus, the United Nations, asylum, the elderly, antisocial behaviour, public service failure, Northern Ireland elections, cystic fibrosis, deep vein thrombosis, the Welsh Assembly, odours, parenting, the US judicial system, the closure of colleges, Stansted airport, the Olympics and DNA. That gives some idea of the breadth of the interests that Members have. It is interesting to note that, by my reckoning, the subjects were split roughly half and half between constituency concerns and more general issues. That is an interesting comment on the choice that Members make in using the time available to them in these Adjournment debates.
The contributions highlighted various difficulties. For example, there were several speeches about Cyprus. The hon. Members for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) and for Tooting (Mr. Cox) both mentioned it, as did one or two others. They were saying, "Why can't these people get together, be sensible and put aside their differences in order that they may all prosper together?" That is not an unreasonable prospect.
I welcome back to the Chamber the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, who is staying as late as 6 o'clock to hear the conclusion of the debate. He can read what I said earlier in Hansard, and he will not like a word of it.
Mr. Allen: The House is so modern that I had the great pleasure of hearing the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks on the television in my office. I have hurried down to the Chamber to tell him that the reason that we finish at 6 o'clock is because of the clowning around involved when he used to take the House through into the early hours of the night. I congratulate him on that.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing us the honour of returning. I am not sure whether I approve of him scuttling off to his office and watching the proceedings on television while pretending that he was here taking part in them. That is another development that I deplore and wish that we could get rid of. I would personally disconnect all the televisions in the offices and have Members here in the Chamber, but then, I am an old-fashioned sort of guy.

1237
I was talking about Cyprus. I wanted to make a distinction between Cyprus and Northern Ireland, as some Members touched on the subject of Northern Ireland. This is the irony. Members plead, not unreasonably, for reconciliation in Cyprus and for people with different attitudes, cultures and traditions to come together and see things in a similar way. This afternoon, we heard about our own problem in Northern Ireland—a problem that we have not been able to solve after several hundred years of difficulty, and one that is very similar in essence to the Cyprus problem. In a single debate, in one afternoon, two very different subjects have overlapped, and illustrated the same problem in different ways.
Many Members illustrated the difficulties faced by any Government, not least this one. The hon. Member for Ilford, North, as a good, loyal Back Bencher, praised the Government. I hope that she gets a job in the reshuffle that may well take place tomorrow. She had better sit by her telephone. She then said, however, that there was not enough money for Crossrail or for other things in her constituency, thus neatly illustrating the difficulty that the Minister will experience in trying to placate colleagues who, having praised their Government for what they believe is good, nearly always add "but on the other hand"—and then proceed to make what is usually a not unreasonable demand. Such are the difficulties and dilemmas of government.
I have got all that off my chest, and I have not even attempted to reply to the debate for reasons that I have already given. I shall now sit down and leave the Minister a little extra time in which to please his colleagues and at least do some honour to the traditions of these debates.
5.46 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was courteous to give me a little more time than I expected. As a BBC radio journalist, I was disciplined to try and tell a story in 40 seconds, and I have never quite understood why the difference between 10 and eight minutes is so crucial to Members trying to get their points across in speeches. The fact that Members have made very good speeches today in six, seven or eight minutes shows that it is possible.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is difficult for me as the Minister to do justice to all the points raised in the time remaining. I hope that hon. Members will accept today, as they have in the past, that if I fail to deal with all their concerns here and now I will write to them, or encourage those in the Departments to which those concerns are really directed to do so.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we have enjoyed references to the usual rich variety of topics in this traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate, from odours in Castle Point—about which the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) rightly kicked up a stink—to the situation in Cyprus, raised by a number of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friends the Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) and for Ilford, North (Linda Perham). I will certainly draw their remarks to the Foreign Secretary's attention at this critical juncture for the future of
1238
Cyprus. I hope that I can reassure them by saying that the Government believe that a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus on the basis of the United Nations plan is in Turkey's interests. We regularly make that clear to the Turkish Government.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) spoke about our procedures and the accountability of Government in this place. I am ashamed to say that I have not yet had a chance to read the whole of the work produced by Parliament First, the group of which he is a member, although I have read press reports about it. I look forward to nothing more than spending part of the Whitsun recess back in Devon having a proper look at it.
I do not entirely agree with all the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He was an ardent supporter of the modernisation package for which the House voted in October, and which was opposed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that in many ways it has improved Government scrutiny. Questions have become much more topical, and we have introduced much more pre-legislative scrutiny. Bills are now published in draft. We have also introduced crosscutting questions in Westminster Hall: questions were asked this afternoon on drugs. In many ways, it was a little unfair of him to suggest that there was less scrutiny of Government.
The current Prime Minister has become the first to subject himself to questioning by the Liaison Committee, which consists of the male and female Chairmen of all the Select Committees.
In the run-up to the conflict with Iraq, this Government became the first to allow a full debate and vote on such an issue on a Government motion. Many commentators have not allowed the significance of that precedent to sink in—a precedent that will make it extremely difficult for future Governments to commit British forces to armed conflict abroad without seeking similar parliamentary support. I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall therefore accepts that there have been some improvements in terms of what he seeks.
I will have another look at the issue of the Speaker's list, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I understand that the Procedure Committee discussed it, but I shall reexamine it and consider whether there is a way forward.
Several Members concentrated on public services. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) discussed the delays, as he sees it, in the building of the new hospital in Bicester, and I will ask the Department of Health to get back to him on that. As usual, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) painted a picture of absolute disaster in Southend, be it schools, hospitals or law and order. I doubt whether that reflects the reality—I am sure that his constituency is a much nicer place than that.
The comments of the hon. Member for Southend, West were balanced by those of others. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North drew attention to a number of improvements in public services in her constituency. The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), having raised the issue of his local hospital so many times before, seemed to suggest that he has

1239
secured its future. I am extremely pleased that that is so, and I suspect that it is partly due to the extra money that the Government are putting into the health service.
I have a difficulty with the attitude of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. He says that enormous challenges remain in the delivery of public services, but how could they be met if we were to adopt the Conservative policy of cutting spending on public services by 20 per cent.? The complaints of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the delivery of public services in their constituencies would become infinitely worse if we did so.
The hon. Member for Teign bridge (Richard Younger-Ross) raised a local issue that I am aware of: the future of Seal Hayne college. I know that he has campaigned hard on behalf of his constituents, and specifically those in Newton Abbot, on its future. If he will give me the detailed questions that he had no time to ask today, I will ensure that he gets answers to them.
Several Members talked about the problem of crime and antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) discussed in detail the very good work that is being done to tackle crime in Northern Ireland. He said something very wise when he pointed out that the fear of crime, particularly among older people, is often a bigger problem than crime itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson) welcomed a number of Government measures that have had a positive impact in his constituency. He expressed the view of those on both sides of the House when he hoped that the Fireworks Bill, which returns to the House on 13 June, has a successful passage and gets on the statute book. I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not use the same wrecking tactics that destroyed a previous Bill on fireworks, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). Many people throughout the country will be extremely angry and disappointed if we do not get the Fireworks Bill on the statute book.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) suggested that we introduce a mandatory DNA register. That is an interesting idea, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of Home Office Ministers and ensure that he gets a proper, substantive reply.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) asked some important questions about terrorist finance, and I shall ensure that the Treasury responds to them. He and other Members may be interested to know that while we were having this debate, the United Nations Security Council supported the new resolution by 14 votes to zero. That is a great achievement for British foreign policy, and I am sure that we will receive the support of all Members, given that the international community can now reunite around the redeveloping of Iraq in peace, security and freedom.

That leads me on to the thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on the future of the United Nations. She made some important points about how we can create an international framework and international institutions that deal effectively with new threats in a changing
1240
world, and about the balance that needs to be struck between the traditional sanctity given to national sovereignty, and the real concerns that exist about the humanitarian disasters, torture and genocide that can occur within a country's borders. In the past decade or so, the United Nations has not been terribly effective in stopping such things, and I hope that we will give more attention to that important point in future debates in this House.
The hon. Member for Gosport raised the issue of asylum, but his timing is strange when figures published today show a dramatic fall in asylum applications in this country.
Mr. Forth: They are bogus.
Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman says that they are bogus. He may have heard the Home Secretary on the "Today" programme this morning, challenging anyone who says that. He made it clear that, outside the House, he would call that person a liar. If they wanted to, they could sue him. The figures are not bogus, but good and reliable, and they should be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is hypocritical of Conservative Members to moan on about asylum and then oppose measures because they affect their constituencies that would make the asylum system more effective. That seemed to be the attitude of the hon. Member for Gosport in opposing a secure centre in or near his constituency.
Speeches were made about the general repercussions of devolution. The hon. Member for Strangford (Mrs. Robinson) spoke about Northern Ireland, where devolution is temporarily suspended. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) spoke about Wales, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas).
Several hon. Members chose highly specific subjects. The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) spoke about cystic fibrosis sufferers and their inability to secure drugs on prescription. I have personally written to the relevant Health Minister on that subject and would be happy to secure a substantive response from him. The hon. Member for Southend, West raised similar issues about rheumatoid arthritis. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) expressed the justifiable concern of his constituents about any expansion of Stansted airport. In doing so, he showed what an excellent constituency MP he is.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) revealed himself, not for the first time, as a great champion of London's Olympic bid, and I am sure that he will continue to fight to ensure that the bid is successful. The whole House will wish him well in that campaign.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Nottingham, North made thoughtful speeches about the importance of good parenting in tackling antisocial behaviour and other social problems for which bad parenting may be responsible. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North made some important points about how to engage young people in some of our most challenging communities.

1241
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) spoke about the case of Kenny Ritchie, which I heard about at length in a recent radio programme. It is indeed a worrying case and I will draw his comments to the attention of the Foreign Office, to see whether it can do any more to help his constituent on death row in the United States.
As we prepare to head off for the Whitsun recess, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) painted a terrifying picture of the perils of flying. He should be congratulated on his campaign to make airline companies liable for the health of passengers. I suggest to him and the House that that is all the more reason for hon. Members and members of the public outside who may not have decided what to do with any free time over the next few days to spend it in the United Kingdom—holidaying here rather than spending their money abroad.
Finally, that brings me to a regular theme in recess Adjournments—various invitations by hon. Members to experience the delights of their own constituencies. The hon. Member for North Cornwall drew our attention to the beauty of his county and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East surprised me—I have to say—by painting a very attractive picture of West Bromwich. The Times journalist, Mr. Andrew Pierce, whom he had a go at, must have been unkind about the area in a recent article. I hope that Mr. Pierce will take up my hon. Friend's offer to visit West Bromwich during the Whitsun recess and experience some of the delights that he described. I hope that he will not be insulted to discover that I intend to spend the recess in Exeter and Devon—the best part of Britain.
Mr. Phil Woolas: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PETITIONS

  Pharmacy Services
  6 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: I present a petition, collected in the South Swindon constituency, of more than 2,000 signatures, entitled "Save our pharmacy services". My constituents value the dedicated service that they get from their local pharmacies and want to see them protected.
  1242
  The petition states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Paul Farrelly: I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by 2,140 people, on behalf of Michael Morrell of Morrell's pharmacy in Knutton, Richard Else of Bradwell pharmacy, Anthony Milward of Milward's chemists in Milehouse, Judith Hagen of Cornwall's chemists in Silverdale and Mr. Patel of Hollowood chemists in Clayton, all of whom are community pharmacists in my constituency.
  The petition states:
  We declare that the removal of restrictions on pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions will have a detrimental effect on local chemists.
  The Petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government both to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities.
  The Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Fireworks
  6.1 pm
  Paul Farrelly: I have pleasure in presenting petitions signed by more than 550 people on behalf of my constituents, Derek Blackford, Stephen Jones and Lillian Hadley.
  The petition states:
  We declare that the year-round sale of fireworks is detrimental to the well-being of those who find their use upsetting, such as the elderly, wildlife and pets. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons introduce legislation to restrict the sale of fireworks to the general public to the week before the 5th November.
  The Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved,
  That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Woolas.]
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Six o'clock.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]
Tackling Drugs

  Oral Answers to Questions
  2.30 pm
  The Government were asked—

  Oral Answers to Questions

    Drug Use (Schools)
    Mr. David Rendel: What assessment they have made of the proportion of pupils who have had experience of (a) soft and (b) hard drugs by the time they leave school, broken down by (i) independent and (ii) maintained schools. [114217]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): The 2002 school survey on smoking, drinking and drug use suggested that 36 per cent. of 15-year-olds had used some form of drug in the preceding 12 months; 8 per cent. had taken a class A drug during that time.
    On the question relating to types of school, the last available information, in 2000, indicated no discernable difference.
    Mr. Rendel: The last available evidence is now quite distant and my information comes from visits that I have made to a great many universities as higher education spokesperson. Anecdotal evidence seems to suggest a rather higher prevalence of drug use among those who come from the independent sector—not surprisingly, perhaps, given that most of them tend to be from the richer sections of society. Would it not be a good idea to do some rather better and more up-to-date research to check those figures? It might be of interest to parents in deciding whether to send their children to one sector or the other.
    Mr. Lewis: I am not sure that it will do the hon. Gentleman's party in the south of England much good to say that drugs are rife among those who attend schools in the independent sector.
    As this is our first question, I take the opportunity to say that drugs are an issue of tremendous importance to young people, parents and communities throughout the country. They will welcome the fact that, for the first time, we parliamentarians have taken the opportunity to consider the issue across the Government, and to allow the Government to be scrutinised and held to account by opposition parties.
    On the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman in respect of there being no discernable difference in 2000, it is not particularly helpful to make sweeping statements about the nature of schools and links between that and drug use. Our aspiration is to use drugs education to maximum effect to influence young
    324WH
    people's behaviour, whichever school they might have attended. However, I am willing to consider the case for next year's study being clearer on the nature and scale of the problem in different schools, although I am not persuaded that that would be the most worthwhile use of our resources.
    Mr. David Drew: I concur with my hon. Friend the Minister. Rather than categorising schools, would not a better use of resources be a look at who is taking drugs and, more particularly, the development of a long-term study to consider young people's susceptibility to addictive behaviour? It is important that we start at the youngest age possible. Too often, researchers look at the problem only once young people have been taking drugs for a considerable period. We need to begin earlier; we need to look at those who are likely to start taking drugs.
    Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is right. There is a growing awareness and understanding of the importance of addressing those issues from primary school age onwards. We are putting significant resources into curriculum content and continual professional development for those working with primary school children.
    My hon. Friend's comments on young people who are particularly susceptible to such addictive behaviour are worth considering. Most useful would be a look at existing evaluation, research and analysis to ensure that it takes adequate account of his concerns, and we shall certainly seek to do that.
    Pete Wishart: I am glad that the Minister has mentioned drugs education. What evidence does he have that it works? As far as I can see, there seem to be as many different education programmes as there are illicit drugs, and they are delivered by bodies as diverse as the police and reformed addicts. Which programmes are the most effective and what impact have they had on stopping young people experimenting with drugs?
    Mr. Lewis: Our policy is quite clear. We have devolved resources to local education authorities and schools so that decisions are made locally about which provisions are most appropriate and respond to the requirements of the personal, social and health education national curriculum.
    It is not appropriate for central Government to prescribe models, although that is not the same as saying that we do not want to learn from good practice or to study drugs education programmes that work. That is one reason why we have launched a project to study the effects of drugs education in 30 schools up and down the country over a relatively long period. The impact of such programmes on behaviour cannot be established in the short term. What is required is a longer-term study of young people's access to drugs education, and one would hope for a reduction in drug use in that cohort later.
    Mr. Wayne David: Following on from that, I commend the Government for their educational initiatives in schools. However, one of my concerns is that teachers are often not fully aware of what is

    325WH
    happening out in society—they are not really in tune with cultural changes. What measures have been introduced to raise their knowledge and awareness?
    Mr. Lewis: I can assure my hon. Friend that unprecedented resources are going into focusing on the issue at the initial teacher training stage. Equally important, if not more so, is continual professional development. We need the experts in PSHE to feel comfortable and confident about delivering drugs education in schools and to know when it is appropriate to call in specialists to assist them. In that respect, we should not forget that there is a role for external voluntary organisations, as well as the police, in some cases, to come into schools to assist teachers. As I say, there is unprecedented investment.
    The curriculum support materials that we now provide are far more effective than they were. We are in the process of clarifying and reissuing guidance to front-line teachers and head teachers on what constitutes appropriate drugs education at the beginning of the 21st century. We must ensure that our approach gets through to today's generation of young people, and that requires a far better understanding of how they will respond. It is no good turning them off—we must turn them on so that they take seriously the credibility, integrity and relevance of the drugs education programme.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Minister share my concern about recent survey evidence that suggests that 86 per cent. of primary school children think that cannabis is legal, while 79 per cent. think that it is safe? Does he also share my concern about the evidence given to me by the Department of Health in a written answer on 11 April? It indicated that the use of cannabis has increased markedly among teenage children since the Home Secretary announced his intention to downgrade it to a class C drug. That is particularly true of 15-year-old girls, among whom its use has increased from 25 to 30 per cent., according to the Department's figures. Are the Government giving children the very dangerous message that cannabis is okay? Should not the policy change before more children are damaged?
    Mr. Lewis: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman does no one in the House a service by presenting a misleading, factually incorrect statement on the current situation. There are absolutely no data to support any such linkages between the attitudes or behaviour of young people and the decision on the declassification of cannabis. It is clear from Government policy, in all the drugs education programmes and other programmes that we promote, that cannabis is unsafe and a risk to health. We do not want our young people to take cannabis in any circumstances or with any sense of justification. There is no evidence to suggest that young people's attitudes or behaviour have changed as a consequence of the reclassification of cannabis within the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Brady: The Minister makes the case that the increase in drug use among children since the policy was
    326WH
    announced is coincidental. He may or may not be right. Would it be reasonable for the Government to take seriously concerns about the increase in cannabis use among very young children? The figure for the 11 to 14-year-old age group has risen to 14 per cent. Indeed, there are increases in every category: the figure for 14-year-olds has risen from 18 to 19 per cent., and that for 15-year-olds has risen from 30 to 32 per cent.
    Among girls, there has been an even greater increase. The figure for 15-year-old girls has risen from 25 to 30 per cent., and that for 14-year-old girls has risen from 16 to 19 per cent. Those figures come from the Department of Health. Surely they are a cause of concern to the Government. Is it not time for Ministers in all Departments to pause and reflect on whether they are sending the wrong message and causing the damage?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth):Of course the figures are of concern, and cannabis use is far too high. The issue that divides us is how that should be tackled. The main motive behind the reclassification decision is to create a credible message that young people are prepared to listen to. They will not listen to us if we pretend that cannabis, harmful as it is, is as dangerous as heroin or crack cocaine.
    We must have a credible differential message when we are dealing with young people in the modern age. They are not prepared simply to accept messages handed down from on high. Sadly, many young people have friends who take cannabis. They know about its effects, and we have to engage effectively with those people. If we are going to do that, we have to send a credible message. We decided that a credible message is a differentiated message—cannabis is harmful, but not as harmful as class A drugs, which do massive damage to our communities. It is harmful to health, and people should not take it. If people in this House and elsewhere helped to get that message across, they would be behaving a little more constructively.

    Cannabis (Medicinal Use)
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If they will make a statement on progress towards licensing cannabis for medicinal purposes. [114219]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): GW Pharmaceuticals has completed its advanced clinical trials on the development of a medical preparation of a cannabis-based drug. A dossier of those findings has been submitted to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency—an agency of the Department of Health—for evaluation. The assessment is one that all prospective new medicines must go through, and it is designed to protect public health. In consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Government are considering how the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 would apply to the cannabis-based medicine, in the event that the agency approves the safety, quality and effectiveness of the product. The Government will seek Parliament's agreement to any necessary changes to the regulations.
    Mr. Carmichael: When I raised the matter with the Prime Minister on 3 July 2002, he said:
    "As he probably knows, we are currently reviewing the issue of cannabis and people with diseases such as multiple sclerosis. We are not yet in a position to state the findings of that review, but we are giving it urgent consideration."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 225.]
    Foolishly, I thought that he had used the words "urgent consideration" in the normally understood sense of the term, not in some Government or civil service manner. Will the Minister approach the matter with rather more vigour and urgency than appears to be the case at the moment? The law puts people such as my constituent, Biz Ivol, in an unspeakable dilemma whereby they are forced either to suffer unbearable pain from a disease such a multiple sclerosis or to put themselves on the wrong side of the law, thereby exposing themselves to all sorts of dangers, not least facing drug dealers and the possible ill-effects of self-medication.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what we will and will not do, which is in no way out of line with what the Prime Minister said. We have encouraged GW Pharmaceuticals to do this work, and we shall encourage all the relevant health authorities to conduct the appropriate evaluations in good time. We do not want any unnecessary delays in that regard, because the initial findings of the evaluation were extremely positive.
    However, we do not say that the normal, necessary procedures for properly evaluating the safety and appropriate use of a drug ought to be thrown in the bin in the case of cannabis, and that instead we ought to have a completely separate fast-track procedure. I hope the hon. Gentleman realises what a dangerous precedent that would set. In this country, we have procedures to protect our public health. All new drugs must be properly evaluated, and cannabis must be evaluated along with those.
    On the bright side, given the speed at which things are going, we hope that if they go well and the evaluations prove to be positive, there could be a product on the shelves before the end of the year.
    Tim Loughton: As a result, in part, of the lack of urgency with which the Government have considered the medicinal aspect of cannabis and the mixed messages that they have sent, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) referred, there is a side issue to this debate—the proliferation of cannabis cafés.
    We now have three cannabis cafés in Worthing, although it does not exactly have a reputation for being smack alley. Bongchuffa is one, while in my constituency Buddies Hydroponics—[Laughter.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department may think that this is a laughing matter, but it is not if one resides in the vicinity of one of those cafés. Such things are being marketed as a community service to elderly people with multiple sclerosis and other related ailments. In truth, such activities have become big business and they act as magnets. The cafés attract all sorts of lowlife and impressionable young people, and they indulge in drugs illegally.
    If those drugs are illegal, why is action not taken? The mixed messages that the Government send out allow people to think that they can get away with it. When the
    328WH
    police try to raid those premises, they cannot muster the resources to bring a prosecution. Such things have been happening for months in my constituency, so what is the Minister going to do about it?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. Gentleman must draw his question to a close.
    Mr. Ainsworth: I should clarify what I was laughing at—the hon. Gentleman's public school accent getting round the name of the cannabis café in his constituency. I found it somewhat amusing, but I apologise, as I should not mock the way people talk, especially not with my midlands accent.
    Let us try to make things absolutely clear and stop trying to spread confusion among people. Even if the GW trials go well and the appropriate approvals and evaluations to bring in a medicine are obtained, that will not mean that smoking cannabis will be legal. It is not legal now, and it is not going to be; rather, the product that GW Pharmaceuticals will produce and test, which will be available to relieve certain people, will be. The hon. Gentleman asks why action is not being taken, but has he directed that question to his local police? Did he take the matter up with other people if the answer was not satisfactory? There are cannabis cafés in this country. Prosecutions have been brought against those who have used, owned or supplied them, and closures have been effected.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I wonder whether I might make a plea. This is a question and answer session. If questions and answers are concise, we will, I hope, make good progress through the list.
    Tim Loughton: I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, as I have not been to a public school in my life. I shall try to use terms that he can understand. He has not answered the question. Such cafes continue to trade and make a large amount of money—£30,000 a week in profits, so we gather—because people have the impression that they can get away with it. Secondly, Sussex police say that they do not have the resources to mount raids on such places that will result in prosecutions. How is he going to help the police to ensure that they can close down such places, if they are illegal, and give local residents the service that they expect for the taxes that they pay?
    Mr. Ainsworth: If the premises are illegal, action should be taken against them, and I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I regularly tell Conservative Members: we now have record numbers of police officers.

    Rehabilitation
    Huw Irranca-Davies: If they will make a statement on treatment and rehabilitation for drugs misuse. [114220]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Drug treatment was identified as a key component of tackling drug misuse in Britain in the Government's 10-year drug strategy, published in 1998. The Government set a public service

    329WH
    agreement target to increase the participation of problem drug users in treatment programmes by 55 per cent. by 2004, and 100 per cent. by 2008. The target is supported by a substantial increase in funding for drug treatment to £236.1 million in the financial year 2003–04.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the Minister. The links between drugs and crime and drugs and social exclusion are well established and indisputable. May I ask, in this ground-breaking, cross-cutting Question Time, when the Minister and her counterparts will meet the Welsh Assembly Government's ground-breaking and cross-cutting Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration to follow up on the £18 million that was announced last summer to consider further community-based drug treatment and rehabilitation services in south Wales, particularly as the dealers of south-west England are now targeting the south Wales valleys and see the area as a cash cow?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The problems relating to the links between crime and drugs challenge every Administration. We are making progress through the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, introducing models of care, which is a national service framework for substance misuse, driving down waiting times, modernising services and getting more GPs and specialist prescribers involved. It is important that good practice be shared, both in England and in Wales. I shall be delighted to ensure that good practice is spread for the benefit of communities in every part of the country.
    Lynne Jones: Do Ministers agree that one way of getting people into treatment and rehabilitation is via a social housing provider? Since the imprisonment of the Cambridge two, Ruth Wyner and John Brock, workers in the sector have been left feeling very insecure, which hinders good practice. Their vulnerability arises from the wide interpretation available to police officers in enforcing section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The Police Federation has suggested that section 8(d) should be redrafted to read, instead of "knowingly permits", "knowingly and wilfully permits" the production or supply of controlled drugs.
    In a letter to me earlier this month the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said:
    "We do not want those professionals who carry out harm reduction and care policies when working with drug misusers to be in fear of prosecution."
    Workers are pleased to hear of that intention, but what specific measures, if not the recommendation of the Police Federation, will the Government take to reduce the vulnerability felt by those workers?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): That uncertainty and worry has been raised with me a number of times in connection with the proposed extension of section 8 to cover other drugs and
    330WH
    substances. We have decided for the moment not to go ahead with that, and that news has been well received by people involved in treatment and harm minimisation provision for the homeless and those in other housing situations. As an alternative, we have included a proposal in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill to give the police powers to close down crack houses within 48 hours. We shall see whether that is effective before we go along with the proposal to extend section 8.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Have Ministers had a chance to read the excellent three-page article in The Guardian today? It is by someone for whom I have great respect, Nick Davies. He has a deep insight into the drug abuse problem, and he summarises many of my thoughts on the problem.
    As successive Governments have bolted on so many policies we have been creating something of a monster and the whole situation has become rather complex. Nick Davies reckons that there are 44 funding agencies, and that 40 per cent. of the Bristol drug action team's time is spent treating patients, while 60 per cent. is spent dealing with bureaucracy—filling in forms, pulling agencies together and so on. Do Ministers agree that in the very near future we should set up an independent review of the effectiveness of Government policies on drug treatment and combating drug abuse? We could even consider a royal commission.
    Ms Blears: Yes, I have had an opportunity to read the article in The Guardian. It presents a fairly unbalanced report of current circumstances. It highlights important issues of administration, but it takes one perspective and makes the same allegations about the whole drug sector. In local communities throughout the country, people working in that sector do excellent work to fight the scourge of drugs, which causes so much distress. I acknowledge that Bristol has had problems. However, one of the authors of the information for that article was in a prime position to do something to improve services, but he chose to leave his position.
    There is a desire across Departments to reduce bureaucracy and streamline funding systems, which the DAT manager in the article could have done. We do not want to spend our time on unnecessary bureaucracy. However, we are talking about a significant amount of public expenditure, so we must ensure that we monitor it to get value for money from the treatments. For years, one of the problems in drugs treatment has been that, because it has grown up from a diverse set of providers, it has not had the rigour that we have seen elsewhere. That is what we are introducing by establishing the national treatment agency.
    John Mann: Liberal Netherlands and illiberal Sweden are at opposite extremes in the drugs debate. Unlike this country, both treat drug addicts in primary care using medical intervention by doctors in their equivalent of the national health service. Why, for most addicts, do we not do so?
    Ms Blears: For most addicts we provide primary and secondary care, and we are increasingly engaging GPs in drug treatment services. We have just put on a course for 400 GPs and 40 prison doctors to give them greater expertise in prescribing medication and supporting

    331WH
    problem drug misusers as patients in the community. The engagement of GPs has a significant effect on the success rate of people who enter treatment. It is vital that we provide a good primary care service.
    Where people have more complex and specialised needs, it is important that specialist consultants and practitioners address their addiction issues, so that we provide the right service in the right place at the right time. That requires a range of care, including specialist rehab, detox, structured day care and counselling, and GP-prescribing services. We want to ensure that the NHS provides a range of services to support people wherever they are, to get them into treatment and to free them from the misery of drugs.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Is not the problem that the Government have said that they want to double the number of drug treatment places, but careful examination of the figures to which they refer reveals that they apply to the number of people who are in contact with drug treatment agencies? The two are not the same. That relates to the previous question.
    Last February, the Audit Commission said that so far as drug treatment was concerned there were long waiting lists and limited treatment options; care management often failed to address drug misusers' wider social problems; and a lot of treatment was inconsistently delivered. Would it not be better to follow the Swedish model, for instance, and aim to provide intensive drug treatment places? That could be done; it would probably mean providing another 8,000 beds, but it is certainly an affordable proposition if the will is there. That might start to have an impact on reducing drug addiction and, above all, rehabilitating young drug addicts.
    Ms Blears: First, I say to the hon. Gentleman that treating problem drug misusers was hardly a priority for the Conservative Government. Because we recognise the scale of the problem in our communities, there is, for the first time, massive extra investment and a range of services. The hon. Gentleman's approach is fundamentally misconceived. He advocates a one-club policy, which would mean that we had in-patient detoxification only. He well knows that different drug misusers have different problems and need different kinds of care, including GP prescribing, specialist intervention, detox and rehabilitation. The world is a lot more complex than the hon. Gentleman seems to think, and it is important that the NHS provides a range of services in the right place at the right time to address people's needs.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: We are now halfway through this question and answer session. With the assistance of all hon. Members, I hope still to succeed in making good progress.

    Gang Culture
    Ms Oona King: What assessment has been made of the link between drug abuse and gang culture. [114221]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Research in Manchester last year, funded by the Home Office and undertaken as part of the targeted police initiative,
    332WH
    suggested that drug-related offending was only one element of a patchwork of violent and non-violent crimes committed by gangs.
    Ms King: May I raise with Ministers the appalling experiences, ranging from intimidation to serious assault, that my constituents have had with gangs of young men? Gangs regularly break into blocks of flats and inhabit the stairwells specifically to take drugs, and when under the influence of drugs they continue to vandalise the entire estate. Will Ministers make me aware of any work that their Departments are doing to tackle gang behaviour and gang culture? Secondly, will they say whether they are considering any creative solutions, such as attaching youth workers, not just police, to specific schools? Will they fund the measures that work, and give more money for estate and neighbourhood wardens, and for youth services?
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out some of the problems. There is, of course, the youth inclusion programme, which is specifically aimed at people who have been involved, or are at risk of getting involved, in crime. Also, there is the positive futures programme, which is being extended to 67 projects across the country. It is designed for, and aimed at, people who are at risk of getting involved with drugs. We must see to it that all those programmes are targeted at the right people, are joined up, deter people from crime and keep them out of gang culture. Where best practice has been learned—as it has in south Manchester because of the size of the problem there—it must be spread to areas just as badly affected.
    Simon Hughes: The Minister may be aware that those who deal with gun crime in London, Operation Trident officers in the Met, say that 99 per cent. of the crimes that they investigate are fuelled by crack cocaine. The Minister may also be aware that, in the past 10 years, the street price of cocaine has dropped by a third, and that of crack by a fifth. There are huge profits to be made. I gather that one 19-year-old owns four properties, bought with the profits of trading crack cocaine.
    I have a straightforward question: what policy do the Government have to cut the number of people who are addicted? That is the cause of the market. How will they catch and deal with the people in the gangs that kill at random because the profits make life something that does not count for much?
    Mr. Ainsworth: On the latter point, the police standards unit held a conference in Bradford not long ago, to enable Operation Trident and others dealing with gang culture—and in particular gun culture, which is often associated with crack cocaine—to learn best practice from each other, and so that we could get a more effective police response to the kind of criminality that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    The national crack plan is there to ensure that we tackle areas in which there is a specific crack problem. As the hon. Gentleman says, crack is a very real problem. It is not as uniform a problem as heroin, but areas that are affected are developing the appropriate

    333WH
    treatments. We do not have the breadth of knowledge going back years that we have in dealing with heroin addicts, but crack addiction can be treated. We must ensure that it is treated and that the treatment is available wherever it is needed.

    Benzodiazepine
    Mr. John Grogan: If they will make a statement on their policy towards dealing with the problems associated with benzodiazepine addiction. [114222]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The Government are working to prevent benzodiazepine dependence and to ensure that treatment is available for those who have developed such dependence. Action has been focused on preventing addiction or dependence occurring in the first place by warning GPs and other prescribers of the potential side effects and dangers of involuntary addiction. Treatment is available in both primary and secondary mental health care settings and in specialist drug misuse services.
    Mr. Grogan: Do the Government accept that the nature of the mental and physical side effects of benzodiazepine addiction is such that there are tens of thousands of people—possibly hundreds of thousands—who are suffering in despair, isolation and silence as a result of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) called a national scandal as long ago as 1994? Is there not a case for greater co-ordination between Departments? The size of the problem must be established, then the problems must be dealt with: the correct scheduling of benzodiazepines, the treatment of addicts and the difficulty that some addicts have in claiming the social security benefits to which they are entitled.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which we take seriously. In 1980 there were some 24 million prescriptions for benzodiazepines. Prescriptions decreased quite dramatically as more evidence emerged about the dangers of addiction. In 2001 there were 13 million prescriptions—almost half the 1980 figure.
    Among the performance indicators for primary care trusts is one on the need to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions even further and to ensure that they are not inappropriately prescribed. We also have guidelines from the Committee on Safety of Medicines which say that benzodiazepines should be used only for short-term relief of severe anxiety symptoms, not for mild anxiety, and only for insomnia if it is severe and disabling. We are trying to narrow the circumstances in which they are prescribed. National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on anxiety management are being prepared and are likely to be published this time next year; they will ensure better treatment for the people involved. We have also put an extra £300 million into mental heath services to ensure adequate provision of treatment.

    Drug Education
    Mr. Graham Allen: When they expect to have in place a nationwide drug education programme for 10-year-olds, and if they will make a statement. [114223]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): All primary schools are required to teach children about drugs. It is up to schools to decide the most appropriate programme to meet the needs of their pupils and the requirements of the national curriculum. The Government are boosting drugs education in all schools through new guidance, training and support for teachers.
    Mr. Allen: This is my first cross-cutting question, Madam Deputy Speaker, so forgive me if I make any obvious mistakes. I congratulate the Government and the Opposition on this welcome innovation. I hope that the exchanges will be conversational, rather than a replica of what is said on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the heavyweight top table could look again at the seating plan in this Room because rather than getting the dialogue going among old colleagues, it replicates some of the worst features of the main Chamber.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman put his question?
    Mr. Allen: My right hon. and hon. Friends and others will know that in Nottinghamshire every 10-year-old undertakes a course on 10 consecutive Fridays on what is called DARE—drug abuse resistance education. Many people have attended and I hope that the Minister may see an example of it soon.
    Normally, a local police officer, or sometimes a teacher, gets involved with the children and teaches them to say no not only to drugs but to drink and cigarettes. That works wonders for the self-esteem of youngsters, so they break through a lot of the barriers. Will the Minister consider using the DARE programme or, indeed, any other programme, as a national model to be followed in some regard by other authorities? There are many good schemes here and there. I hope that the Minister agrees that it would be a great shame to come to the end of the second term of a Labour Government without a nationwide inoculation against the worst excesses of drug abuse by young children.
    Mr. Lewis: In the daily speculation about the future leadership of the Conservative party, my hon. Friend has never been mentioned as a potential solution.
    Mr. Allen: I would like some of the Short money.
    Mr. Lewis: Anything is possible.
    My serious response to my hon. Friend's question is that I agree entirely with the objectives. We also agree that in influencing the behaviour of primary school children through drugs education, the stakes are incredibly high. Where we differ is on the means. We have backed away from prescribing a one-model approach to the provision of drugs education in this

    335WH
    country. Having said that, programmes such as DARE need closer analysis so that we can learn from them for the national strategy. I give my hon. Friend an undertaking that when, in the near future I at last visit his constituency I shall visit a school where the DARE programme is being implemented. We can then reflect on some of its lessons for the wider drugs education policy in this country.

    Ex-prisoners
    Linda Gilroy: What steps are being taken to prevent those who leave prison from committing drug-related offences.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Offenders who have misused drugs need access to a wide range of support on leaving prison. That may include treatment for drug dependency, but equally important is assistance with housing, employment and life skills such as literacy. The key to delivering that support is effective links between prisons and agencies that operate in the community. With significant new money having been made available, we are working to improve those links, for example by building single points of contact in drug action teams in the 25 DAT areas in the country with the highest levels of acquisitive crime.
    Linda Gilroy: My hon. Friend knows of the high-achieving track record in reducing crime of our community safety partnership, which has existed for a long time—it was one of the first in the country. Operation Trident drove some crack cocaine dealers out of London. Sadly, they came to Plymouth, and crime has started to rise again there. Does he understand the frustration experienced by its police division? It is so innovative in tackling such matters, some 600 former prisoners have come back to Plymouth in the last year. Some Government programmes are working well, but the final piece of the jigsaw that we need in Plymouth to help former prisoners in the way that he describes does not exist.
    Does the Minister agree that bringing to Plymouth a programme such as the one he has mentioned would be a wise investment, as it would provide best value for the money spent in prisons? Will he give his colleague sitting to his left, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, a nudge over supporting our invest to save round 6 bid this year, so that we can get best value for money from all the magnificent programmes that the Government have been implementing to tackle drugs in our cities?
    Mr. Ainsworth: In fairness to my colleague to my left, there is significant new money in the updated drugs strategy. The biggest single gap that we identified in that programme was the need for us to provide schemes such as those in which Plymouth has been leading the way—for example, joined-up working with drug offenders. We are determined not only to provide both the link for those coming out of prison and the correct connections with community services and treatment, but to reach a position in the 30 basic command units where we have a handling strategy for drug offenders or drug addicts whereby we can pass on all the relevant information. We do not want them to fall between the grating and
    336WH
    become lost if they refuse treatment and offend. We want to pick them up, so that we can continue to make progress.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: I am most interested by what the Minister says. Can he bring us up to date about the progress being made with the prospects pilots that are under way for short-term prisoners? He has touched only on the period when people have left prison. Given the tremendous progress in the United States, where there has been a 15 per cent. reduction in misuse, can the Home Office Minister explain why there is still no comprehensive programme in prisons in this country? On what date does he expect to implement one?
    Mr. Ainsworth: There is a comprehensive system in prisons. Neither the Prison Service nor I pretend that it can deal with every single prisoner with a drug problem, but there has been considerable growth in the provision available. There is a joined-up system called CARATs—the Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare scheme—which provides an assessment at the start and then access to various treatments. It also provides through-care for people leaving prison.
    One of our biggest problems is the huge number of drug offenders in prison who are serving short sentences. Due to the offences that they commit, such as shoplifting, they are released from prison quickly, although they are not out on licence. Changes to the updated drugs strategy should plug that gap in provision, and changes that we are making through the Criminal Justice Bill will plug some gaps in the justice system, so we can help to monitor prisoners when they are released back into the community and try to prevent them from reoffending.
    Simon Hughes: Given that figures show that two in three people who are arrested have taken one or more illegal drug, is it Government policy that, on release from prison, everybody with a known history of drug use should have an immediate referral to somebody who can deal with the risk of their reoffending and continuing their drug use? If that is Government policy, is it already in place on the discharge of all prisoners? If not, when will it be?
    Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has hit on the nub of what we need to achieve. No, that policy is not in place, and, yes, it needs to be.
    We are doing work in the 25 drug action team areas that cover the 30 high-crime BCUs in the country. We are trying to develop a system that means that we do not lose people, so that they do not come out of treatment when they come out of prison—a seamless system in which they are, effectively, handed over to people who are warned not only about when they are coming out, but their needs, so that we can pick them up and work with them outside prison. We are trying to do that in 30 areas initially, to get the system as robust as possible. Then we will roll it out nationwide as quickly as we can.

    Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
    Mr. Martin Salter: What progress has been made in reducing the time between the issuing of a drug treatment and testing order and its implementation.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): There is a national standard requirement for the implementation of drug treatment and testing orders. It comprises two conditions: within one working day of the order being made, the offender should attend an appointment with the probation service; within two working days, contact should be established with a treatment provider. The latest DTTO figures show that 89 per cent. Of appointments are being kept. That compliance rate is more than 5 per cent. higher than it was over the preceding six months.
    Mr. Salter: My supplementary question is probably more relevant to the Health Minister. Do Ministers recognise that NHS providers of drug treatment services are not responding quickly enough in some areas? They are not meeting this national standard to respond to the orders made by the courts.
    Recently, in Reading Crown court, a heroin addict was sentenced to a drug treatment and testing order after committing more than 40 offences of burglary and criminal deception to fund his addiction. Do Ministers agree that it is nothing less than shocking that the local national health service treatment service told him to come back and start his course in four weeks, which triggered yet another drug fuelled mini-crime wave? Will they authorise a review of the failure of NHS service providers in that regard?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): My hon. Friend is right. We face a problem: capacity in the drug treatment sector must be increased. We are starting from a low base, because that sector was not a high priority. Most of its capacity has come from very good voluntary sector providers, but they have not had the same of models of care, of standards and of work force development as other sectors. With the advent of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, capacity in the sector is now growing at a fairly phenomenal rate. Our estimates for growth for this year have been exceeded, so people are beginning to see the drug field as a worthwhile place to work and somewhere to build a career.
    We are building better occupational standards to provide good-quality treatment, but my hon. Friend is right that there is much more to do to ensure that people can receive good, high-quality treatment from day one. That is exactly what we plan to do. With the criminal justice intervention programme, we plan to provide a Rolls-Royce service. As soon as people are referred, whether as a result of arrest referrals or of DTTOs, they will be held in the system and they will have a personal adviser to guide them through it. Increasingly, we need not only to refer for treatment, but to retain people in treatment and see them successfully through the programme. I acknowledge that we have much more to do, but the system is substantially improved from what it was a short time ago.

    Doug Smuggling
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What joint actions have been put in place with their EU counterparts to prevent drugs from entering the UK through the enlarged EU.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): The UK works closely with other member states to deliver the EU drug strategy, and works closely with countries joining the EU.
    The EU drug strategy includes a commitment to ensure that candidate countries develop and implement drug policies that are in line with existing EU standards. To that end, the Union is providing pre-accession assistance to candidate countries, which includes locally-based accession advisers and twinning projects.
    Mr. Connarty: I am conscious of the fact that the existing EU 12 have many direct access points for drugs. With my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), I visited Europol and the Amsterdam drugs team as part of the police parliamentary scheme. On one aeroplane, the Schipol team found 48 people, each of whom had swallowed a kilo of cocaine to bring it to Amsterdam. There are already lots of routes.
    When I visited Colombia, I saw the coca fields being sprayed. The person in charge of the police there named a number of countries which were soon to be members of the enlarged EU, but were then outside the Union, that provided routes for Colombian cocaine into Europe and through Europe back to the USA, because it is more difficult to bring it in through Mexico or similar countries.
    The problem is huge, so are we giving the resources to the border police and drugs squads that will be necessary in an enlarged EU to prevent a flood of cocaine and heroin from entering the EU and, eventually, the UK once enlargement takes away the existing barriers?
    John Healey: My hon. Friend raises a genuine concern. I emphasise that, in joining the EU, candidate countries are required to sign up to closer co-operation with other member states on such matters.
    Fighting drugs and organised crime is not only a matter of controlling access points, which my hon. Friend is rightly worried about, or of frontier controls. In any event, the UK would retain its essential checks for drugs crossing our frontiers. Enlargement will allow new levels of cross-border co-operation in the fight against drugs and organised crime, and most major drug investigations are already carried out jointly or with the help of European partners. EU enlargement should be seen as the chance for a significant increase in cross-border co-operation, which will allow our law enforcement agencies to work much better when dealing with the problem that he is rightly concerned about.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: It is clear from what the Minister says that eastern Europe, including a number of entrant nations, is an increasingly important source of illegal drugs. Given that, and given the importance of secure borders in the fight against drugs, can he tell us why Customs and Excise is planning to withdraw 40 per cent. of its officers in ports such as Holyhead, Pembroke and Swansea?
    John Healey: Over the next three years, Customs will increase resources on frontier controls and combating

    339WH
    organised smuggling. That will involve staff from some low-volume, low-risk entry points being deployed in intelligence-led mobile teams, which will allow us to deal with the methods of modern smugglers.
    The hon. Gentleman, in the context of his question, is right: 95 per cent. of British heroin originates in Afghanistan. The supply routes come through some EU candidate countries, which emphasises the importance of the work that we are already doing, and increasingly so, with countries such as Turkey to intercept those drugs before they reach United Kingdom borders and the United Kingdom's streets.

    Rural Areas
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What initiatives they are taking to combat the drugs problem in rural areas and market towns. [114228]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): All areas are covered by the drugs strategy, including those in rural locations. Funding is made available pro rata to need for every local drug action team to buy a wide range of services to meet the needs of rural communities.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the Minister aware of the increasing problem in the small market town of Thirsk, together with Sowerby, in Vale of York? Drugs-fuelled crime is rising to an alarming extent, with young offenders in particular turning to prostitution to fuel their drugs habit. That is a source of great social concern, but it is especially worrying to the local community and residents. What action do the Government propose to take to give the police more powers to clamp down heavily on the crime of prostitution?
    Mr. Ainsworth: We are trying to increase the number of police on our streets. Thankfully, we have achieved record numbers and the rate of recruitment to the police force is the highest since 1976. We are trying to supplement police numbers by growing the extended police family through the addition of community support officers, accredited schemes and neighbourhood wardens to give people reassurance and a visible presence in their neighbourhoods and in areas where there is a serious crime problem. I am not aware of the problems in the villages to which the hon. Lady refers, but I am aware that there are particular problems in rural areas. The Home Office is conducting studies on how young people in rural areas are affected by drugs to assess whether methods need to be used in rural areas that differ from those that are necessary in the urban environment.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Only last Saturday evening there was a murder in my home town—the first time in many years that a crime of such significance had taken place there. We have also had a spate of suicides by young people, some of which have been linked to the drugs scene.
    340WH
    I want to mention the outstanding success of Operation Emperor in Dumfries and Galloway, which led to the arrest of more than 70 people in the town of Stranraer, some of whom received hefty jail sentences. It was a joint operation between Dumfries and Galloway constabulary and Strathclyde constabulary during an 18-month period. However, there are many other parts of the locality where people are frustrated by what they consider to be significant inaction.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that public confidence can be renewed only when operations such as Emperor are carried out? Of course, they can succeed only with the support of and information fed in by the general public.
    Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend touches on a couple of important points. No matter how good the police force is on its own, there is a need to establish good and effective working relationships with the community. Intelligence and feedback are essential to the investigation of serious crime and we need to work at lowering the barriers. Different police operations in different parts of the country are designed to build those links and grow that confidence.
    My hon. Friend raises the issue of deaths and suicides as a result of drugs. For the first time, we have seen a drop in drug-related deaths, which is very welcome. There is a new emphasis on harm minimisation in the updated drugs strategy, but we have a lot further to go, as other jurisdictions have a better record over many years than this country on drug-related deaths.
    Mr. Mark Francois: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), the Minister made much play of record police numbers. Is he aware, however, that once one adjusts those supposed record numbers to account for shifts and for the fact that people may be in training, on courses and off ill, one finds that the number of deployable officers is going down, particularly in my constituency? What does he say about that?
    Mr. Ainsworth: We have to have a figure of some kind so that we can compare trends. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept that there was shift working in the police force when the Conservatives were in government. There is still shift working, but there are record numbers of police. That may be an uncomfortable fact for him, but it is a fact none the less.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that we are carrying out a programme of work as part of the police reform agenda. The Conservative party has supported some elements, but has been less supportive of others. The programme is designed to free up police time and to put as much of that resource into the front line as possible. I ask his party to continue to engage positively with the reform agenda, because it is right that we have the necessary police numbers and that we relieve officers from unnecessary duties so that as many as possible are on the streets doing the job that our constituents want them to do.

Urban Charging Schemes
[Relevant Documents: First Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 390-I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5818]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
3.31 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: I start by drawing attention to the Transport Committee's important report on urban charging schemes. It was published in February, shortly before the major central London charging scheme started, but after the smaller Durham city centre scheme had begun.
I also thank our Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), for the way in which she conducted the wide-ranging inquiry that enabled the report to be produced. She is unable to be with us this afternoon, because she is officiating at the opening of a major highways project.
Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pretty rare thing to have such a project being opened these days. Can the hon. Lady enlighten us as to what it is?
Mrs. Ellman: I am assured that the project is of great importance and I understand that it is in my hon. Friend's constituency. That shows the importance that she attaches to her constituency and to the vital work of the House.
The report is set firmly in the context of the Government's policy of producing an integrated public transport programme and of recognising the key importance of reducing congestion. The report recognises the important steps that the Government have taken in giving new urban charging powers to local authorities and the London Mayor, in association with the London Assembly. The Committee also noted that the Government had made possible the hypothecation of revenues secured from charging schemes. Furthermore, they have produced a framework and a forum to enable local authorities that are interested in introducing schemes to meet, discuss ideas and exchange information.
The Committee noted with concern, however, that the Government's expectations and enthusiasm for new charging schemes seemed to have waned between the publication of their White Paper "Breaking the Logjam" in December 1998 and the publication of the 10-year transport plan in May 2002. It noted that, in July 2000, £2.7 billion a year of revenue was expected to be secured from urban charging schemes. By December 2002, however, that had fallen somewhat to £1.3 billion a year.
We noted that congestion was a major problem that was due to increase, unless measures were taken to combat it. Government information states that 80 per cent, of the 1.6 billion hours wasted by drivers and passengers on British roads in 1996 was lost through congestion in urban areas. In 1996—–97, one third of vehicle journey times in the central London rush hour was spent in stationary vehicles. There is no doubt about the importance of the need to take action to deal with congestion.
342WH
While the Committee looked at proposals for workplace parking in Nottingham and road charging schemes in Bristol and Durham, it concentrated its work on the central London scheme, recognising the great importance that would be attached nationally to the success or otherwise of that project. We welcomed the Mayor's readiness to take action and recognised his political commitment to ensuring that some action was taken to attempt to deal with congestion.
What were our key findings and what is their relevance to future schemes? The report shows the importance of stressing the prime objective of reducing congestion and putting forward road charging schemes, and ensuring that reduction of congestion is achieved without displacement of congestion to other areas. We urged the Government to develop a more meaningful and understandable definition of "congestion". We stressed the importance of seeking independent monitoring of the central London charging scheme, in addition to the monitoring that was being undertaken by the Greater London Assembly.
It was, and is, important that particular concern is paid in that monitoring to issues such as how low-paid people, public service workers and the voluntary sector are affected. I am pleased that the Royal National Institute of the Blind has become involved in monitoring the scheme. It has drawn attention to the importance of providing adequate information to members of the public who are blind and partially sighted about schemes and concessions on charging schemes, as well as to the facilities themselves in order to enable disabled people to move around and not to be impaired in their mobility because such schemes are being introduced.
The report recognises the importance of linking charging policies with improving public transport, and that that is done both before and after charging schemes are introduced by improving access to and availability of alternatives to the car. That is why one of our recommendations is that there should be permanent hypothecation to local transport schemes of additional funding secured by charging schemes directly to assist local transport projects, in addition to money that was already destined to go to those local areas.
The Committee also recognised that successful reduction of congestion through charging schemes might lead to a reduced income stream, and we felt that that was something to which the Government should pay attention. We also felt that it was important that attention should be given to developing the technology involved in charging schemes. Electronic charging technology should meet national standards and be compatible with European systems that are being developed. That is particularly important for developing inter-urban charging schemes, such as those advocated in some of the multi-modal studies.
That is also important for freight. The Government have already agreed to what is virtually a nationwide user charging scheme for 2005. Treasury proposals for distance-based road user charging on freight to replace vehicle excise duties on UK-registered freight vehicles are planned to start. The Freight Transport Association has expressed its concerns about some aspects of the issue.
The Committee recognised that urban charging was not appropriate everywhere. Much as we felt that urban charging could make a major difference in certain areas,

343WH
we thought that it was equally important to recognise that it should be for local authorities to take decisions on introducing urban charging schemes in local areas. We also felt that the Government must ensure that they continue their financial support to local authorities that decide not to go ahead with charging schemes to deal with congestion.
Mr. David Drew: Does my hon. Friend accept that we should not be talking only about urban congestion charging? There are opportunities for a massive improvement in public service provision in market towns, for example. There is an awful problem in Stroud, where we have one of the highest rates of car ownership in the country and a deteriorating bus service. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State. Department of Transport, came to talk to us about bus strategies. Could we have the opportunity at least to consider congestion charging? Perhaps the Committee ought to consider congestion charges outside urban areas in some future inquiry.
Mrs. Ellman: I accept my hon. Friend's comments. It is important that issues concerning congestion are addressed wherever they may be found. I hope that consideration will be given to how my hon. Friend's point can be addressed when the success of existing charging schemes is assessed.
Although urban charging schemes are far from a panacea for urban congestion, a scheme that is fit for the purpose and properly targeted, assessed, supported and implemented could make a significant and positive impact. That was the conclusion that the Committee reached. It is too early to assess properly whether the London scheme has been successful, although some reports that have emerged suggest encouraging results. If charging schemes are to be given the full opportunity to work, it is important that the Government take a stronger lead to enable the potential of urban charging to be explored in the context of strengthened and integrated public transport.
We welcome both the initiatives with which the Government have come forward and the opportunity for local authorities to take their own decisions, whether in cities, towns or elsewhere. However, we should like the Government not to lose their nerve in this matter. While giving local authorities maximum opportunity for their choice, the Government should be willing both to take a lead where that is appropriate and to assist local authorities that wish to go forward with charging schemes in determining whether it is an effective way of dealing with the major problem of congestion.
3.43 pm
Mr. Graham Stringer: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) by commending the report to those hon. Members present. I want to concentrate on three topics: the nature of congestion and some of the things that the Committee discovered when taking evidence both on this report and on the reports that the Committee made on the multi-modal studies; briefly, the two schemes that are now operating; and, finally, how the evidence and experience that we have acquired from those two schemes may or may not be applied to other cities.
344WH
One of the things that we discovered is that urban congestion accounts for 80 per cent. of the congestion in this country. Some 20 per cent. of congestion on our motorway systems is inter-urban. That fact is not especially interesting in itself. However, it is interesting that the United Kingdom is different from all other—except perhaps one—European countries in that they have urban congestion, but do not have inter-urban congestion. That 20 per cent. level of inter-urban congestion, while not unique to this country, is very within Europe.
It is surprising, when we have questioned professors and Ministers or taken written evidence, to find that nobody knows what is the economic impact of that congestion. I suspect that there is not much of a negative economic impact, although there are all sorts of health and pollution issues connected with urban congestion. Urban congestion is often a measure of the success of a city. A city that lost its rush hour during the early 1980s recession was a city in trouble. That city would have done anything to get its rush hour and its congestion back because losing those was a measure of economic failure and decline. I can think of one city where that happened, but I do not wish to point it out because that would be pejorative.
Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman says that, in his view, there is no negative economic impact. I would like him to substantiate that. Why does he think that, over a number of years, the Confederation of British Industry has published very substantial figures on what it assesses to be the cost of congestion?
Mr. Stringer: That is an easy question to answer. It is simple to do the arithmetic—the duration of a traffic jam multiplied by the number of the people in a traffic jam. One could say that that is a cost. That is what the CBI and various other people have said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is a different thing to take that figure at face value. I remember, when we had Professor Begg in front of us, asking him what the economic impact of that was, and he said that he did not know. The people in that traffic jam could be going to work early, coming back later, and doing more work. No one knows what the impact is; I urge the Government to find out. I also urge them to concentrate on the inter-urban problem.
I suspect that congestion, particularly within cities, is a bit like the old line about tax: there is only one thing worse than paying tax, and that is being too poor to pay tax. There is probably only one thing worse for a city than having congestion, with the problems that it brings, and that is not having congestion. The Committee, the Government and various independent departments in universities should investigate that matter.
We looked at two congestion schemes. The first was a small scheme in Durham that ran around its peninsula. The scheme has stopped people dropping off husbands and wives, polluting and congesting that area in the process. That has been highly successful. Putting a charge of about £2 on that route has reduced congestion by 20 per cent. The area is environmentally better and there has been no damage to the economy. In fact, the local economy has probably benefited. It is very difficult

345WH
to use that specific small scheme as an example of how congestion charging would affect major conurbations such as Bristol, Manchester or Birmingham.
At the other end of the scale, we have London, one of the world's great cities. It has one of the largest schemes ever attempted. In terms of reducing congestion, it has been a moderate success. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside is right to warn us to be careful and not to jump to any conclusions. The technology appears to have worked and congestion has lessened. We do not yet know what the economic impact is; it is difficult to disaggregate the impact of the congestion charge in central London from the failure of the Central line and the fact that there are fewer American tourists in London, but there is some evidence that fewer people are shopping in the west end. That has had an economic impact, which will take time to work through the system.
Although the report indicates that other cities will be looking at London and Durham to assess their success, it will be difficult for them to learn a great deal except on the technological side, because one scheme is so small and the other is so large.
Looking at the evidence—I am thinking particularly of Greater Manchester, but it applies to other cities—there are a number of common factors. First, there is the belief that high-quality public transport should be in place before, not after, congestion charging; and secondly, the notion that where urban centres are competing with out-of-town shopping centres or smaller urban centres, there should be a level playing field. In the case of Manchester, from the evidence that it gave to the Committee, there is a reluctance to say, "Yes, we shall introduce a congestion or workplace parking charge," when the Trafford centre at Dumplington just outside the city centre boundary has free parking. In the city centre one has to pay to park, so to add another charge would almost certainly lead to cars and shoppers moving out to the Trafford centre. That means longer journeys for the cars, probably more pollution caused by those longer journeys and economic decline in the city centre.
I suspect that most cities that have competition from out-of-town shopping centres or other centres—in Manchester's case that would include Bolton and Stockport—will not introduce congestion charging until those two conditions are met. I cannot resist saying that Manchester suffers from the fact that it has made the mistake of employing, in Control Plus, the most anti-shopper, anti-tourist set of people possible to control parking. They do not actually wear jackboots, but they have metaphorical ones on when they hand out more parking tickets than any other group of people in the country. They are motivated entirely by targets and profit and they have lost the sense that parking control should be about antisocial parking. They have been a disaster and the sooner that Manchester city council rips up their contract and throws them out the better. They have set records in upsetting people, they give out record numbers of tickets on bank holidays when there are no parking restrictions and they are offensive. With such handicaps, I cannot see Manchester city council going for the additional handicap of a congestion charge.
346WH
My hon. Friend talked of how we had welcomed hypothecation, and she mentioned the use of the moneys from congestion charging for 10 years£I suspect that in London's case it will have to be longer£to pay for the necessary improvements. We did welcome the hypothecation and the money might well be ring-fenced. However, the Minister and I know, as do others who have been involved in local government finance, that when our friends in the Treasury do the sums, they will add up that money and other grants and they may well take money from another pocket and say, "That should not be there." There is no way that that can be guaranteed by the Government in a changing, complicated financial system of support grants to local authorities, and there is no way that the Treasury will guarantee it. That money is ring-fenced and will be dedicated, but I am suspicious. I do not trust the Treasury not to take that money out of another pocket and put it elsewhere.
Certain towns, cities and urban centres are considering congestion charges, but London has one massive advantage over the rest of the country: its buses are still regulated. The rest of us have had the disbenefit of bus deregulation since the mid-1980s. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister appeared before the Committee when he was in charge of transport and said he believed that the buses must be re-regulated for there to be a properly integrated transport system. I agree with him. That is sensible. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Transport came before the Committee and said that re-regulating the buses was not on the agenda. That is a pity, because many urban centres are congested not by cars, but by empty buses competing for passengers on scarce road space. I believe that competition in such a privatised system should take place at the tendering stage. There are many different ways for bus companies to benefit from a commercial activity. They could respond quickly to the market, but in a deregulated system there is a complete waste of road space that adds to the congestion.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider and agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that such systems will not work if the buses are not re-regulated. I understand why the Secretary of State said what he did; he does not want to bring any financial instability to the bus industry. I recognise that that is a serious consideration, but I want to bring transport stability to our great urban centres and the deregulated bus system is not helping.
If there are to be extensions of congestion charging to other urban centres, there must be support and a consensus among all the interested parties—the private and public sectors, the travelling public and the bus companies. I was concerned when I listened and read the evidence that showed, especially in the Nottingham scheme, that there was a direct conflict between the evidence presented by Nottingham city council and that of the private sector on their support for the scheme. If schemes are to work, the vast majority of interested parties must be on board, although it is never possible to get everybody involved. There can be benefits from road charging in such schemes, but they must be done properly and appropriately. That will not be the case in every city in the UK.
3.58 pm
Clive Efford: I also commend the report. I shall explain my views on congestion charging and the scheme introduced in London.
I would not have introduced the London scheme as it was introduced, and I would not have done it at the time that it was done. Before I carried out such a scheme, I would have done various things first and considered other options. My objectives are the same as those of everyone who wants to reduce congestion in central London, but I am concerned about the long-term impacts that the charge will have on that area and the communities around it.
I calculate the income to be about £180 million a year, without taking out the costs of running and managing the scheme. It is estimated that in any week 98,000 people pay the charge—my figures are on the basis that everyone is paying the full charge, not the discounted rate that is available to people who live within a certain area. There are 15,000 fines a week which come to about £1.2 million. Rolling all those figures up makes about £180 million.
That income is simply not enough to carry out the programme that was talked about when we first held a public debate about congestion charging in London. The first figures that were bandied around were in the region of £350 million, which would be reinvested in public transport in London. Those figures have steadily come down. Just before the implementation of the congestion charge in London, £80 million was mentioned. I suggest that the current projected income from the charge will mean that less money will be available to reinvest in London's public transport network than was previously anticipated.
We therefore have a problem. The congestion charge was designed to be a revenue-raising exercise, and that was part of the debate that preceded its introduction. All those years ago, we were debating how to raise revenue to invest in expanding and improving London's public transport network. We will not achieve anywhere near enough income to invest in transport in the way that we expected.
Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman says that the charge is just a revenue-raising initiative. In the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, they made it clear that they would not authorise a congestion charge scheme that was solely about revenue raising, and that it had to achieve a reduction in congestion as well. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government have failed?
Clive Efford: There are various ways of achieving an objective. The Government are right to say that they will not just impose a tax, but that there must be an outcome. That is a credible position.
There should be two objectives. We do not have enough revenue coming into our public transport network, and that is true of many major cities in this country. To resolve that problem, we must have somewhere for people to transfer to so that they can travel in and out of a major city such as London.
348WH
My constituency is in south-east London so I know the situation very well. At peak times, the rail network is running at overcapacity. We have pixies—people in excess of capacity—on our rail network. People in my area say that we have pixies because the timetable is away with the fairies, but that is a separate issue. The problem is that, because there is no London underground station in that area, a congestion charge in the centre means that the only option for travelling into central London is heavy rail, which is already running at overcapacity. Where do those people go? If we just want to reduce congestion in central London, we must provide an alternative to which those people can transfer.
Any approach towards introducing a congestion charge has to be two pronged. First and foremost, there must be the objective of reducing traffic. We can reach that objective by imposing a charge both to dissuade people from using their cars and to raise revenue to invest in public transport. Getting people to transfer from their cars to public transport must be one objective, otherwise we would simply be displacing traffic or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) said, damaging the city centre's economy. There is no evidence yet to prove that argument, but that has always been my worry about the impact of the draconian measure that the Mayor has introduced for traffic congestion.
I am not saying, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) suggested, that the charge is only revenue-raising, but that was the original incentive. If we are honest about what we were doing in local government before we entered Parliament, as we sat in transport committees in town halls around London, we were talking about how to raise money to invest in public transport. We needed a hypothecated method of raising money to reinvest in public transport.
The congestion charge is not raising enough money, and I am concerned about its impact on low-paid workers—those who work in the public and voluntary sectors. Have they disappeared from the roads? What has been the impact on public services? We need proper measures to monitor what is going on within the congestion charge area to ensure that those who need public sector workers are not suffering, that low-paid workers are not penalised and that people are not being forced from living in a certain area. I come from central London and have many friends and relatives who still live and work there, so I understand the problem.
There is talk now, although I do not think that there are any specific proposals on the table, of widening the congestion charge area in London. That causes me a great deal of concern, because the only people who are forced to pay the congestion charge are those who live there. Nobody else is forced to pay it. Those who work in the zone have the choice of using public transport. From time to time, however, car owners who live in the area will have no choice but to pay the congestion charge. That is a penalty on people for living there. Why do they have to pay? It is because they happen to live an area to which people drive from outlying areas, thereby creating congestion problems. The only people who have the freedom to avoid paying the charge are those who do not live in that area and can therefore skirt around it. That is a fundamental flaw in the concept of

349WH
congestion charging. There are other ways by which we could have raised money before imposing the congestion charge.
Mr. Stringer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the taxation is highly regressive for those on modest and moderate incomes?
Clive Efford: I could not agree more. The charge is a flat-rate tax that is imposed on everyone, and that is a flaw.
One of my pet projects—the Minister might want to leave the Room to laugh about it—is based on the fact that I believe the Mayor does not have enough revenue-raising powers. There are many out-of-town developments around London and other cities. They provide free parking, and generate an enormous quantity of traffic in and around the development, yet there seems to be no charge, or environmental cost, levied on the development that could be hypothecated and reinvested in transport networks.
In Nottingham, we considered a scheme of workplace levies, which I support. It would be possible to raise such a levy, and a modicum of money made by a city could be hypothecated and reinvested in its transport network. It need not produce a punitive figure. For a city the size of London, if we added together all the parking spaces that could be charged for, we could be talking about raising significant sums of money. Similarly, in respect of free parking spaces in out-of-town developments—I can think of enormous ones, but I will not name and shame them—a small charge could be made for using each parking space on that land. The fee would not be paid by the person parking the car, but would be passed on to the business operating on that site. A supermarket, for example, could put a small extra charge on some of its goods to cover the costs, and pass them on to the customer that way.
We are talking about a revenue-raising stream that comes from people parking their cars. That money could be reinvested in our public transport network. If we charged a small sum for parking spaces—the amount would be far less than that charged to those who drive into central London—we could raise a significant amount, far more than we are raising through the congestion charge, and we could do that without the huge bureaucracy that was needed to back up the congestion charge. Also, the charge would focus not on a small section of car users in London but on everyone in London, and would widen the area from which we raise money. Less would be charged to each person, but when the money was added up, the sum could be significantly greater than the amount that the congestion charge looks likely to raise, as things stand.
There are concerns about businesses in central London. The CBI recently suggested that a quarter of the 520 major businesses in central London that it surveyed were thinking of relocating, and had named the congestion charge as a reason. Other surveys have suggested that the majority of businesses find the charge satisfactory and are not critical of it, but time will tell.
I have heard anecdotal evidence on the subject from my constituents. One business person has a number of vans that make deliveries across London. He does not
350WH
know until the end of the day, and sometimes not until the next morning, which vans went into the congestion charge zone, and has a great deal of difficulty administering the payments. There are problems with flexibility, and he says that he might pay the congestion charge unnecessarily on some days and forget to pay, and so incur a penalty charge, on others. He is concerned about that; he is running an independent business and does not have time to administer the charge in that way.
On the issue of displacement, let me point out that there has not been the growth in use of the London underground or buses that was anticipated before the congestion charge came in. If those people have simply disappeared, that must add to concerns about the impact on businesses and trade in central London. We will have to monitor that closely to ensure that the charge is not having an adverse effect on business. We have to enter into a genuine debate about the future of the congestion charge, because it may have to change significantly.
Trafficmaster has suggested that there has been significant growth in traffic on roads outside the congestion charge zone. It measured the times for journeys such as that from Dartford to my constituency of Eltham as one of the indicators, and it has suggested that at peak times that journey now takes significantly longer. There is evidence to suggest that there has been some displacement; people are still carrying out their journeys, but are skirting around the congestion charge zone. There has been talk of widening the net to catch those people, because not enough people are going into the congestion charge zone. They are avoiding paying, and we need to chase them by extending the boundary of the congestion charge to generate the income that was desired from the scheme in the first place.
Either the scheme has worked, and all that we are concerned about is reducing traffic, or it has not, and it has merely displaced the traffic and moved the problem elsewhere so that the boundaries have to be altered. We cannot have it both ways.
We should also consider the issue of inter-urban charging, which was the subject of another of the Committee's reports. As I said, people who live in the congestion charge zone have no choice but to pay the charge if they use their cars. However, those who choose not to drive into the area can avoid paying the charge.
My community of Eltham, in south-east London, is at the junction of the A20 and the A2, and we suffer all the problems of congestion every morning. As I explained, there are few alternatives to driving into London, other than the overcrowded trains. That has an enormous impact on air quality and other environmental factors in my constituency.
Many people drive through Eltham into central London. Indeed, the same thing happens all the way round London, but it is particularly significant in the south-east, where there is no underground. Those people then park in places such as Westminster and Camden, with the result that local authorities across London take in about £380 million a year in parking fees and penalty charges. Many of those people drive through constituencies such as mine and leave their pollution behind, but they go on to places such as Westminster and pay the parking fee. Westminster will use that income to subsidise lower council taxes, but my constituents will get absolutely none of the money.

351WH
That takes me back to my earlier point. The Mayor should get a proportion of the money from parking charges, given that people throughout London suffer in some small way because others drive through their communities. At present, the people who benefit most are those who get the income from parking charges in central London. We need to address that, because my constituents would benefit enormously if some of that money were invested in public transport links. They would then have the choice of not using their cars or cramming themselves on to already overcrowded trains.
Traffic congestion and rail-heading cause enormous problems in my constituency, and money from parking charges could help to deal with those problems if it were fairly distributed, rather than ending up in the coffers of a few fortunate local authorities in central London, which can make enormous sums We mentioned that the total projected income from the congestion charge was £180 million before administration costs were taken out. Westminster city council alone makes £80 million in parking fees, and if we multiply that across all of central London, we are talking about significant sums that could be invested in the London transport network.
I talked earlier about people being displaced, according to the Trafficmaster survey, and I want to return to my example about people travelling from Dartford into Eltham. In that respect, I can see a direct comparison between someone using their car on a motorway and someone using a train service. I can therefore see a justification for charging a toll on motorways. However, we cannot do that in isolation on one stretch of motorway, because people will attempt to skirt round it to avoid the payment. However, people will pay a charge to use the road if they think that the charge is pitched at a realistic level that it is reasonable rather than punitive, and that a direct benefit will come from it. The Government must look in more detail at the possibility of inter-urban charging schemes for motorways.
I refer back to my point that local communities suffering from schemes such as the congestion charge cannot avoid paying it, but people using motorways and driving through those communities, who are forcing the congestion charge on them because they are causing congestion in those areas, are paying nothing for their journey in from places such as Dartford to Eltham—or other places around London. Inter-urban charging that is set at a reasonable level can make a significant contribution not only to reducing traffic, but to raising revenue to invest in public transport—and, hopefully, to diverting people from using their cars unnecessarily.
The Mayor has taken a brave step. I commend him for not sitting back and saying, "We should do nothing because the scheme could prove to be unpopular and that would cost me votes." However, I would not have introduced the scheme in the way that he has. He has reduced traffic congestion, but that was not the only issue at the front of our minds when we were talking about reducing traffic and raising revenue to invest in London's public transport network.
We must have a detailed survey of the impacts of the congestion charge scheme. I am pleased that the Mayor has said that he will participate in an independent review and that the Select Committee has indicated that it welcomes that. It is vital that we understand the impact of the congestion charge, because many other cities are
352WH
looking closely at it to decide what they should do about their traffic congestion problems. Only by understanding the real impact can we convince people that they must act to do something to combat the problem. However, there are a variety of measures that could be taken that might allow those cities to raise revenue to invest in their transport networks without penalising businesses and local communities in the way that I fear that the congestion charge has.
4.22 pm
Tom Brake: I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) cannot be present today. I am sure that she would have put her case forcefully. However, I am happy that she has found another Member to stand in for her, who made a good job of introducing the debate an hour or so ago.
It is interesting to note which hon. Members are present to participate in this debate. Several Members who very vocally opposed congestion charges and predicted that they would have various impacts attended our debate of 11 February, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on being here today because he is the only vocal opponent of congestion charges who has had the courage to attend this debate.
It is worth reminding Members of what some of them said. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) predicted:
There are now six days to go until Ken's car tax turns London's already congested roads into utter chaos."
Whatever one thinks about congestion charges, they have not done that. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the scheme was being rushed through with woefully inadequate technology. I admit that there were some problems with regard to registration numbers, issuing tickets and so forth but, on the whole, the technology has coped relatively well. The hon. Gentleman finished his remarks by saying that,
"a nightmare is about to befall the city".
I cannot see that nightmare today.
Mr. Chope: What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the concerns expressed by the London chamber of commerce that there is a potential shortfall of about 25 per cent. in business activity in London as a result of the congestion charge?
Tom Brake: I hope that I will cover that point shortly, as it is valid and worthy of investigation.
Then there was the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who claimed to have shown what nonsense the scheme was and predicted that
"People living on the boundary of the zone will be hit by huge amounts of extra traffic".>
I accept that those people may have been hit with extra traffic, but we shall have to see whether that extra constitutes a huge amount when we examine the outcome of the scheme more carefully in the months or years to come. The hon. Lady also predicted that there would be
"no fewer cars coming into London … than there were … after the congestion charge starts."

353WH
I would dispute whether that was accurate. She almost closed her remarks with the comment that
"Londoners do not need or want the charge, and its effects will be quite bad."
Again, that is not actually true.
The hon. Member for Christchurch said that the congestion charge is
"grossly unjust, unaffordable and unnecessary. That is why the Conservative party is unequivocally pledged to abolish it at the earliest opportunity."
That is what Steve Norris pledged on the very day that the scheme was introduced when, whatever one felt about the scheme, one could already tell that it was probably going to work and that the predictions of chaos were not going to come true. The hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"It is an insult to the people of London who are going to suffer this grave injustice",
and then added:
"The people of London should demonstrate to the Mayor that there is so much resistance to the charge that it is not sustainable."—
On the day that the scheme was introduced there were small numbers of demonstrators but, again, Londoners on the whole have not got on to the barricades to demonstrate week after week against the introduction of congestion charges. The hon. Gentleman closed his comments by saying that
"The congestion charge is an appalling scheme".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 183–203WH.]
As I said, I commend the hon. Gentleman on being present today, but it is a pity that some of the other opponents are not here to explain why their dire predictions of chaos, catastrophe and nightmares in the city have not come true.
Hon. Members have made a number of useful points, in particular the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). I accept that it is not easy to demonstrate the financial impact of congestion, although the CBI has put forward some figures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is easy to calculate that time spent in traffic times an hourly rate equals x, and so on. However, it is surely equally true that it is quite simple for a delivery firm to work out that if traffic is moving x per cent, faster and if it is thereby making one, two, five or 10 more deliveries a day, the unit costs go down. One can apportion a figure that way and although it will not be 100 per cent, accurate, it will be a reasonable figure for the cost of congestion.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I think that there is a cost to congestion. Surely it cannot be a coincidence that some of the most productive cities in Europe—I am thinking of Helsinki, Zurich and some cities in Scandinavian countries—tend to be less congested than others. To satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I would say that neither he nor I have figures that we can swear by, although I tend to support the CBIs position more than his.
Mr. Stringer: I think that we are almost coming to an agreement. We were talking about two slightly different
354WH
things. On the one hand, there is the undoubted cost and there are different ways of measuring it. On the other hand, however, academic work on the economic impact has not been done, which is much more difficult to do, although it is possible. We could all benefit from knowing about that and I assume that the hon. Gentleman does not disagree that we should have that extra knowledge.
Tom Brake: I agree with that point. When that analysis is done perhaps the point that the hon. Member for Christchurch made about the impact on businesses will be picked up on. I understand that the Federation of Small Businesses is going to conduct a detailed survey on the impact, which will be welcome and will perhaps give us something concrete about the impact on business, as opposed to something fairly anecdotal.
Hon. Members can quote examples of businesses that have been affected, but equally I can refer to a conversation that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) had with the chief executive of a major retail company in London. It is one of the largest companies in the country and its name is one that everybody would recognise. That chief executive said that the scheme has been a success. He found that when people come to purchase major capital items or white goods, they drive. If they are paying a local authority parking charge of £3 or £4 per hour, the £5 on top does not make that much difference. Otherwise, more people are coming to the shop via public transport. We can all point to anecdotal evidence to support either case. We need concrete evidence in the form of a significant report from an organisation, such as the Federation of Small Businesses, London First, and so on, to discover what is really happening.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to commuters who travel from south London. I travel from south London. My local train company is South Central; his is Connex. The evidence shows that there is no noticeable change in the numbers of people who are travelling by those services. That is because there has been a drop in the number of discretionary trips that people are taking into London in their cars. A couple of weeks after the congestion charge was introduced, I had a meeting with the managing director of Connex, who said that he had been surprised to find that there had not been any difference in passenger numbers on its services. From his point of view, that is probably a good thing because, as other hon. Members have said, it would create problems and put the timetable in the lap of the fairies.
I turn to the issue of whether the scheme is a regressive step. I accept that there are poor people who own a car who have been hit by the scheme, but I hope that hon. Members will accept that the poorest people do not own a car, so will have benefited from improvements in public transport. As for the point on superstores, that is one that has been highlighted in previous Select Committee inquiries and reports.
I move to the Government's response to the Transport Committee's report. Other Members have not focused at length on that. In the introduction, there is a lukewarm endorsement of congestion charges. Getting support for the scheme was a bit like extracting teeth, so that endorsement is welcome. The response states that

355WH
"it is now running and although it will take time to evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme, it appears to be working well."
I suppose that that is as good as we are going to get. However, the Government's response highlights a number of issues to which I hope that the Minister will turn.
Clive Efford: I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to correct something that I said earlier. When I mentioned the CBI, I meant to say the London chamber of commerce. If its study proves to be accurate—a quarter of the 520 major businesses that it surveyed in central London were thinking of relocating as a result of the congestion charge—would the hon. Gentleman be concerned about that? Would that not suggest that the Government are right to take a cautious approach to whether it is the resounding success that the hon. Gentleman suggests it is?
Tom Brake: I agree that if that were proved to be correct, it would be an issue that needs to be addressed. However, what we must do is identify the various impacts and factors on business. Many businesses in central London may have experienced a downturn. The question is how much of that downturn is associated with fewer tourists coming over from America, rather than the impact of the congestion charge scheme. The analysis must establish what percentage of the impact is congestion-charge related.
We know that the lorry road-user charging scheme is to be set up. Can the Minister say whether the technology for such a scheme could be applied to other vehicles, such as cars? If we have a national road-user charging scheme for lorries, will it be possible to roll it out in future for inter-urban charging purposes?
The Government say that they will not approve a scheme unless its primary purpose is to reduce traffic congestion. What would the Government do if, subsequent to a scheme's being introduced, it were proven that it did not reduce congestion? Many other factors come into play. For instance, if Westminster decided substantially to reduce its car-parking charges—for a driver who comes and parks for eight or 10 hours they are much more significant than the congestion charge—and much more traffic came in, what position would the Government adopt? Would they say, "That is tough. The scheme is now in place and we cannot look at it again"? Is the rule that a scheme must reduce congestion one that applies only at the point at which the Government authorise it?
The Government say in their response that, with London agencies, they are
"reviewing traffic signalling at each of these junctions … to ensure that the timings are at their most efficient".
Can the Minister comment on what the Government will do if they are not at their most efficient, and how efficiency is calculated; is it about how quickly a driver can get across a particular junction or how safely a pedestrian can cross?
In one of its recommendations, the Transport Committee asked that a consistent and coherent strategy to address urban congestion be introduced. In their response, the Government welcomed the Select Committee's support for the view
"that local authorities are best placed to respond to local congestion problems".
356WH
That is not quite what the Transport Committee was saying. It was saying that it wanted the Government to provide a consistent and coherent strategy or framework in which local authorities could consider introducing congestion charges. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that point.
The Government go on to say that they have provided a clear lead on urban charging. The Select Committee disagreed with that. The fact that the Government have facilitated the introduction of urban charges does not constitute a clear lead on the issue. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley made an extremely important point about the revenue being additional to existing funds coming from central Government. The Government say in their response that they consider
"The revenue raised through charging … additional to, local transport funding provided by central government."
Again, that is not exactly the Committee's point. Of course, it is additional. However if, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley says, the Government chop by an equivalent or greater amount the income that a local authority gains, they will not be responding to the Select Committee's point. I accept that it is difficult to guarantee that a local authority will get a certain amount of money over the next number of years to invest in transport and that, if it introduces a congestion charging scheme that creates additional revenue, the Government will not cut the amount that they contribute because they know that it will be offset by the congestion charge revenue.
The Minister needs to give greater reassurance than is contained in the response, because it only confirms the obvious, rather than reassures Members that such revenue will be additional—and ongoing additional—money. It is unfortunate that the amount that is being chopped from Transport for London's budget in terms of grant appears—perhaps over-coincidentally—to be of the same magnitude as the amount that will be raised through congestion charges.
In the Government's response, they say that local authorities
"will be increasingly rewarded in future settlements",
if they deliver solutions to congestion problems. Can the Minister tell us how and to what extent that will occur, and who will be the judge of whether they have delivered those solutions?
At paragraph (x) on page 7 of the response, the Select Committee suggests that local authorities should be allowed to introduce only
"electronic road user charging systems"
if they provide an
"alternative and convenient means of paying the charge"
for those who do not have "access to electronic technology". In their response, the Government agree only to approve schemes that meet that criterion. Can the Minister confirm whether that means that if, for example, a company that was introducing a scheme decided that it would provide the electronic technology free of charge or at a discount, the Government would allow that as an alternative to providing an
"alternative and convenient means of paying the charge",
which was not electronic? Can it be one or the other?

357WH
I can envisage future inter-urban charging schemes that require some kind of electronic gadget in a car. The Government's response might preclude such a scheme from being introduced. I am seeking further clarification on whether I have understood what the Government are saying on that matter.
To conclude, I agree that it is too early to assess the impact on business in London and that the matter needs to be looked at further. The detailed survey that the Federation of Small Businesses will carry out will be helpful. There has clearly been a reduction in traffic in London. Whether there has been an increase in congestion at the boundaries and in outer London needs to be examined more closely.
It is interesting to note that King's Ferry, which runs commuter bus services in from Kent, has apparently had to revise its timetable and has chopped 20 minutes off its time because of the success of the scheme. That at least suggests that the speed of radial movements coming from a long way out of London has improved. It has clearly improved within the congestion charge zone. There may only have been an increase in congestion around the orbital routes.
There is talk of extending the scheme to Westminster and parts of Kensington and Chelsea. There has been a U-turn on that issue by those local authorities which, having opposed congestion charges, now want the scheme extended. While we could support that, there comes a point where the scheme is extended so much and so many discounted residential charges are provided, that it does not pay its way or raise any revenue. That would have an impact on the reduction of congestion, because more people would be contained within a larger zone and they would be paying only a relatively small price for living and driving within it.
On the whole, in London the scheme has been a success. The hon. Member for Eltham said that there had not been any impact on bus usage, yet according to the figures that I have, there has been an increase of 6,000 passengers compared with the period prior to the introduction of the scheme.
Clive Efford: I wish to clarify the point that I made. I said that there has not been the increase that was anticipated, because Transport for London or London Buses allowed for 14,000 extra bus passengers and significantly more than that on the underground, but neither increase was realised.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. The record will show the point that he was seeking to make.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying that I hope that the Minister will look seriously at the urban charging scheme that has been introduced in London. On the whole, it has been a success, although the business impact needs to be looked at. The Transport Committee desperately needs a clearer position statement from the Government on where they stand on this important issue and the contribution that they can make towards public transport, particularly in urban areas throughout the country.
4.45 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: As the first person to participate in the debate who is not a member of the Select Committee, from a neutral standpoint I congratulate it on producing a thought-provoking and well researched report.
For those of us who have been slightly puzzled by the Government's ambivalent attitude, it has become apparent during the debate why they are sitting on the fence so much. All the contributions, apart from that of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), effectively damned the system with faint praise. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is a worthy substitute for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), whose presence we miss. I thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside introduced the debate in an exemplary way, emphasising the Committee's main findings and pointing out key issues that we might address.
The hon. Lady highlighted the question whether congestion charging would displace congestion from the zone in which the charges apply to an area outside it. From the evidence produced by the Committee and published in the Evening Standard to mark the third month of congestion charging, it is clear that in large parts of London outside the zone there has been an increase in congestion and journey times. That conclusion is based on evidence supplied by Trafficmaster. Therefore, the charge is having the effect of displacing congestion from inside the zone to outside it—the very effect that the Government said they did not want to achieve.
It is valid to emphasise the issue of monitoring. I, too, have received representations from the Royal National Institute of the Blind, which expressed its worries about this and other such schemes, and the importance of being able to assess its impact on individuals who are not as able-bodied as others. It is significant that in the scheme so far—by mid-March—about 100,000 blue badge holders had registered for discounts. When we hear about the number of vehicles using central London, we must recognise that those 100,000 people with blue badges are not making any contribution to the payment of the charge because they are exempt, and rightly so.
I shall repeat some points that I made in the 11 February debate to the effect that the exemptions should be much more widely drawn, short of abolishing the scheme, which Conservative Members would like to do. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside referred to the scheme's linkage with improvements to public transport. As she made clear, those have not occurred. Instead, the economics of public transport in London have deteriorated badly over the past year, and the projections are even graver.
Mrs. Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Committee drew attention to the importance of that point? For example, it recommended that hypothecation should be continuous and not restricted to 10 years.
Mr.Chope: I accept that. I was about to say how much subsidy is already going into buses in London—£400 million a year, and Mr. Hendy said that it will

359WH
increase to £500 million a year next year and that, within a few years, it will be £1 billion a year. That is not sustainable. That sum cannot be recouped from the congestion charge. It is a revenue subsidy, and it is doing nothing to improve the public transport infrastructure, such as building or extending rail schemes.
There is a crisis. It was originally expected that Transport for London would receive increased revenue from the underground and the buses as a result of the displacement of people from the roads, but we have seen no evidence of that. A few more people are using the buses, but the enormous shortfall in bus revenue is coupled with a massively increased subsidy. It is escalating by £100 million a year, which is unsustainable.
It is said to be too early to assess whether the London scheme is a success. The only person who thinks that it is not too early to make such an assessment is the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who said before it started that it was bound to be a great success. He made fun of what was said during the 11 February debate, but many of the concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House have been shown to be valid and have been borne out in practice.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) made some important points, and I hope that the Minister responds to them. The hon. Gentleman emphasised how important it is for the economy to tackle the congestion problem on the inter-urban road network. That is the biggest difference in transport arrangements between us and the countries of mainland Europe or the United States. The implementation of the working time directive will be a big competitive problem for us, relative to other countries in Europe, because it will impose rigid restrictions on the number of hours that lorry drivers can work. If lorry drivers are unable to travel the long distances on British roads that they can on continental roads, that will put a real burden on our economy. We should address that matter urgently.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed suspicion about hypothecation. Like him, I have experience of local government, and I have tried to confront the Treasury on various issues. He is right to be extremely suspicious. All money raised through taxes or charges is the property of the Treasury, and it will always be so. We shall delude people if we say that we will get any extra benefit from those charging systems.
The evidence of London First is on page 63 of the report entitled "Urban Charging Schemes", and paragraph 4 states:
"We have been campaigning consistently for more resources for transport in London. In our consultation with member companies between 1997 and 1999 we established that they were prepared to accept that business should make some contribution. About 40 per cent. felt that the increased cost would be a problem but over 90 per cent. believed that this would be worthwhile if the revenue was hypothecated for improvement to the transport system."
As we have discovered, almost all the revenue is being absorbed by administration costs. The only surplus is probably coming from the penalty charges that are being imposed to a great extent on innocent, or perhaps forgetful, drivers. If they continue at the current rate, those charges could generate about £80 million a year. Although people who are the victims of the penalties will not be marching in the streets, they will not suffer in
360WH
silence for ever. Next year, they will have the chance to express their views on the injustice of the system, and they can vote for a Mayor who will scrap it.
Clive Efford: I share the hon. Gentleman's misgivings about the amount that the scheme will raise. Nevertheless, it will raise some money. His party has pledged to abolish it. Will Londoners have to pay the cost of that, or will it be paid by a future Conservative Government or another source?
Mr. Chope: At present, the burden of the scheme on the London economy is negative. Scrapping it will produce an overall benefit to London's economy. We can become more involved in that debate as we come closer to the mayoral elections. The Conservative party's line is that it is an absurd imposition on Londoners to charge them more than £100 million a year, which is just going on administration costs. Most of that administration is carried out in Coventry, not in London.
Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman's last point may be accurate, but money is being raised by the scheme and the Mayor is investing it in London's public transport. You have pledged to cut off that revenue stream, so how will you fill the gap?
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to me and I am not responsible for anything.
Mr. Chope: I think, Mr. Pike, that the world would be a better place if you were responsible for some things.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question must be looked at in the round. He suggests that the matter will be the biggest issue. I have already drawn attention to the fact that, as we speak, the cost of subsidising London buses will increase to £500 million a year, rising to £1 billion a year. The net yield from the scheme is a small proportion of the subsidy that is currently going into London buses.
Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman's point is important. We are not a million miles away on the merits of the congestion charge. Nevertheless, money is being raised and without the scheme there would be a gap—as the hon. Gentleman says, a Conservative Mayor would cut the number of London buses.
Mr. Chope: I certainly did not say that and the hon. Gentleman knows it, which is why he tried to put those words into my mouth. All I have done is draw to his attention and that of other Londoners the projections that have been published by Transport for London. If things carry on as they are, within a few years the subsidy that they will have to pay for the buses will exceed £1 billion a year. It will be paid not by the national taxpayer, but by either the bus users or the taxpayers of London. The hon. Gentleman will have to face up to such a reality in the run-up to the next general election, and it will be addressed by the great expert on such matters, Mr. Steve Norris, who knows a lot about transport.
Clive Efford rose—
Mr. Chope: I shall not give way at the moment, as I want to make progress. The hon. Gentleman has made

361WH
some important points. As he said, we have much in common. I wish to re-emphasise his point on the revenue shortfall. It is clear from the evidence of London First that, when the scheme was set up, net revenue of £250 million a year was expected. Just before the scheme began, it was estimated that there would be net revenue of £150 million. It appears that the figure will be far less than that, and it will be dwarfed by the subsidy that is already going into London buses.
Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman identifies the fact that there will be a shortfall in revenue raised. Does his party propose to make good that shortfall? If so, how?
Mr. Chope: I am sure that all will be revealed when the mayoral candidates declare their manifestos for the election. I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's party, but we Conservatives delegate responsibility for the mayoral elections to our candidate and his campaign team. Transport for London has been given delegated authority to balance the books as far as public transport is concerned, and I am sure that our mayoral candidate will want to address what Mr. Hendy—a Transport for London official—says is unsustainable. In an interview with the Financial Times, Mr. Hendy says:
"The future mayors face hard choices about transport priorities."
He says that bus subsidies would need to rise to about £1 billion to maintain the service. I am sure that Mr. Norris, if not the other mayoral candidates, will be considering that.
I share the concerns about the charge being a regressive tax and about its impact on low-paid workers. The comments on widening the zone and there then being a charge on local residents were also valid observations. As one who, during the week, lives inside the zone and is entitled to a 90 per cent. discount, it would be wrong of me to think that this is the end of the story. For a relatively modest sum, I can avoid paying the full penalty of the charge, but all the other costs to people living inside the zone have gone up. If they want someone to deliver to their houses or carry out work, a premium is being charged on vehicles and workers coming into the zone. The costs for residents inside the zone have therefore gone up significantly.
I want to talk about exemptions, which the Government have still not addressed. They have said that they are looking at the issue, but urgent action is needed to widen exemptions. Those who are most adversely affected by the charge are small businesses inside the zone and residents living just outside. Why is it not possible for residents who live, say, within a mile of the edge of the zone to register for some discount for a reduced rate of travel in the zone—travel that may be part of their everyday lives?
It is clear from the evidence presented at the beginning of the debate that all the economic costs are falling on either those who are forced to stop using their cars because they cannot afford to pay the charge or those who are paying the charge reluctantly and who have to
362WH
cut other items of expenditure. Those people are suffering. The people who are benefiting are those who have the charge paid for them by others or those who are so well off that the cost makes no difference. Such an allocation of the tax burden is offensive in the extreme. In the end, that will be the downfall of this unfair charging regime. It probably also explains why the Government are still sitting on the fence.
I want to speak briefly on what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said about the warnings raised during the 11 February debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) used the word "chaos". I do not know whether the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has seen that word used in recent reports on how the system is operating, particularly outside the zone where there is increased traffic. The chaos referred to by my hon. Friend has happened outside rather than inside the zone, as predicted by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) in whose constituency I live during the week. She said that there would be extra traffic outside the zone and emphasised the injustice of the charge for people who live just outside, but who have to travel inside as part of their everyday life.
Quite a lot of evidence is coming in from other reports. The funny thing about reports is that if they do not confirm people's prejudices they say, "Well, we must have something independent." I understand that the report produced by the London chamber of commerce is an independent survey of 520 businesses. Its findings should be enough to concern the Government greatly, because London—particularly central London—is the engine of the British economy. Small businesses are essential to that economy, but they are suffering a lot as a result of the charge.
That message must be taken to heart by the Mayor and the Government when they think about exemptions. The Government cannot abolish the charge—that is for the Mayor to decide—but they could insist on much wider exemptions. The road haulage industry has a point of view on that. The Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association are keen to have exemptions for their members. One can see why.
People do not drive heavy goods vehicles or vans into the centre of London during the day just for the fun of it. They do so to provide services. Heavy goods vehicles doing a quick "in and out" a few hundred yards into the zone for only one delivery pay the same as a steamroller travelling round in central London all day and causing enormous congestion. That is another fault with the charge: it is the same for everybody, irrespective of how much use they make of the roads inside the zone. In that respect, it is very different from the new road haulage charge that will be introduced. The Government have announced that they support it, as does my party. That charge will be related to the use that is made of the roads by a heavy goods vehicle, rather than there being an arbitrary fixed charge, which is one of the big problems with the system under discussion.
Tom Brake: I have information that might interest the hon. Gentleman. There is evidence that hauliers are

363WH
organising their deliveries more efficiently—they ensure that they use a smaller number of vehicles. Does he agree that that is a positive outcome of the scheme?
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. Before I call Mr. Chope, I remind him that we want to hear the Minister's response.
Mr. Chope: I do not think that it is a benefit to have 15 or 20 vehicles on the road doing what one could do. That is a bigger subject, however. I, too, wish to listen to the Minister. I thank the Select Committee for enabling us to have this productive debate.
5.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the Transport Committee on producing the report and on its success in getting the report brought before the House through the Liaison Committee. I, too, am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was not here to open the debate; she always does so with great capability and forcefulness. I was, however, delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) fulfil that role most capably.
The report is helpful, especially as it focuses on the London congestion scheme. It is not only in this country that there is interest in that scheme; many other cities are looking closely at it. When one attends meetings in other countries with people in transport, it is clear that there is substantial interest throughout the world in what is happening here in London.
This is the third debate on the subject in less than nine months, and the other two were held before the scheme was introduced. Like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I think it significant that attendance at the debates has differed so much. The contributions today were also very different from those that we heard before. The hon. Members for doom and gloom have absented themselves this afternoon, although I am not sure why. I daresay they may attend in future to express other concerns, or even to withdraw some of the comments that they made in previous debates. Some strongly worded comments were made, and I am surprised that the hon. Members who made them have not attended to give further support to those views.
I should like to mention some of the other methods that the Government are using to reduce congestion, because during the debate we have mostly focused on congestion charging. The Select Committee's report highlighted the growing feeling that traffic congestion in many towns and major conurbations has reached unacceptable levels and, unless we deal with the problem, the undesirable consequences of urban congestion will only get worse. Traffic growth and congestion are faced by all successful economies. Our economy is doing extremely well. I often say that 1.5 million more people are in work since 1997, so more people are travelling to work. Indeed, more people are travelling for leisure and pleasure because they have more money in their pockets. That greater wealth gives greater opportunities for car ownership and more opportunity for business and leisure travel.
364WH
We must weaken the link between prosperity and traffic growth. Select Committee members will soundly agree with me on that. We can do that through better planning policies aimed at reducing dependency on cars, by improving public transport alternatives and by encouraging more people to walk or cycle. However, more than anything, we must all think more about how we get from place to place; we must all think about the journeys that we take, about whether they are necessary and about whether some of them could be combined. We cannot leave that to everyone else; we must all take responsibility for it in our own way.
There is much that we can do. Business and individuals could undertake their journeys more sensibly and sustainably. There is no single magic answer to congestion. We can travel more freely on our roads only if we apply a range of measures and attitudes. We can do much to use and manage our roads more effectively. One such area is that of school travel. The Government are committed to reducing the need for the present level of car use for the journey to and from school, which contributes substantially to congestion, especially in urban areas.
To reduce car use we must increase choices for children travelling to school and improve road safety. Like the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), I live in the zone, near a school. Since the congestion charge was introduced I have noticed that many more children are walking to school, partly because they have a short distance to travel, whereas previously they travelled by car. I would suggest that walking is not only safer but much healthier. Also, the congestion and confusion often found outside schools has been reduced, as has the danger to children who walk to school.
We have asked all local authorities to include in their local transport plans an integrated strategy for reducing car use and improving children's safety on the journey to school. We have also asked them to include separate targets for modal shift and plans for monitoring progress, and to say how they will work with schools to develop school travel plans. To help authorities to do that, we have awarded 57 bursaries for them to employ staff dedicated to promoting travel plans for schools. Working together, local authorities, schools and parents—and, indeed, children—can help to reduce the number of car trips.
There is already a lot of good practice for others to emulate, and some schools have achieved dramatic reductions in car use in a short time. In fact, I am soon to visit a school that has encouraged the use of the bicycle. Whereas only four or five children used to cycle, now so many do so that the school can allow only one year group at a time to cycle to school, because it does not have the capacity to keep all the bicycles in the school.
In some places, there are localised problems that need to be dealt with. For example, in December, the Secretary of State announced a £5.5 billion package of major national and local transport measures to tackle congestion and to improve safety, reliability and quality of life. The improvements tackle some of the country's most serious transport problems. My right hon. Friend announced up to 1,600 traffic management schemes, more than 400 new or improved road junctions and up to 55 new or extended park-and-ride schemes.

365WH
To minimise the disruption caused to road users by street works—another huge source of congestion—highways authorities have, since April 2002, been able to charge utilities up to —2,000 a day for each of their street works which overruns an agreed deadline. So far, 120 authorities have taken up those powers. We have made it quite clear that if that does not reduce disruption sufficiently, new powers will be activated that allow utilities to be charged a daily rate from the start of the works, regardless of whether they overrun or not. Pilot schemes to test those new powers have begun in Camden and Middlesbrough. Utilities excavating the street have to pay up to £750 a day for the duration of the works.
Those developments will go a long way to reducing the disruption that drivers experience, and they will improve the overall journey times on the road network, including, most importantly, those for buses. However, although we can increase the capacity in the systems to manage the strategic road network better, that is a lot more difficult to do in our towns and cities, where most of us have experience of congestion. Indeed, 80 per cent, of congestion is to be found in urban areas.
Time wasted in congestion costs business and people every day. Traffic congestion degrades and pollutes the environment in which we live and bring up our children. Congestion charging is a way of confronting each of us with the questions that we have always been reluctant to ask ourselves. Do I need to be here now? Is this journey necessary, or could I organise things better? Congestion charging provides an incentive for motorists to look more critically at the real cost of their travel decisions, and at the possibilities for using alternative means of transport. Of course, it also secures additional funds through a hypothecated revenue stream for spending on improved local transport systems.
As the Secretary of State has said on many occasions, congestion charging is just one of a number of measures that can be used to tackle congestion. It is not the answer in itself; authorities might have to think about the role that they can play in creating an overall strategic vision for their town or city.
As we made clear in our response to the Select Committee's report, the Government's firm view is that all proposals for the introduction of charging must have the reduction of congestion as their primary and continuing objective. We also recognise that the public's perception of congestion charging is important for its acceptability. Not only do people have to understand the principles underlying charging, but they need to see the tangible benefits that it can bring.
Local authorities and the public must be open-minded in considering how congestion can be managed in their community. The process of dialogue and consultation may result in options other than charging being considered and taken forward. That is good, and entirely consistent with the theme of local decision making. As the Select Committee recognises, charging can be a powerful policy tool and it can benefit all road users. It is important to remember that we have no one-size-fits-all solution. Local authorities need to make use of the flexibility afforded them by the legislation in designing their schemes to meet local needs and solve local problems. For example, a scheme for central
366WH
London, Manchester or Birmingham might be entirely different from a project in the Peak district, where there is congestion at the weekend.
I take issue with the Select Committee's suggestion, which has been mentioned in some of the contributions, that the Government have been lukewarm on this matter. Congestion charging is available because the Government listened to local authorities and gave them the powers to go ahead with it. We did not produce a blueprint in Westminster or Whitehall and say, "This is what you have to do." We allowed local authorities to take democratic decisions in their own areas. That is the best way forward.
Tom Brake: Just to clear this up once and for all, will the Minister take the opportunity to say that he will be extremely happy for local authorities to introduce congestion charging if that is what they decide to do?
Mr. Jamieson: Absolutely. If a local authority has developed a scheme, has consulted properly locally, can show that it will reduce congestion and can demonstrate all the features that are needed under the legislation, of course the Government will be very supportive. However, we would want to know that the scheme had local support and that there had been proper consultation. Our approach has not changed over two or three years. What is different is that there are those who are trying to say that the Government should have a blueprint or a master plan. We are not minded to do that—such things are best determined locally.
There has, rightly, been a good deal of talk about the impact of congestion charging on low-paid workers and other key public sector workers. That is an issue that we would expect authorities to consider fully when designing schemes. They will be required to monitor the impacts of schemes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) said, the legislation allows authorities to proceed but they must consider carefully the scheme's impact on their community and fine-tune it as appropriate. Local authorities also have the ability to build exemptions and concessions into their scheme. In determining the level and scope of those they need to bear in mind their possible impact on the effectiveness of the scheme.
Mr. Stringer: I have been following the Minister's arguments carefully. Can he explain why local authorities outside London, if they are thinking of introducing a congestion charge, should have to do that with the disadvantage of a deregulated bus system, which is not the case in London?
Mr. Jamieson: I can see the direction in which my hon. Friend is tempting me to go, but local authorities will always have to devise a scheme within the confines of the systems that operate in their own areas. Durham brought in arrangements based on the transport system in that city. My hon. Friend raises an interesting but separate argument. We may examine it on another day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, in a careful and considered opening to the debate, talked about permanent hypothecation to give a long-term view of schemes. We shall keep that in mind, especially if an authority wants to spend some of the

367WH
money on a long-term project. A tram scheme, for example, may need financing over far more than the 10 years of hypothecation.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about developing technology and ensuring its compatibility where appropriate. It was important to ensure that there was compatibility between the services operated by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the technology used for London's congestion charge, and that seems to have worked satisfactorily.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) spoke with some eloquence, although I was not sure in the end whether he was for or against the scheme. He also talked about the Mayor's revenue-raising powers. I took careful note of his comments about charging in out-of-town car parks. The Government had originally thought of extending the workplace levy to retail sites and out-of-town centres. However, when the Bill that became the Transport Act 2000 was going through Parliament, we felt that further work was needed, so the issue was not included in the Bill. The Commission for Integrated Transport is considering it, however, and I assure my hon. Friend that it is not off the agenda. We shall return to it in time.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the money available for outlying boroughs. Some £50 million is available to the Mayor to implement local traffic mitigation measures in outlying boroughs. It is for the appropriate authorities to catch his attention and talk through some of the issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley made an important point about the scheme's effects on business, and I know that the Mayor is having to monitor those carefully. We shall also be considering such issues, because they are important for London and for possible future schemes.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington kindly did the initial part of my job for me by summarising the comments made last time by what I called the voices of doom and gloom, so I have now thrown that bit of my speech away. If I may spoil things for a moment, however, he should read some of the election literature that went out in Bristol. If he does, he will find that the Liberal Democrats implacably opposed the congestion charge scheme there. I know that there is a different message on every doorstep with the Liberals, but there also seems to be a different
368WH
message for every town. The hon. Gentleman may want to pop to Bristol to rap his colleagues gently on the knuckles.
Tom Brake: Like the Minister, I am all in favour of local decision making.
Mr. Jamieson: But the hon. Gentleman said that we needed a national policy. A moment ago, he asked me whether the Government would support any scheme, so let me ask him a question. If he were doing my job, and Bristol came up with a congestion charge scheme, would he support the Liberal Democrats current position or would he take our line? I will give way if he wants to respond, but I can see that he is not going to—perhaps he will do so in a future debate. In any case, he needs to get his lines of communication sorted out.
Talking of lines of communication, I turn to the contribution by the hon. Member for Christchurch. Interestingly, he spoke from the Back Benches today—perhaps he was afraid that something he said might be deemed to be Tory party policy. In any case, he said in our previous debate that congestion charging was a grossly unjust system. I wondered whether his tone had not changed very slightly since then—perhaps as a result of that weekend he recently spent with his colleagues. In any case, it is interesting that the Conservative party's mayoral candidate is very much opposed to the London scheme and would scrap it.
The hon. Gentleman was a Transport Minister in a previous incarnation—it was just before 1992, when the electorate decided that he should do another job for a while. In 1991, he presided over the London congestion charging research programme, which concluded:
"Congestion charging could, however, significantly reduce congestion and the environmental impacts of traffic".
That is from a report initiated during his time at the Department for Transport. Furthermore, those of his colleagues who held senior ministerial jobs have been very supportive of congestion charging over the years. I am surprised that Conservative Members are not supportive today, but there we are—that was their past, and we look forward to their future.
If I have not covered any points, I shall be happy, as always, to engage in correspondence with hon. Members.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

Questions Not Answered Orally

  Heroin Addiction
  John Mann: To ask the Government what the minimum professional qualification is for making an assessment of heroin addiction treatment needs. [114229]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): The Government are committed to ensuring that any person making an assessment of heroin addiction treatment needs is qualified to do so. Best practice in the assessment of heroin addiction involves assessment skills from a multidisciplinary team, and for addiction treatment the team may often involve a doctor and nurse or trained drug worker.

  Drug Awareness
  Mr. Wayne David: To ask the Government what steps they are taking to increase the level of drug awareness in schools. [114230]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): The Government's strategy to increase drug awareness in schools involves supporting schools and launching a major new publicity campaign aimed at young people and their families. To support schools, the Government are making £20 million available for drug education via the standards fund in 2003–04; providing an additional £2 million to support training for teachers and Connexions advisers; and revising current guidance to schools. The new publicity campaign to be launched shortly will drive home the risks of class A drugs and encourage pupils and their parents to seek further help and advice.

TREASURY

  Cancer
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the most recent cancer survival rates for the most common forms of cancer are in the UK; and what information he has received on survival rates in(a) other EU, (b) other G8 and (c) EU applicant countries. [114617]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. MacDougall, dated 22 May 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning what the most recent cancer survival rates for the most common forms of cancer are in the UK; and what information has been received on survival rates in (a) other EU, (b) other G8 and (c) EU applicant countries. (114617)
  Survival figures for the UK as a whole are not currently available. The available figures for the separate countries of the UK are not directly comparable because of differences in coverage and for other reasons. The latest available information on survival rates for cancer in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are available from the following websites:
  England: http://www.nationalstatistics.gov.ukyStatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D4924.xls
  Wales: http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites/documents/242/CancerRegistration.pdf
  Scotland: http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/isd/cancer/excel/surviv_update.xls
  Northern Ireland: http://www.qub.ac.uk/nicr/commoncan.htm
  The Office for National Statistics does not collate cancer survival figures for other countries. Comparable statistics on cancer survival in those parts of Europe that are covered by cancer registries were produced by the EUROCARE 11 study and published in "Survival of cancer patients in Europe EUROCARE 11 study" (1ARC scientific Publication No. 151); this is available in the House of Commons Library.
  No similar publication has been produced for the G8 countries.

  Biodiesel Duty
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will develop the tax derogation on biodiesel to support the rural economies. [114795]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor reviews all taxation policies taking account of relevant economic, social and environmental factors in forming his Budget judgment.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the calculations which he used to determine that £0.2710 shall be the biodiesel duty rate. [112891]
  882W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: The new biodiesel rate of 27.10 pence per litre was chosen to maintain the 20 pence per litre duty differential with ultra-low sulphur diesel. The Government offers lower duty rates for less environmentally-damaging fuels by offering duty differentials relative to the main road fuels. These differentials are intended primarily to reflect the relative environmental benefits of the fuels in question. In determining the size of the duty incentive for biodiesel, the Government has taken into account principally the environmental benefits of the fuel, which amount to approximately 55 per cent. carbon emissions savings on a lifecycle basis, as well as a range of other benefits offered by the fuel, including fuel security benefits and the potential to encourage the recycling of waste products.

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 28 February 2003,Official Report, column 767W, on the Capital Modernisation Fund, why the Customs and Excise anti drug surveillance was terminated in February 2002; and if he will make a statement. [114593]

  John Healey
  The contractor was unable to meet the user specification.

  Proceeds of Crime
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government is taking to tackle organised gangs funded from the proceeds of drug sales. [114225]

  John Healey
  The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 provides extensive new powers for police and customs officers to seize the proceeds of all crimes, including drug trafficking. This is often the working capital for organised gangs, and recovering those proceeds will prevent them being used to fund further criminal activity.

  Energy Efficiency
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets he has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [114843]

  John Healey
  The UK has a legally binding target under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2012. In addition, as set out in the Climate Change Programme published in 2000, the UK has set a domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. The Energy White Paper, published in February 2003 reaffirmed this goal and the expectation that more than half of the emissions reductions in the Climate Change Programme—around 10 MtC by 2010—would come from energy efficiency.

  The Energy White Paper sets out the measures which the Government is taking forward to achieve these reductions.
  883W
  In addition to this, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also has a specific Public Sector Agreement target to reduce fuel poverty among vulnerable households by improving the energy efficiency of 600,000 homes between 2001 and 2004.

  Environment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment is made(a) of the environmental impact and (b) against sustainable development criteria of the bids made for contracts awarded by his Department; who makes such an assessment; and whether these assessments are published. [114841]

  John Healey
  It is Government policy to ensure that the relevant officials consider environmental/sustainable development impacts, along with a range of other criteria, when contract bids are assessed. Such assessments are not published.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment is made(a) of the environmental impact and (b) against sustainable development criteria, of the bids made for the different grants awarded by his Department; who makes such an assessment; and whether these assessments are published. [114844]

  John Healey
  The Treasury provides grants and grants in aid to the following bodies: Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; British-American Parliamentary Group; Inter-Parliamentary Union; British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body; and Statistics Commission.

  EU-Israel Association Agreement
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made with the composition of duty on goods imported to the UK claiming preference under the EU-Israel Association Agreement but where the goods involved are believed to originate in illegal Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights or the Occupied Palestinian Territories. [114847]

  John Healey
  As at 16 May 2003, Customs have sent 41 verification requests to the Israeli authorities covering 332 claims to preference. Duty totalling £20,095 has been demanded from importers following exhaustion of the verification process.

  Financial Statement and Budget Report
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will re-publish Table 4.2 in the Budget Red Book, HC500, to show the number of working households facing a marginal deduction rate of(a) over 50 per cent. and (b) over 40 per cent. [114417]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table shows estimates of the numbers facing marginal deduction rates (MDRs) in excess of 40 per cent.

  Marginal deduction rate percentage

  Before budget 1998

  2003–04 system of tax and benefits

  Over 100

  5,000

  0

  Over 90

  130,000

  30,000

  Over 80

  300,000

  135,000

  Over 70

  740,000

  185,000

  884W

  Marginal deduction rate percentage

  Before budget 1998

  2003–04 system of tax and benefits

  Over 60

  760,000

  1,490,000

  Over 50

  760,000

  1,675,000

  Over 40

  800,000

  1,800,000

  This analysis does not take into account the way in which the new tax credits will respond to rises in income, described in detail in The Child and Working Tax Credit. The new tax credits only respond to rises in income in the current year of more than £2,500, disregarding the first £2,500 of any risk. This means that recipients will not see their tax credits reduced as soon as their income rises, so reducing the effective marginal deduction in any one year.

  Figures are cumulative. This table shows marginal deduction rates for working households in receipt of income related benefits or new tax credits, where at least one person works 16 hours or more a week and where higher earnings would lead to reduced benefits or tax credits. They include the marginal effects of income tax and national insurance contributions, and the withdrawal of housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  As a result of the Government's reforms, over half a million fewer low-income households now face marginal deduction rates in excess of 70 per cent. than did so in April 1997. The increase in the number of households facing marginal deduction rates of between 40 and 70 per cent. is primarily due to the introduction of tax credits, and more recently the extension of support to workers aged 25 or over without children.

  Golden Shares
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the Government's golden shares and their value at current equity market prices. [114635]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government holds special shareholdings in the following companies.

  No information exists about equity market value as these shareholdings are not tradeable.

  Rosyth Royal Dockyard Ltd.

  Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd.

  QinetiQ Holdings Ltd.

  BAFS (Marine) Ltd.

  AWE plc

  BAE Systems plc

  Rolls Royce plc

  British Energy plc

  UK Nirex Ltd.

  Consignia Holdings plc

  National Grid Transco plc

  Scottish Power plc

  Scottish & Southern Energy plc

  Viridian Group plc

  Phoenix Natural Gas Ltd.

  Belfast International Airport Ltd.

  885W

  British Airports Authority plc

  National Air Traffic Services Ltd.

  London and Continental Railways Ltd.

  Eurostar Ltd.

  Intercapita & Regional Rail Ltd.

  Stena Line plc

  CDC Group plc

  Partnerships UK Ltd.

  Troika Ltd.

  Illegal Food Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer, of 14 May 2003,Official Report, columns 261–62W, on food imports, (a) whether the personnel for the new mobile anti-smuggling teams will be drawn from existing Customs personnel, (b) which regions the new anti-smuggling teams will operate in, (c) which regions the detector dogs will operate in, (d) what provisions are in place for replacing ill detector dogs and (e) when the publicity campaign at ports and airports in the UK and overseas will be unveiled. [114950]

  John Healey
  Staff for the new teams will be drawn from existing Customs personnel. The anti-smuggling teams and detector dogs are mobile and the locations of their deployment will be varied according to risk. Where illness or injury seriously impairs a detector dog's long-term effectiveness, the dog would normally be retired from duty, Customs would then arrange for the supply and training of a new dog as soon as possible.

  DEFRA publicity is continuing while Customs publicity material is developed. This will be rolled out later this year.

  International Finance Facility
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions his Department has had with the relevant finance and development departments of other donor countries regarding the proposed International Finance Facility; and if he will make a statement; [114665]

  (2) what his Department's spending predictions are for (a) overseas aid after 2015 and (b) the International Finance Facility; and if he will make a statement; [114664]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the financial risks associated with the proposed International Finance Facility; how he plans to minimise them; and if he will make a statement; [114669]

  (4) what percentage of the funds from the proposed International Finance Facility will be given as (a) grants and (b) loans; and if he will make a statement; [114667]

  (5) what contingency plans his Department has in conjunction with the Department for International Development in the event that the required number of donors for the proposed International Finance Facility reaches 50 per cent. or less of the target; and if he will make a statement; [114666]

  (6) what criteria will be used to decide which countries will receive aid from the proposed International Finance Facility; and if he will make a statement. [114668]
  886W
  John Healey
  The UK Government continue to press the urgent case for an International Finance Facility to raise the additional finance needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 in all relevant national and international fora.

  The UK Government are committed to the UN 0.7 per cent. ODA/GNI ratio target. The UK will reach an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.4 per cent. in 2005–06 from a level of 0.26 per cent. in 1997 and 0.33 per cent. in 2003–04.

  Further details of the IFF proposal, including its proposed structure, can be found in the IFF proposal document published in January 2003 and an accompanying technical note published in February 2003. Both these documents are available in the Library of the House and on the Treasury website at http:// www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/IFF.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change(a) duty levels on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and (b) the level of grants available for vehicles converting to LPG. [114742]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 262W.

  The consultation mentioned in that reply will seek stakeholders' views on the effectiveness of a range of potential incentives, including fuel duties and the grants for LPG vehicles currently offered through the TransportEnergy PowerShift programme.

  Ministerial Correspondence Unit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115873]

  John Healey
  The unit's complement of nine staff in 2001 was increased to 10 in 2002.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Department has taken to publicise its Public Service Agreement targets; and at what cost to public funds. [114445]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on Public Service Agreement targets is published on the Treasury public website and included in routine publications, such as the Treasury departmental report, which involve no significant extra cost.

  Royal Mint
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the independent review of the Royal Mint will be published. [114594]

  Mr. Boateng
  Grant Thornton undertook an independent review of the Royal Mint's financial control systems in 2002. This is available on the Mint website.

  Sustainable Development
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the departmental strategy for sustainable development will be published; and what steps(a) are being taken and (b) are planned to take forward the actions outlined. [114894]

  John Healey
  A joint Sustainable Development Statement for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments and Agencies was agreed last year and a copy is available on the Treasury website. They are all adhering to the Government's objectives for sustainable development as set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what remit relating to sustainable development is undertaken by his Department's(a) executive agencies, (b) advisory non-departmental bodies, (c) executive non-departmental bodies, (d) tribunals, (e) public corporations and (f) other bodies. [114895]

  John Healey
  This remit is contained in the Joint Sustainable Development Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments and Agencies published last year. A copy is available on the Treasury's website.

  Timber
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Department's procurement policy includes timber used in the construction of departmental building projects; and if he will make a statement. [114842]

  John Healey
  It is Government policy to use timber from certified sustainable sources for all departmental new builds or refurbishments.

  VAT Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers he has over the operations of VAT to prevent master franchises from using coercive attempts to press their franchisees into registering for VAT as a means of the master franchises obtaining an exemption under the provisions of the Trading Schemes Act 1996; and if he will make a statement. [114818]

  John Healey
  In Budget 2003, the Government raised the registration threshold for VAT to £56,000—the highest threshold in Europe. Businesses with a taxable turnover above this threshold are required to register for VAT. Businesses with a turnover below £56,000, and which make taxable supplies, are entitled to register for VAT voluntarily by application to HM Customs and Excise. Customs have no powers to determine, or to intervene in, the circumstances behind an application for voluntary registration.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total expenditure on advertising by the Department 888W
  was in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114423]

  Alun Michael
  The Department does not maintain records of its expenditure on advertising separately. The expenditure for publicity by Defra's Communications Directorate, which includes advertising, publications, events, shows and direct information literature mailings in financial year 2001–02 was £6.6 million and in 2002–03 is estimated to be £6.0 million. The allocation for 2003–04 is £4.3 million.

  This includes communication on a very wide range of matters, much of it necessary or beneficial to the public and the wide range of industries in which Defra has an interest, together with local government, voluntary organisations and other bodies.

  Decisions on publicity budgets for 2004–05 have not yet been made. These will be made later this year as part of the planning process

  Apples
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to prevent traditional English varieties of apple from dying out. [114267]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra owns the National Fruit Collection at Brogdale in Kent and supports the conservation and scientific direction of the collection at a cost of some £280,000 per annum.

  The collection is a rich genetic resource, containing over 2,300 different varieties of apple as well as other top fruit and stone fruit and material from the collection is available to researchers and breeders. Research on the collection—including that on traditional varieties—is also made widely available.

  Avian Influenza
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will ban imports of cull day-old chicks from the Netherlands and Belgium; [113700]

  (2) what steps she is taking to prevent the spread of avian influenza from continental Europe to the UK; [113699]

  (3) if she will extend the import ban on live poultry and hatching eggs to include table eggs from the Netherlands and Belgium. [113701]

  Mr. Morley
  In order to prevent the spread of Avian Influenza (AI) from the European Union to the UK the Department has taken the following steps.

  In March 2003 Defra issued Declarations under Regulation 27 of the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (and equivalent legislation in the devolved territories) introducing a ban on the import of live poultry, hatching eggs and racing/show pigeons from the Netherlands and Belgium. These Declarations make it a criminal offence to import live poultry and hatching eggs into England from both the Netherlands and Belgium. A further Declaration was issued on 9 May 2003 prohibiting the import of live poultry and hatching

  889W
  eggs from the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have also introduced similar measures.

  In normal circumstances, all birds (poultry or captive birds) entering the UK from the EU must be accompanied by an EU model health certificate stating that premises and area of origin are free from AI.

  The Government have also banned the import from the Netherlands, Belgium and from the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany of fresh, unprocessed and non-heat treated poultry manure and litter. EU legislation does not permit trade in fresh poultry meat if it was obtained from poultry originating in established surveillance zones in those countries.

  In addition, action was also taken on 16 May to ban the importation into the UK of cull day old chicks from the Netherlands, Belgium and from the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany.

  Table eggs do not present a high risk of spread of disease. Any risk would be of mechanical transmission of virus on eggs, packaging or means of transport. Controls in force in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany provide good safeguards against this risk and a ban on imports would be disproportionate.

  Defra has reminded egg and poultry producers in the UK about the need for stringent biosecurity measures at all times. To minimise the introduction of AI into their flocks by means of faecal contamination, poultry producers should ensure that their boots, clothing, equipment and vehicles are disinfected. Access by wild birds should be minimised, for instance by clearing up feed spillages. Officials have asked poultry producers in the UK to be vigilant for any signs of respiratory disease in birds and contact their local veterinary office immediately if they have any concerns.

  The Department is monitoring the AI situation in the EU. Should there be any significant changes, the risk assessment for the UK will be reviewed.

  Officials have reviewed and updated the Contingency Plan, are learning the lessons about the Dutch outbreak from the authorities there, and remain in close touch with the poultry industry about measures we would take should the disease appear here.

  Carbon Trust/Energy Saving Trust
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what monitoring her Department has carried out to assess the effectiveness of the(a) Carbon Trust and (b) Energy Saving Trust; and if she will make a statement. [113452]

  Mr. Morley
  The Carbon Trust is a private company created in April 2001 to take the lead on energy efficiency in the business and public sectors, and to support the development of the low carbon sector in the UK. The Trust has already done much valuable work in developing its three main programme areas and is taking a proactive role in the energy efficiency arena in its role as the main source of energy efficiency information and advice for the non-domestic sector. An initial impact assessment programme for the Trust is being developed and should provide preliminary results over the summer.
  890W
  A policy evaluation of the Energy Saving Trust to review their effectiveness in carrying out their objectives in the period 1996–99 was completed in September 2000. The report concluded that the Energy Saving Trust had a valuable contribution to make to the Government's sustainable energy objectives in promoting energy efficiency and that there was a continuing case for funding those objectives that could not be met through other sources.

  The Government's Energy White Paper has made clear that they will continue to support the work of the two trusts. It also announced a review of low carbon delivery programmes and associated support bodies before the end of 2004.

  Deer
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the dates were of the recent visits by DEFRA vets to the Baronsdown Deer Sanctuary; how many deer were estimated to be in the sanctuary and how many of them were inspected; how long each visit lasted; how many of the visits were done(a) during daylight and (b) after dark; what study was made during the visits of the relative size of the deer in the sanctuary against Exmoor Red Deer in general; and whether any of the deer exhibited signs of malnutrition. [114835]

  Mr. Morley
  The Baronsdown Deer Sanctuary was inspected by officials of the State Veterinary Service on 1 April. The detailed findings of the inspection are confidential to the managers of the Sanctuary.

  Duck Farming
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will hold a public consultation on animal welfare aspects of duck farming. [114255]

  Mr. Morley
  We plan to hold a public consultation later this year on a revised welfare code for ducks.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the planned revision of the welfare code for duck farming, with particular reference to the provision of access to water. [114256]

  Mr. Morley
  The revised welfare code for ducks will be subject to public consultation later this year. The provision of access to water will be one of the areas considered.

  Eggs
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy towards assisting the egg sector to offset the costs of additional Communities legislation. [112505]

  Mr. Morley
  Although we make every effort to minimise the regulatory burden on all sectors of the agriculture industry, it is not our policy to subsidise the cost of meeting legislative requirements.
  891W
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what analysis she has made of the effect of Green Box compatible payments following impact analysis on Council Directive 1999/74/EC, on the UK egg industry; what assistance to UK producers is planned; and if she will make a statement. [112506]

  Mr. Morley
  A regulatory impact assessment of Council Directive 1999/74/EC on the welfare of laying hens was placed in the Library of the House. We have no plans to compensate producers for the costs of meeting this legislation.

  The egg industry are concerned that following tariff reductions in the current WTO round, they will have to compete against imports from third countries where compliance with lower standards of animal welfare confers a substantial cost advantage. The EU has successfully pressed for such non trade concerns to be taken into consideration in the negotiations and the UK will continue to play an important role in formulating EU policy in this area.

  Animal By-products
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether farmers will be entitled to make retrospective claims for the collection and disposal of fallen livestock from her Department's subscription scheme for fallen livestock between May and August. [111115]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government do not intend to make retrospective payments to farmers for the collection and disposal of fallen stock between May and August and there is no reason to do so. The proposed subscription scheme is not an essential requirement of the Animal By-Products Regulation but a facility to help reduce costs. Participation is voluntary and the scheme is dependent on a minimum take up of 50 per cent. of holdings.

  Fish Quotas
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what progress has been made in advising non-profit distributing fish quota trading companies whether the purchase of fish quotas to lease to local or member fishermen is allowed under(a) UK and (b) EU rules; [114022]

  (2) when she expects to advise the Duchy Fish Quota Company whether its business plan to purchase and lease fish quotas (a) meets EU state aid values, (b) is eligible for European Structural Fund aid, (c) is eligible for UK national Government aid and (d) is eligible to receive public funds from local authorities; [114023]

  (3) what advice she has given to local proposals to intervene in the market for fish quotas in order to protect the availability of that quota for fishermen within that locality. [114021]

  Mr. Morley
  I am aware that a scheme for quota purchase in Cornwall is under consideration. We have advised the Duchy Fish Quota Company that the use of public funds in schemes for the purchase and lease of fish quota is under examination by the European 892W
  Commission, for compatibility with state aid rules. We have promised to report to the company the European Commission's conclusions when they are reached.

  Free-range Eggs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what restrictions are imposed on English bed and breakfasts on use of eggs produced by their own free-range chickens. [113406]

  Mr. Morley
  None. The egg marketing standards regulations do not apply to eggs supplied by the producer direct to the final consumer.

  Haskins Review
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to(a) receive and (b) publish Lord Haskins' review of DEFRA and its agencies. [114342]

  Alun Michael
  Lord Haskins expects to submit a full report in the summer. Publication will follow as soon as possible after due consideration by Ministers.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many officials in her Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by her officials, broken clown by category of honour. [111481]

  Alun Michael
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was formed in June 2001 following machinery of government changes. Departmental data held on honours relate to the period since then.

  In that time, 14 members of the Department have received an honour. Of those, five have now left, so currently nine honours awards are held by Defra officials. These comprise: one CB (Companion of the Order of the Bath), one CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire), four OBEs (Officers of the Order of the British Empire) and three MBEs (Members of the Order of the British Empire). Data are not routinely kept on (a) the number of awards held by individuals, or (b) any awards received by staff before they joined the Department, or (c) awards given to current staff for achievements not related to official duties.

  Laying Hens
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on DEFRA-funded research into enriched cages for laying hens; [114257]

  (2) what research into cages for laying hens she has assessed, with particular reference to enriched cages; and if she will make a statement. [114260]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra is currently funding research into these types of cages in order to enhance our scientific and practical knowledge. The research project which finishes in June 2004, aims to evaluate the effect of stocking density and cage height on bird behaviour, welfare and performance as well as investigating
  893W
  innovative material suitable for dustbathing in enriched cages. The project is a collaboration between ADAS, Bristol, Lincoln and Roslin universities.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the EU directive (1999/74/EC) in respect of height requirements for enriched cages. [114258]

  Mr. Morley
  Council Directive 1999/74/EC sets a minimum height of 45cm for the useable area of enriched cages.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what economic assessment she has made of the welfare of laying hens(a) housed in free-range systems and (b) housed in barn systems; and if she will make a statement. [114259]

  Mr. Morley
  An economic assessment of the effect of Council Directive 1999/74/EC on alternative systems was undertaken as part of the Regulatory Impact Assessment prepared for the implementation of this Directive into domestic law.

  Further economic assessments will be carried out in preparation for the 2005 Review of Directive 1999/74/EC.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the export of livestock to France in each of the last three years. [113357]

  Mr. Morley
  All livestock exports from the United Kingdom to France must comply with strict animal health and welfare rules. In particular, additional EU animal health rules which were introduced in 2001 as a result of the foot and mouth disease outbreak have applied to all sheep and goat exports from the UK to France since EU trade restrictions were lifted.

  National Parks
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many national parks there are; how much land they cover; and what representations she has received to(a) enlarge them and (b) create new national parks. [115152]

  Alun Michael
  The seven National Parks in England, together with the Broads (which are of similar status) cover 993,592 hectares. This is 7 per cent. of the land area of England. The Countryside Agency is responsible for designating National Parks in England and modifying their boundaries, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. Since Defra was established in July 2001, the Agency has submitted Designation Orders for new National Parks in the New Forest and the South Downs. The Agency has not sought to enlarge any existing National Parks. Last year's review of English National Park Authorities recommended that the boundary of the Broads should be studied, and Defra has had occasional queries about boundary changes elsewhere.

  Responsibilities for National Parks in Wales and Scotland lie with the devolved administrations and their respective statutory advisers.

  Network Rail
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department was consulted by Network Rail in respect of its plans to cut back vegetation along railway lines; whether the matter has been discussed with the Department of Transport; and if she has made an assessment of the tree removal programme with regard to biodiversity. [114078]

  Mr. Morley
  All wild birds, and certain animals and plants, are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. For all birds, listed plants and animals it is an offence to kill, or take any species. Licences can be issued under section 16 of the Act to derogate from this protection for specific reasons, such as public health and safety.

  Network Rail has not consulted the Department, nor have officials discussed this matter with the Department of Transport. However, where railway companies propose to remove trees, scrub or vegetation from railway properties, the Department would advise that such work is undertaken outside of the breeding and rearing season for birds, and with the minimum of disruption to animals and plants.

  The Department has not made an assessment of the effect of the tree removal programme on biodiversity.

  Public Awareness Activities
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what budgets her Department has allocated for public awareness activities in each financial year to 2005–06; and to what policy areas funds have been allocated. [113451]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has allocated £7.6 million for publicity-related expenditure in 2003–04. Of this, the significant allocations are: £2.3 million for Environmental Protection; £0.6 million for the Waste Implementation programme; £1 million for Flood Awareness; £0.25 million for Wildlife and Countryside; £0.25 million for Illegal Imports awareness; and a further £1.5 million for events around England which are principally focused on communicating Defra's policies on Sustainable Food, Farming and Rural Affairs. We are currently assessing the priorities for the remaining funds against our strategic communications objectives.

  Decisions on publicity budgets for 2004–05 and 2005–06 will be made later this year as part of the planning process

  Rural Payments/Policy
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of Suckler Cow Premium Scheme payments had been made by the Rural Payments Agency for 2001–02 claims. [115312]

  Alun Michael
  As of 20 May 2003, balance payments under the 2001 Suckler Cow Premium Scheme have been made on over 97 per cent. of claims. Remaining claims have either been rejected or are being considered
  895W
  under Category 5 of the 2001 Bovine penalty review. Under the 2002 scheme, advance payments have been issued on over 80 per cent. of claims.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects the Countryside Agency's rural policy report to be published. [115183]

  Alun Michael
  I understand that the Countryside Agency will publish its annual rural proofing report on 3 June.

  Salmon
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason salmon in the Hampshire Avon are being tagged by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; what the anticipated mortality rate is among tagged salmon; what prior consultation was undertaken with(a) riparian owners and (b) angling interests; and if she will make a statement. [114670]

  Mr. Morley
  One cause of the decline in salmon stocks may be increases in river temperatures resulting from natural factors or human activities. This could reduce the survival or reproductive success of the fish. The tags used in the study record temperature and transmit the fish's position, allowing scientists to investigate whether or not adult salmon show temperature preferences during upstream migration. This is of particular relevance to the spring-running multi-sea winter salmon in the Avon, which are resident in freshwater for many months prior to spawning. The results of this work will be used to provide advice to Government and other organisations dedicated to the conservation and sustainable management of salmon stocks, on the potential impacts of habitat management practices and climate change on salmonid populations.

  Between 1985 and 1990 more than 400 salmon were tagged with radio transmitting tags in the Avon estuary. The great majority of these fish entered the Avon and were tracked migrating upstream to their spawning areas. 45 were reported caught by anglers, which is consistent with recapture rates elsewhere of conventionally tagged fish. No radio-tagged fish were found dead in the river. This suggests that tagging salmon with radio tags has a negligible influence upon their natural behaviour or survival.

  Both riparian owners and angling interests were consulted through the Environment Agency, who discussed the work with the Chairman of the Avon and Stour Fishery Association; riparian interests were sent a copy of a letter from CEFAS explaining the purpose of the work and the methods to be used. The Chairman of the Wessex Salmon and Rivers Trust, and English Nature, were also consulted.

  Skips
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the local authorities which have levied charges for licences to place skips on the highway; what changes have been made; and if she will make a statement. [115775]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  896W
  My Department does not hold information as to which local authorities levy charges for placing skips on the highway.

  Sponsorship
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of her 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. [112401]

  Alun Michael
  Details of individual amounts of sponsorship valued at more than £5,000 would be published in the Defra Departmental Report and the Department's annual, audited Resource Accounts.

  The Department's projects received no such sponsorship in 2002–03.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with her European counterparts in relation to the supply of veterinary medicines. [114009]

  Mr. Morley
  There are a number of European fora attended by my officials and those of the other Member States at which issues relating to veterinary medicines are discussed and at which issues relating to their supply may be raised. In particular, European Commission proposals to amend medicines legislation, including one to require a prescription for all medicines for use in food-producing animals, are currently being discussed in a series of Council Working Groups. This year the Working Group has met twice each month except February when there was one meeting. My officials are seeking to modify the Commission's proposal to enable a flexible approach to the distribution of veterinary medicinal products that takes advantage of existing national practices, so long as consumer protection and animal welfare can be demonstrably assured.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many agency workers have been employed by the Department in each of the last two years; and at what cost to public funds. [115196]

  Dr. Howells
  From May 1 2001 to April 30 2002, DCMS employed 92 agency workers at a cost of £409,742.

  From May 1 2002 to April 30 2003, DCMS employed 86 agency workers at a cost of £485,518.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what finance was allocated to English
  897W
  Heritage in each year since 1997; and how many sites and buildings have been listed in this time. [115170]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government grant-in-aid allocation to English Heritage was £105.2 million in 1997–98, £102.4 million in 1998–99, £114.9 million in 1999–2000, £116.8 million in 2000–01, £110.4 million in 2001–02, and £116.4 million in 2002–03; and 7,898 items were included by the Department in the statutory list of buildings of architectural or historic interest during that period, following the receipt of advice from English Heritage.

  Film Industry
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to her Answer, of 7 May 2003,Official Report, columns 729–30W, on film certificates, what the estimated tax cost of relief provided under section 48 of the Finance (No.2) Act 1997 was in each year since 1997 for (a) theatrical films,

  Annual expenditure on certified British films

  Categories

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  (a) Total value of Schedule 1 & co-production films (with some theatrical potential Certified

  179

  254

  449

  407

  820

  973

  (b) Total value of domestic & co-production small screen productions Certified

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  n/a

  816

  1,018

  Aggregate of everything certified

  Total value of Co-Production films with some theatrical potential Certified

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  1,628

  1,991

  Co-productions Certified

  Total value of co-production films with some theatrical potential certified

  43

  60

  79

  91

  245

  408

  Total value of small screen Co-productions certified

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  92

  130

  (f) Total value of all co-productions certified

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  n/k

  337

  538

  Notes:

  1. "Certified films" include films certified as British under Schedule 1 of the 1985 Films Act and official UK co-productions which received final approval.

  2. Value figures are in £ million.

  3. Years are calendar years.

  4. For some films certified before 28 August 2000, a production cost figure is unavailable. However this is not believed to cause significant distortion overall.

  n/k = not known.

  The new definition of a British film came into force on 27/8/1999, since when some TV production costs are also known.

  Only from 28 August 2000 are production costs known for all certified TV & film productions.

  Updated 19 May 2003.

  Legal Deposit Libraries Bill
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the National Library of Wales regarding the Legal Deposit Libraries Bill. [115034]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have discussed with the Welsh Assembly and the British Library, both of whom represent the interests of the National Library of Wales, all aspects of the Bill.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from on-line publishers regarding the Legal Deposit Libraries Bill. [115035]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have received representations from on-line publishers about all aspects of the Bill that affect their interests, and officials have met them to discuss the points they have raised.
  898W
  (b) all (c) television fiction and documentaries; (d) televison other, (e) certified copy and counts in no category and (f) co-productions. [114946]

  Dr. Howells
  HM Treasury maintains the confidentiality of individual tax returns. Information in the categories listed as(a) to (f) is only available in terms of the production costs of films certified by DCMS. The categories for which production costs of film and television productions certified by DCMS are available are (a) "theatrical films certified"; (b) "all television productions certified", and (f) "all co-productions certified''. These figures are set out in the table.

  A separate record has not been maintained of the costs of "television fiction & documentary" and "television other" productions. DCMS expects the tax cost of certified copy certificates to be zero. DCMS records the productions costs as zero when copy certificates are issued, only recording the real production cost when the film is originally certified.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial provision she has made for legal deposit libraries arising from their new responsibilities under the Legal Deposit Libraries Bill. [115036]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have discussed the financial consequences with the British Library who have told us that they can meet the costs within existing resources. We have not received any representations on funding from the other deposit libraries.

  Local Authority Grants
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what specific or direct grants have been made by her Department to local authorities for 2003–04(a) in England and (b) broken down by local authority, identifying whether the grant is (i) ring fenced, (ii) a specific formula grant, (iii) within aggregate external finance and (iv) outside aggregate external finance. [114921]
  899W
  Mr. Caborn
  The information for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is as follows:Grant to Tyne & Wear Museums Service: £1,100,000. A federation of ten museums and galleries run by the Tyne and Wear local authorities. This grant is ring fenced and is outside of Aggregate External Finance.
  Grant to Greater London Authority: £1,900,000. The grant is ring-fenced for tourism purposes and is inside Aggregate External Finance.

  Under section 378 (1)(a) and (b) of the Greater London Authority Act (1999) the Greater London Authority has a duty to promote Tourism. Under the terms of the Agreement between DCMS and the GLA the DCMS grant must be used for tourism purposes.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of total

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  London

  194.16

  193.26

  194.83

  207.76

  217.14

  233.60

  254.08

  Rest of England

  39.98

  35.49

  34.07

  39.94

  41.65

  46.62

  53.42

  Total

  234.14

  228.75

  228.9

  248.7

  258.79

  280.22

  307.5

  Note:

  Branches of London museums in the rest of England are included in the London figure.

  Regional Arts Councils
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the savings made following the restructuring of regional arts councils in May 2001. [115307]

  Dr. Howells
  On 1 April 2002, the Arts Council and the Regional Arts Boards merged to form a single organisation to support the arts in England. A key outcome of this merger will be a reduction in administration costs and these savings will be made available to the arts. Arts Council England has announced that they will save nearly £20 million over the next three years. The forecast timing of these savings is: 2003–04 £4.1 million, 2004–05 £7.4 million and 2005–06 £8.1million.

  Youth Football
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the change in financial support to funding youth football teams in Shropshire will be for the next season. [115029]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government invest substantially in the development of youth football through the Football Foundation. The Foundation makes substantial contributions to the funding of football in Shropshire. Over £1 million has been spent on grass-roots development and community and education initiatives in 2002–03. This includes an approved grant of £62,000 for a football development scheme run by Telford and Wrekin Council. In 2003–04, three grass-root development applications totalling approximately £300,000 have been received so far for good causes in the county. These are currently being considered.
  900W
  government financial support for museums and galleries (a) in London and (b) in the rest of England, in each year from 1996–97; and if she will make a statement. [99845]

  Dr. Howells
  An estimate of financial support to be provided by Government for museums and galleries in London and the rest of England is listed in the table. The distribution of funding reflects the fact that the larger national museums are based in London.

  Further government support for museums and many other services is channelled through the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block, and is not separately identified. Individual authorities decide what to spend on local museums, from 1996–97 to 2001–02 they spent over £80 million on local museums m London and almost £800 million on local museums in the rest of England. Museums and galleries also receive some funding from the EC budget through the Structural Funds.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total expenditure on advertising by the Department was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114424]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI advertising expenditure through the COI was

  (a) £7,128,875 (2001–02)

  (b) £13,741,906 (2002–03) provisional figure

  Details of planned advertising expenditure in 2003–04 and 2004–05 is not held centrally and will become available only at the end of these financial years.

  Corporate Social Responsibility
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to require public limited companies to publish an annual social responsibility report. [114908]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's plans for a revised reporting regime for all companies were contained in the White Paper "Modernising Company Law" (Cm 5553), published in July 2002. This included the proposal that economically significant companies should be required to prepare an Operating and Financial Review as part of their annual financial statements and reports. The Review would include information on matters of corporate social responsibility where those were relevant to an informed assessment of the company.
  901W
  We continue to encourage companies to publish annual corporate social responsibility reports on a voluntary basis.

  Atypical Workers Directive
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate the Government has made of the number of jobs that would be affected if the Atypical Workers Directive were implemented; [115237]

  (2) what estimate the Government has made of the costs of implementing the Atypical Workers Directive; [115239]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the Atypical Workers Directive; [115236]

  (4) what study of the comparative effects across the EU of the Atypical Workers Directive the Government has made; and if she will make a statement. [115238]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government are not opposed in principle to the proposed directive on agency work but are keenly aware of the potential impact on UK agencies and agency workers of a directive that takes no account of conditions in the UK labour market. The Government are pressing very hard for the UK's legitimate concerns to be recognised.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has not produced a study of the potential impact on other countries in the European Union. The European Commission's impact assessment (Commission Paper 2002 149) was published in March 2002 with their proposal for a directive. This document is in the Libraries of the House.

  An explanatory memorandum setting out the Government's policy on the proposed directive and a regulatory impact assessment of the potential costs and benefits for the UK including a discussion of possible employment effects have been published and are in the Libraries.

  Company Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make auditors subject to a single statutory regulator. [114907]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 29 April 2003,Official Report, columns 311–12W.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to impose a duty of care to(a) shareholders and (b) employers on company auditors. [114906]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 19 March 2003,Official Report, column 766W.

  Competitiveness Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Competitiveness Council held on 12 to 13 May; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [113979]
  902W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, represented the UK at the Competitiveness Council on 13 May 2003.

  The council adopted conclusions on Industry Policy in an Enlarged Europe, which were discussed at the Competitiveness Council on 3 March 2003.

  The commission introduced its new Communication on Innovation Policy. Among other things it highlights the EU's continued underperformance in turning ideas into commercially successful products and services. The commission emphasised that new models and marketing methods were as important as exploiting technological research. Key characteristics of EU policy should be an emphasis on diffusion, and seeing the world from a business perspective. Other important elements were innovation in the public sector, regional diversity and the challenges of diversity.

  The UK welcomed the communication, while expressing some disappointment that the commission had not done more to integrate research and innovation policy. The communication could also have gone further in promoting the role of competition. A light touch was needed in applying the open method of co-ordination.

  Many similar points were made in discussion on the commission's Action Plan for increasing spending on Research and Development to 3 per cent. of GDP. Member states particularly stressed the need for fiscal and other incentives, and more flexibility over state aid. This area was of equal importance to accession states; Slovenia was interested in the question of policy co-ordination and how to make markets work better.

  Commissioner Liikanen presented the commission's 7th Report on the situation of world shipbuilding. The report highlighted that the difficulties in world shipbuilding are growing, as evidenced by a further decrease in orders for new vessels in the major shipbuilding regions in 2002. The commission stressed that the most important market segments for EU yards developed negatively. For EU producers, order intake in 2002 was down by 50 per cent. compared to 2001. Investigations into Korean yards show that there were large-scale subsidies, and the commission was working closely with industry representatives on the challenges the sector currently faces, and would report by the end of the year. The French and Spanish delegations, supported by Germany and Portugal urged the commission to extend the temporary defence mechanism and include liquid gas carriers. France also pressed for the commission to open a WTO dispute procedure against Korea.

  In introducing the Communication on European Defence—Industrial and Market Issues the commission argued that the industrial aspects of defence equipment supply were important for EU competitiveness. The fragmented state for the EU market needed to be overcome, and consolidation should be encouraged by an appropriate regulatory framework which would promote cost-effectiveness. Commissioner Busquin supported this with a plea for more civil/military synergy in R&D. A number of member states were

  903W
  cautious. The UK gave a broad welcome but said detailed examination would be needed, including inter-governmental work on key issues.

  The council considered a draft resolution which broadly supported the commission's Green Paper on European Space Policy and better co-operation between the commission and the European Space Agency. After a comprehensive discussion, and concerns raised by the Italian and German delegations, details on the form and scope of such an agreement were deleted. The resolution was then agreed.

  Wide-ranging proposals for regulation of chemicals were presented by the commission. Commissioner Liikanen recognised the need to strike a balance between public health and environmental objectives on the one side, and competitiveness on the other and stressed the commission's effort to ease the burden on SMEs and respond to industry concerns. A number of member states, including the UK, intervened to warn of major concerns over the effect on competitiveness and the danger of moving chemical production outside the EU, and emphasised the need for impact assessment and for the Competitiveness Council to keep the issue under review. The Italian delegation said that the legal base included Article 95, which meant that the Competitiveness Council should lead on the dossier, and indicated that this would feature highly on the agenda during their presidency.

  The commission also presented their latest report on the Life Sciences and Biotechnology Strategy, stressing three key priorities: more effective use of intellectual property rights; the need to implement EU legislation on GMOs; and improved access to finance.

  Ministers discussed the arrangements for selecting the site for the new International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). All member states apart from Spain agreed with the draft council conclusions supporting the commission's approach that a single EU candidate site should be selected to compete subsequently with the non-EU sites. Spain argued that the EU would stand a better chance if both EU sites (French and Spanish) were put forward together. The presidency was forced to abandon formal conclusions, and summed up that all Spain could accept the suggested process, which would be based on an objective criteria and expert input.

  Travel Insurance (Deep Vein Thrombosis)
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans she has to encourage travel insurance companies to warn their clients that they are not covered for death, personal injury or loss of income due to flight-related deep vein thrombosis; [114967]

  (2) what plans she has to issue advice to holiday makers about the absence of travel insurance cover for flight-related deep vein thrombosis. [114966]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We currently have no plans to issue advice to holiday makers or travel insurance companies about travel insurance cover for deep vein thrombosis, although I am advised that such cover is available. It is important that consumers check details 904W
  of any exclusions themselves before they take out insurance, to ensure that it is suitable for their needs and circumstances.

  The Government is helping with research being carried out under the auspices of the World Health Organisation into the incidence, extent and cause of deep vein thrombosis amongst air travellers.

  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 advisory committee on employment, (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. [110305]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The delegation is made up of the Director of the Joint International Unit, the Divisional Manager of the European Union Division and the Leader of the Employment Policy team.

  The Employment Committee (EMCO) has met 10 times since January 2002.

  The Employment Committee does not take decisions as such. Rather it considers issues and produces Opinions which reflect the views of the member states. These are then submitted to the Council of Ministers where decisions are made. The documents on which decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers are subject to the normal scrutiny procedures.

  Dates of the meetings, the agenda items and a summary of the Opinions are as follows:

  2002:

  7 and 8 February informal meeting, Spain. Two opinions were adopted (on the Commission's synthesis report and on the Action Plan on Skills and Mobility); both were submitted to the Council.
  The agenda:
  Joint Council and Commission report on increasing participation and promoting active ageing—EMCO Opinion
  The Commission Communication on 'The Lisbon Strategy—Making Change Happen' (the Commission's synthesis report)—EMCO Opinion
  The report of the High Level Task Force on Skills and Mobility, the Commission Action Plan on Skills and Mobility, and the Commission Communication on Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality—EMCO Opinion
  Employment Strategy: debating the future (following the informal Ministerial meeting in Burgos)
  National Action Plan (NAP) structure 2002 and the use of quality in work indicators
  Work Programme 2002

  7 May. One opinion on the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines (BEPGs) 2002 which was submitted to the Council.

  The agenda:

  BEPGs 2002—EMCO Opinion

  Peer Review programme 2002–03

  Strengthening the local dimension of the Employment Strategy

  905W
  6 June. No opinions were adopted at this meeting.

  The agenda:

  Impact evaluation of the Employment Strategy

  Report on the Ad Hoc Group's examination of the NAPs 2002

  Report on indicators for the Joint Employment Report (JER) 2002

  Study on the potential of Community policies for employment promotion

  Election of two vice-Chairpersons

  18 and 19 July informal meeting in Denmark. The Committee adopted a report on indicators to be used in the JER 2002.

  The agenda:

  Impact evaluation of the Employment Strategy

  Employment in Europe 2002

  Employment and the Structural Funds (to be confirmed)

  Commission paper on human capital, growth and employment (to be confirmed)

  20 September. One opinion and one contribution to the Commission were adopted (the final outcome was a joint opinion with the Economic Policy Committee (EPC) on the future direction of the European Employment Strategy (EES), which was submitted to the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (ESPHCA)/Economic and Financial (ECOFIN) Council, and a letter from the Chair to the Commissioners Monti and Diamantopoulou on the competition policies).

  The agenda:

  Evaluation of the EES

  Draft Commission document (Part 1) to the Joint Employment Report 2002

  State aids and employment

  Report from The High level Group on Industrial Relations and Change in the European Union and the Commission Communication "Social dialogue, a force for innovation and change"

  24 October. No opinion as the meeting was cancelled.

  The agenda:

  Commission assessment report on employment challenges for the candidate countries

  Other issues to be decided

  21 and 22 November. Two opinions (the final outcome was a joint EMCO/EPC/SPC position on structural indicators and a draft for Council conclusions on streamlining prepared jointly by the EMCO/EPC/SPC—both of these were submitted to the ESPHCA/ECOFIN Council).

  Employment Guidelines 2003

  Joint Employment Report 2002

  Employment recommendations to member states

  Contribution to the preparation of the BEPGs 2003—EMCO contribution

  Structural indicators—EMCO Opinion

  Report from the Indicators Group on the follow up on quality in work indicators

  Work Programme 2003

  906W
  2003:

  28 January. No opinions were adopted at this meeting.

  The agenda:

  Commission Communication 'The future of the European Employment Strategy'

  Commission Communication 'Choosing to grow: Knowledge, innovation and jobs in a cohesive society' (Commission's report to the Spring Summit)

  Finalisation of the draft Joint Employment Report 2002

  Discussion on the revision of the EMCO rules of procedure

  Work programme 2003

  20 and 21 February informal meeting, Greece. One contribution (EMCO proposal for key messages from the Council (EPSCO) on the future of the EES).
  Finalisation of the EMCO contribution to the preparation of the Spring Summit (following the informal Ministerial meeting in Nafplion on 24 January) on the basis of the Commission Communication 'The future of the European Employment Strategy', the Commission Communication 'Choosing to grow: Knowledge, innovation and jobs in a cohesive society' and the draft Joint Employment Report 2002
  Debate on the format and coverage of the annual National Action Plans for employment (NAPs)
  Election of a new Chairperson

  23 April. No opinions were adopted.
  The Commission's Guidelines Package (including proposals for the Employment Guidelines 2003, employment recommendations to member states and the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines 2003)—first discussion
  Debate on the issue of 'making work pay'
  Report from the Ad Hoc Group on the future role of the Group (possibly including the adoption of the revised terms of reference for the Group).

  Export Controls
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 1 May 2003,Official Report, column 456W, on export control, if she will make it her policy to inform the Metropolitan Police of proposed legislative changes to export controls. [115076]

  Nigel Griffiths
  All relevant Government bodies are informed when making legislative changes to export controls, including the Home Office.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion she has had with the Home Department regarding the anti-social behaviour aspect of firework abuse; and if she will make a statement. [115439]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has been in discussion with the Home Office about its penalty notices for the disorder offences scheme. Pilots are currently running in four police force areas in England and Wales. There are 11 penalty offences in the scheme, including that of throwing fireworks in the street. The Home Secretary announced on 14 May that the scheme is now to be rolled out nationally.
  907W
  Discussions with the Home Office have also taken place on the anti-social misuse of fireworks relating to issues of enforcement arising from the current Private Member's Fireworks Bill.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office regarding the implementation of the Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002. [115662]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department had discussions with the Northern Ireland Office regarding the Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 when the Fireworks Bill, which my right hon. Friend sponsors, was being drafted.

  In the light of the recent press notice issued by the Northern Ireland Office highlighting the success of the Northern Ireland Regulations, officials will be having further discussions particularly in relation to the lessons learned in Northern Ireland and what elements of the Northern Ireland legislation might be used in any fireworks regulations applying to the rest of the United Kingdom which may come out of the Fireworks Bill currently before Parliament.

  Garages and Car Dealers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to introduce a system of licensing for independent motor vehicle garages and franchised motor dealers; and if she will make a statement. [112929]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have no plans at present to introduce a system of licensing for garages or motor dealers. I support the initiative announced on 15 May for trade associations in the sector to seek Office of Fair Trading approval for a new code of practice to enable consumers to identify garages committed to delivering good customer service.

  The new code will implement a set of minimum standards of customer service through a process of audit checks and other compliance measures, including mystery shopping. Consumers will have a mechanism for having complaints dealt with and have access to independent arbitration where a matter cannot be resolved with the garage, Participation in the Code will be open to businesses that are not members of trade associations.

  At the core of the new code is an independent advisory group, including representatives from trading standards and the National Consumer Council, which will help design and approve a strong compliance system to ensure that participating garages meet the Code standards.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many officials in her Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by her officials, broken down by category of honour. [111496]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since the beginning of 2000, 48 members of the Department of Trade and Industry have received a State honour. The breakdown by level of award is as follows.
  908W

  Award

  Number

  KCB

  1

  Kt

  1

  GCMG

  1

  CMG

  3

  CB

  6

  CBE

  6

  OBE

  12

  MBE

  18

  Data are not routinely kept on:

  The number of awards held by individuals

  Awards that are not related to official duties

  Awards already held by staff before joining the Department

  Awards held by staff transferring to the Department under machinery of Government moves

  Whether recipients of awards remain in the Department

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts her Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113689]

  Ms Hewitt
  Central records indicate 14 contracts have been awarded since 1 April 1999. Information is not held centrally for earlier years and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Newspaper Distribution
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the report by the OFT into the Wholesale Code of Practice on newspaper distribution; [114578]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the request by the National Federation of Newsagents for a full referral of newspaper and magazine distribution to the Competition Commission by her Department. [114581]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The OFT is currently finalising its recommendations to its review of the Code of Practice on newspaper distribution, in the light of the responses it has received to its public consultation. The OFT will be publishing its conclusions in the summer. We will consider the OFT's final report before deciding what action is needed.

  Non-executive Directors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make non-executive directors of companies subject to(a) election and (b) approval by employees. [114910]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A company's Articles of Association will usually determine the procedure for the appointment of directors. Most quoted companies' Articles require directors to be elected by the shareholders every three years.

  Post Office Card Account
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry if she will make a statement on the redesign of the pin pad for Post Office card account cardholders. [114955]
  909W
  Mr. Timms
  The Post Office is working to ensure their services are as accessible to as many customers as possible. In the short term the Post Office intends to improve current PIN pads by fitting a guard over the buttons to help guide customers. I understand that this will be done as soon as possible. In the longer term they intend to look at technological options to provide a secure alternative to PIN pads for people unable to use them.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Blaby, of 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 466W, on post office subsidies, when the Government expects to receive European Commission approval for the state aid announced in December 2002; and when post offices will start to receive these funds. [115369]

  Mr. Timms
  As I said in my reply to the question referred to by the hon. Member, the timetable for state aid clearance is a matter for the European Commission. DTI continues to work closely with the Commission to ensure that the questions and issues they raise are responded to as quickly as possible. We are confident we have a strong case and we hope to have approval in due course. The £450 million of support for the rural post office network runs from April 2003 to 2006. Post Office Ltd. will administer the fund within the guidelines and parameters set by Government.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of Postwatch in resolving Royal Mail customers' complaints. [114524]

  Mr. Timms
  When it was established in 2001 one of Postwatch's key objectives, agreed with the Department of Trade and Industry, was to provide more effective complaint handling performance. That performance is measured through an annual customer satisfaction survey.

  The details of the 2001 survey are published in the Postwatch Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The 2002 survey results will be published in the Postwatch Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04, a copy of which will be placed in the Libraries of the House at the end of June 2003.

  Remuneration Packages (Senior Staff)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to give company employees a role in determining remuneration packages for senior executives and directors. [114912]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Remuneration of company employees, including senior executives is a matter for the company. Remuneration of directors is a matter for the company's board, and for its shareholders.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 488W, on departmental secondees, if she will list (a) private sector companies. (b) NGOs and (c) other, to which civil servants have
  910W
  been seconded from her Department, in each case giving (i) the dates of secondment and (ii) the grade of the civil servant seconded, in each year since 1997–98. [114172]

  Ms Hewitt
  From records held centrally in my Department, the information requested is contained in a table which has been placed in the Library.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimate her Department has made of the cost to industry and business in the UK of sickness absence; and what plans have been made to tackle abuse of sickness absence by employees. [113496]

  Alan Johnson
  According to latest figures from the Health and Safety Executive, the cost to employers in the UK of work-related illness was around £1.1 billion in 1995–96. The Government believe employers themselves are best placed to tackle the problem of sick leave in those cases where it is being abused. Acas publishes some guidance on how employers might deal with absences, including sickness absences.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General what creche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [104294]

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

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Advocate General how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106776]

  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 at column 911W.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Creche Facilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what créche facilities are provided by her Department; and at what cost. [104292]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department does not provide créche facilities. Staff on loan from the Scottish Executive or other departments can access facilities or support provided by their parent organisation.

  Dover House
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many functions have been held in Dover House in each of the last six years. [115812]
  911W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office was established in its present form on 1 July 1999. The following number of events have been held in Dover House in the three full years since then:

  Number of events

  2000–01

  22

  2001–02

  20

  2002–03

  27

  The majority of the above have been events sponsored by third parties, often charities, using Dover House as a venue to support work they are doing in Scotland. For example, in 2000–01 and 2001–02, 14 of the events held were third party receptions and in 2002–03, 20 of the events held were third party receptions (with no costs accruing to the Department). The hon. Member himself was instrumental in Dover House being used as a venue to promote tourism as a spin off from the production of a television programe which was filmed in his constituency.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she has entertained Labour hon. Members at public expense in the last 12 months; and at what cost. [106395]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No separate functions or entertainment have been provided solely for Labour MPs at departmental expense.

  Staff Union Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies receive paid leave to undertake union duties; how many days they are allocated; and what has been the cost to public funds in 2002. [106775]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No staff in my Department receive paid facility time on a full time basis to undertake trade union activities.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Undermanning)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the extent of undermanning in the armed forces this year; and if he will make a statement. [113249]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 April 2003 the shortfall against the current trained requirement of the armed forces stood at 6,510. This is an improvement on the same time last year with an increase in the overall trained strength and a decrease in the deficit.

  All three Services are working hard to address the shortfalls so that the targets set out in the current Public Service Agreements can be met.
  912W
  Details of undermanning by individual Service as at 1 April 2003 are shown as follows:

  Naval Service

  Army

  RAF

  Trained requirement

  38,510

  106,980

  49,640

  Trained strength

  37,600

  102,120

  48,900

  Shortfall

  -910

  -4,850

  -750

  EU Defence Ministers Meeting
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which US officials were invited to attend the EU Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels on 19 May. [115459]

  Mr. Hoon
  None: the United States is not a member of the European Union.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Defence Ministers' Meeting in Brussels on 19 May. [115460]

  Mr. Hoon
  European Union Defence Ministers at the General Affairs and External Relations Council focused mainly on military capabilities, noting that"the EU now has operational capability across the full range of Petersberg tasks, limited and constrained by recognised shortfalls."
  These shortfalls particularly affect speed of deployment and level of risk for larger scale, higher-intensity tasks. Ministers endorsed the launch of ECAP Project Groups, in which participating member states will work on implementing selected solutions identified by the ECAP Panels. Ministers welcomed the first meeting of the EU-NATO Capability Group, which will help to ensure that EU efforts on military capabilities are coherent and mutually reinforcing with the work in NATO, as well as proposals in the context of the Convention for an EU defence capabilities development and acquisition agency. Ministers also noted the significant progress on ESDP since their last formal meeting in November 2002, and in particular, agreement on the Berlin Plus arrangements with NATO and the launch of the first military ESDP operation in Macedonia. The full Conclusions from the General Affairs and External Relations Council will be placed in the Library in the House shortly.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the conditions under which the UK Government would approve a military operation under the European Security and Defence Policy without(a) the express approval of all NATO allies and (b) NATO support and involvement. [115461]

  Mr. Hoon
  All European Union member states have agreed to develop a European Security and Defence Policy to give the European Union"an autonomous capacity to take decisions, and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations"
  within the scope of the Petersberg tasks. NATO and the EU are independent international organisations. ESDP operations would be considered only where NATO is not engaged.
  913W
  ESDP operations may be conducted either using NATO assets and capabilities, or without recourse to these assets. The EU will make a decision on this for each operation on a case by case basis. A NATO decision will be needed to approve any request by the EU to use NATO assets and capabilities for operations.

  The United Kingdom will decide its position on any proposed ESDP operation on a case by case basis. Considerations would include the objective of the proposed operation as well as the views of partners and allies.

  Iraq
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken by British forces in Iraq to remove and make safe (a) unexploded cluster bomblets, (b) landmines and (c) depleted uranium. [111841]

  Mr. Hoon
  Providing a safe, secure and risk free environment for the Iraqi people is a key aspect of restoration activity for the Coalition. When any unexploded munitions—including cluster bomblets and mines—are discovered, United Kingdom and other Coalition forces mark the site and inform those in the vicinity. Their normal practice is then to destroy the munitions in situ. Those that present the greatest threat to human life and coalition operations are destroyed first.

  Increasing amounts of independent research by eminent scientists within groups such as the Royal Society Depleted Uranium Working Group and the United Nations Environment Programme support the view that DU levels will only necessitate precautions to prevent or reduce possible intakes in highly localised areas. As many defeated tanks as possible within the British area of operations are being cordoned off and kept undisturbed, awaiting scientific examination.

  In support of the United Nations Environment Programme environmental survey of Iraq, the Ministry of Defence has released information on DU used by UK Forces in the Iraq conflict and will be making available details of where that usage occurred. The UK Government will be considering carefully any scientific data which may emerge concerning environmental issues in Iraq.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce plans for a march past or other event of the UK Armed Forces to mark the role of the UK Armed Forces in the recent conflict in Iraq. [115448]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave on 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 573W, to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell).

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits of UK personnel to the US under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement occurred in 2002. [114684]
  914W
  Mr. Ingram
  The number of visits by United Kingdom personnel, involving one or more individuals, to the United States in 2002 under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement was 237.

  Sandhurst Military Academy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason officer cadets at Sandhurst Military Academy have been refused permission to play rugby league; and if he will make a statement. [115284]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Games and Sports Committee at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst was asked to consider the introduction of Rugby League at the Academy at its meeting on 15 May 2003. This committee meets three times a year and resources for the summer sports programme had already been allocated at its meeting in January 2003.

  The committee reluctantly decided that, due to the number of sports activities already planned, the introduction of Rugby League this summer should be deferred. Currently there is neither the infrastructure, equipment, facilities nor back-up experience to support this venture at such short notice. The committee will revisit the matter again at its next meeting in September, and I am sure will give it careful consideration.

  Terrorism
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's plans are for the future involvement of British forces in combating international terrorism in(a) the Far East, (b) the Middle East and (c) Europe. [114616]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom is committed to the defeat of international terrorism and where appropriate, UK forces will be used to combat terrorism. The New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review outlined our plans to enhance our capabilities to detect, deter, disrupt, coerce and, if necessary, destroy terrorist cells. This forms part of the Government's wider efforts to defeat terrorism through the use of a wide range of diplomatic, social, economic and legal tools.

PRIME MINISTER

  Attorney-General
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since 1973 on which the advice of the Attorney-General to Ministers was(a) published in full, (b) published in summary form and (c) reported orally to either House of Parliament. [115474]

  The Prime Minister
  It has been the practice of successive Governments not to publish advice from the Attorney-General.

  Ministers of this Government are not accountable for what happened under previous Administrations. However, under this Government for example, as the hon. Member will be aware, the Attorney-General made a statement on 17 March setting out his views on the legality of the use of armed force against Iraq. The Attorney-General's advice was not disclosed.

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) of 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 306, what the basis is of his statement that the European Convention is necessary to make accession work. [115285]

  The Prime Minister
  The Convention on the Future of Europe is looking at how an enlarged EU can continue to function effectively and transparently. The Laeken Declaration, which mandated the Convention, tasks it to see"how we can improve the efficiency of decision-making and the workings of the institutions in a Union of some thirty Member States"
  as well as simplify the Treaties and make the EU more accessible to its citizens. Reform of the EU's institutions and processes is necessary for an enlarged EU of 28 to work efficiently.

  Iraq (Cultural Heritage)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the letter from ICOMOS of 15 April. [115078]

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who also received a copy of the letter about cultural heritage in Iraq to reply on my behalf. A copy of the reply will be placed in the Library in due course.

  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working in close liaison with the British Museum, the Ministry of Defence, the FCO and UNESCO to assess how they might best be able to help secure and preserve these valuable sites for the benefit of future generations.

  Laeken Declaration
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what authority was given in the Laeken declaration to draft a constitutional treaty for Europe. [115286]

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council at Laeken concluded that"in order to ensure that preparation for the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference is as broadly-based and transparent as possible, the European Council has decided to convene a Convention".
  It agreed the Laeken Declaration that mandated the Convention to consider a number of questions concerning the Future of Europe. One of these was what the features of a constitutional text for the EU might be. The authority for agreeing a Constitutional Treaty remains with the EU's Member States.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Bank Account Access
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 504W, on Bank Account Access, for what reasons the Pension Service Guide to Direct Payment does not include (a) the Bank of Ireland, (b) First Trust and (c) the Northern Bank in the list of banks which offer basic bank accounts with access to cash at the Post Office. [114160]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Direct Payment information leaflet contains information on all of the banking options available to the customer.

  The Northern Ireland Social Security Agency produce separate leaflets for customers in Northern Ireland. The Bank of Ireland, First Trust and Northern Bank are listed in the Northern Ireland edition of the leaflet as these banks offer basic bank accounts with post office access to customers in Northern Ireland.

  New Deal
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Answer of 19th December, refs 85985 and 87003, if he will list Government departments and agencies that did not employ New Deal participants during the period covered by his answer. [89906]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The following agencies reported no New Deal starts between 5 January 1998 and 1 July 2002.

  Royal Parks Agency

  Central Science Laboratory

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate1

  Disability and Carers Service

  Medical Devices Agency

  Medicines Control Agency

  NHS Estates

  NHS Pensions Agency

  Companies House

  Employment Tribunals Service

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  Office of Gas and Electricity Markets

  Office of Telecommunications

  Postal Services Commission

  Government Actuary's Department

  UK Debt Management Office

  Forensic Science Service

  Public Guardianship Office

  Public Record Office

  Fire Service College

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  Food Standards Agency1

  Meat Hygiene Service

  CPS Inspectorate

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

  National Savings

  1 These agencies have had New Deal starts since 1 July 2002.

  917W
  Information is not collected separately on the agencies of the Ministry of Defence, Inland Revenue and the Scottish Executive and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Although this is the current situation I have written to the Cabinet Office to ask that they expand their current monitoring process to collect this information in the future.

  Source:

  Cabinet Office

  Adult Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much his Department and its predecessors have spent on education and training in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [114471]

  Maria Eagle
  Data on expenditure on education and training spent by this Department and its predecessors are available only for the financial years shown in the following table. The figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 have been collated from data sources in the former Employment Service and Department of Social Security.

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Percentage of running costs

  1999–2000

  81.145

  3.19

  2000–01

  90.034

  3.68

  2001–02

  97.319

  3.78

  The figures include trainee and trainer costs, management and administration overheads, and spend on external training provided through Departmental contracts. Costs for accommodation where Departmental estate has been used are not included. In addition to formal training, people are developed by a variety of other means.

  The Department is committed to the principles of Investors in People. It considers the effective investment in training and development essential to equipping its people with the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the Government's goals and deliver modern services.

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many claimants there were of(a) jobseeker's allowance, (b) incapacity benefit and
  (c) housing benefit in (i) Scotland and (ii) Fife in (A) May 1997 and (B) the last month for which figures are available; [114618]

  (2) how many lone parents there were on income support in (a) Scotland and (b) Fife in (i) May 1997 and (ii) the last month for which figures are available. [114619]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the tables. Figures are not seasonally adjusted so figures for May 2002 have also been included to allow a year-on-year comparison with May 1997.
  918W

  Unemployment claimant count in Scotland and Fife local authority

  Scotland

  Fife

  May 1997

  158,807

  11,431

  May 2002

  103,712

  8,953

  April 2003

  102,664

  8,540

  Source:

  Count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits, Jobcentre Plus computer systems.

  Housing benefit claimants in Scotland and Fife local authority

  Scotland

  Fife

  May 1997

  533,000

  31,810

  May 2002

  450,000

  27,700

  November 2002

  446,000

  27,330

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to households claiming Housing Benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house share arrangement.

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand and local authority figures to the nearest 10.

  3. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  4. Housing Benefit figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System.

  Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in May 1997, May 2002 and November 2002.

  Incapacity Benefit claimants in Scotland and Fife local authority

  Scotland

  Fife

  May 1997

  300,000

  16,900

  May 2002

  289,000

  16,900

  November 2002

  288,800

  17,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample, therefore subject to sampling variation.

  3. Figures include people receiving National Insurance Credits only

  Source:

  Figures are based on 5 per cent. samples of the-benefit computer system and will exclude a small number of clerically held cases.

  Lone parents in receipt of Income Support 1

  Scotland

  Fife local authority

  May 1997

  95,200

  5,900

  May 2002

  77,600

  4,800

  November 2002

  76,200

  5,000

  1 Lone Parents are defined as single claimants with dependants not receiving the Disability or Pensioner Premium.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample, therefore subject to sampling variation.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries.

  Child Support
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what date he has set for(a) commencing and (b) completing the transfer of existing child support cases to the new scheme; and if he will make a statement. [115290]

  Malcolm Wicks
  None. We have made clear that we shall only make a decision on this once we are sure that the new scheme is working well.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of non-resident parents who have had their driving licences removed by the courts since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. [112338]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Webb, dated 22 May 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask if he will estimate the number of non-resident parents who have had their driving licences removed by the courts since April 2001 as a result of the provisions introduced under the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000.
  There have been four non-resident parents who have been disqualified from driving for failure to pay child support. The intention of the relevant legislation is however to use the existence of this power to encourage more parents to meet this responsibility without a court appearance. I believe that it is having this beneficial effect.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the impact of this year's council tax increases upon(a) council tax benefit expenditure and (b) the numbers of households subjected to council tax benefit restrictions. [111758]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our estimated forecast for council tax benefit expenditure in 2003–04 is £3,387 million. This is £130 million more than if average council tax had increased by the same rate as in 2002–03.

  The amount of council tax benefit paid to households in properties in council tax bands F, G or H is restricted to the amount payable for council tax band E, regardless of the amount of council tax payable. An increase in council tax would not therefore have an impact on the number of existing benefit recipients subject to restrictions. The impact of council tax increases on the number of households that might make a new claim for council tax benefit, who would subsequently be subject to restrictions, is estimated to be negligible.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate. Expenditure forecasts are consistent with those produced for Budget 2003.

  Project

  Consultancy

  Activity

  E-Government strategy

  BMRB

  Quantitative market research

  AIA Consultancy

  Qualitative market research

  Gov Connect (subcontracted by EDS)

  Strategic consultancy

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been(a) prosecuted and (b) convicted under the criminal offence of non-co-operation with the CSA; and what the average sentence was from that conviction. [112333]

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

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [106312]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Department's total expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002 was approximately £173,000. Subscriptions may also be taken at local level and information about these is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to reduce his Department's underspend in 2003–04 from that of 2002–03. [112769]

  Maria Eagle
  No underspend is currently planned for 2003–04.

  The estimated resource underspend reported in Table 2.4 of the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, published on 6 May 2003, is £201 million and is 2.7 per cent. of the final provision. This principally reflects lower than planned activity on Labour Market Programmes.

  The reported Capital underspend of £53 million principally reflects slippage on the departmental change programme.

  Current spending plans are set out in Table 1 of the Departmental Report.

  The Department is utilising all 2002–03 underspends to support spending plans over the SR2002 period.

  E-Government Projects
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [114186]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions has carried out a number of projects to progress its E-Government targets since January 2001. The majority of these projects have been undertaken within the main supplier relationship frameworks the Department has put in place. These include Affinity (lead supplier EDS).

  Other consultancies used are as follows:
  921W

  Project

  Consultancy

  Activity

  Interactive E-Services

  Ezgov (subcontracted by EDS)

  Development of electronic forms

  Accenture

  Project management

  Detica

  Security authentication solutions

  Qinetiq

  Security and testing

  Sema

  Project management

  Digital television (the Pension Service)

  DNA

  Design and development

  Mori

  Evaluation

  Worktrain

  Xansa

  Future strategy consulting

  Brahm

  Design

  Oakleigh Consulting

  Tendering strategy and project management

  Commissum Consulting

  Security review

  University of Warwick Institute for

  Classification

  Employment Research/Adset

  Internet job bank

  KPMG

  Project audit

  Cap Gemini Ernst and Young

  Strategic review of internet job bank and worktrain

  Modernising appeals

  PA Consulting

  General support

  BT Syntegra

  Development

  Enhanced Pension Take-up
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what procedure the Pensions Agency has in place to alert husbands and wives to the enhanced pension for wives when a husband reaches 65; and what checking they do to ensure that the enhanced pension is received. [113852]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Pension Service. She will write to the hon. member.

  Letter from Charlie MacKinnon to Mrs. Lait, dated 22 May 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked Alexis Cleveland to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking what procedure the Pensions Agency has in place to alert husbands and wives to the enhanced pension for wives when a husband reaches 65; and what checking they do to ensure that the enhanced pension is received. Due to annual leave I am replying on her behalf.
  A claim package is sent out approximately four months prior to a customer approaching State Pension age (age 65 for a man, age 60 for a woman). This package includes an invitation to claim (form BR833) and a letter of expected entitlement (form BR33M/W). This package is issued to all customers based on whether they have entitlement based on their own National Insurance contributions.
  Form BR833 informs a married man that if his wife is 60 or over a claim form can be sent to him for her to complete to claim State Pension based on his contributions. Also on form BR33M issued to a man it alerts him that his wife can claim State Pension on his National Insurance contributions. It asks him to advise her to claim if she has a reduced rate State Pension of her own or none at all.
  There is no facility to invite claims from married women based on the National Insurance contributions of their husbands.
  There is no checking system because customers reaching State Pension age do not have to claim but can defer receipt of their State Pension for up to 5 years to receive increments added to their basic entitlement.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Fraud
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated level of fraud is for each benefit his Department pays. [115901]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 31 March 2003,Official Report, column 591W.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many officials in his Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by his officials, broken down by category of honour. [111484]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department does not hold information on the number of awards held by individuals, awards that are not related to official duties and awards already held by staff before joining the Department.

  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed on 8 June 2001 from parts of the former Department of Social Security (DSS) and parts of the former Department for Education and Employment.

  The following table shows the number of state honours awarded to staff from the honours lists published since the new Department was formed at each new year (NY) and the Queen's birthday (BD) round. Three members of staff who were awarded the MBE have since left the Department.

  List

  Award

  NY02

  BD02

  NY03

  CB

  1

  1

  1

  CBE

  0

  1

  1

  OBE

  1

  2

  2

  MBE

  7

  9

  8

  Total

  9

  13

  12

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to receive the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council review of the vibration white finger diagnosis criteria used by medical advisers; and if he will make a statement [114783]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The report of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council on its review of Prescribed Disease A11, commonly known as vibration white finger, is expected at the end of this year.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will issue new instructions about the use of the cold water provocation test in diagnosing VWF following the decision of Mr. Justice Pritchard of 2 May 2003; and whether those claimants given a negative decision on the basis of the test result will be invited to make a fresh application for an award. [114784]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Modified guidance on the use of the cold water provocation test contained in the Notes on the Diagnosis of Prescribed Diseases, was published on 21 May 2003, on the Corporate Medical Group's webpage of the Department's website. In addition, the office of the Department's Chief Medical Adviser has issued revised guidance to Schlumberger Sema Medical Services in connection with claims for industrial injuries benefits.

  We have no plans to invite fresh applications from anyone who was given a negative decision on the basis of the test, but anyone who re-applies will be considered under the revised guidance.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to request the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to review the examination criteria used by medical advisers to diagnose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and if he will make a statement. [114785]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is covered by Prescribed Disease D12, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, for the purposes of the

  Quarterly Performance

  Percentage

  Performance standard

  April to June 2002

  July to September 2002

  October to December 2002

  January to March 2003

  95 per cent. of calls answered by an agent1

  98

  98

  98

  98

  All calls to receive standard greeting2

  95.2

  98.6

  97.0

  98.5

  Eight job entries per service point per week3

  8.4

  9.2

  9.8

  9.2

  Sources:

  1 Electronic Data Systems Statistics.

  2 Jobseeker Direct Mystery Shopper results for 02/03.

  3 Jobseeker Direct call data and job entry data on business information systems. (For 2003–04, this standard has been increased to 11 job entries per service point per week).

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many of his staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year; [111972]
  924W
  industrial injuries scheme. We have no plans to ask the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to review the examination criteria for Prescribed Disease D12.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what budgetary provision has been made for the annual salary and benefit package of the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus for each of the first three years of his contract. [114386]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]: The Chief Executive's pay will be in the Permanent Secretaries' Pay Band A, which is currently £118,750 to £199,388. It will be reviewed annually and, as with all Permanent Secretaries, the Chief Executive's future pay increases will be determined by an independent remuneration committee, chaired by the Chairman of the Senior Salaries Review Body. Normal benefits associated with the Senior Civil Service will be provided. Budgetary provision on this basis has been made within the Jobcentre Plus budget.

  All Jobcentre Plus's directors' salaries and benefits for the preceding year are published in the Jobcentre Plus annual report and accounts.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will publish(a) the service standards set for Jobseeker Direct and (b) the performance figures for the last four quarters. [112637]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Acting Chief Executive, Clare Dodgson. I have asked her to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Clare Dodgson to Mr. Burstow, dated May 2002:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the service standards for Jobseeker Direct and performance figures for the last four quarters. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Acting Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The service standards set for Jobseeker Direct and the available performance figures for the last four quarters are in the table.

  (2) how many sick days were lost over the last year by his Department through staff mental health problems. [112073]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003 14,085 people have taken sick leave due to Mental and Behavioural Disorders resulting in 475,000 working days being lost.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the number of people eligible for the minimum income guarantee who do not claim; and if he will provide a breakdown of such people by(a) gender, (b) age and (c) region. [115396]

  Maria Eagle
  National figures, broken down by gender, for the number of people eligible for but not claiming the MIG, are included in the publication "Income Related Benefits: Estimates of Take-Up in 2000–2001, copies of which are available in the library of both houses. Estimates of the number of pensioners eligible for, but not claiming the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) are not available below national level or broken down by age.

  Young People
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people have entered the employer option under the New Deal for Young People in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [114476]

  (2) how many people have entered the full-time education and training option under the New Deal for Young People in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [114486]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The information requested is in the table:

  New Deal for Young People

  New Deal Option

  Full-time education and training option

  Employment option

  January to December 1998

  28,800

  13,800

  January to December 1999

  36,200

  15,700

  January to December 2000

  25,600

  12,300

  January to December 2001

  18,500

  9,200

  January to December 2002

  18,800

  8,400

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Pension Books
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) Bassetlaw and (b) Nottinghamshire are not yet in receipt of the new pensions books. [113865]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of The Pension Service, to reply. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Charlie Mackinnon to John Mann, dated 22 May 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked Alexis Cleveland to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in (a) Bassetlaw and (b) Nottinghamshire are not yet in receipt of the new pension books. Due to annual leave I am replying on her behalf.
  I am pleased to tell you that work on correcting a problem with replacement order books is well under way.
  The number affected within Bassetlaw are included in the details for Nottinghamshire shown below. I am afraid it is not possible for us to separate the numbers for Bassetlaw itself.
  926W
  Approximately 210 books were sent to Post offices in Nottinghamshire, 66 in Lincoln and 77 in Mansfield that would have been rejected by the Post Office's issuing system if we had not intervened. We have liaised with the Post office and agreed that affected books will be recalled and replacements, which will not suffer rejection, issued.
  The replacement is largely complete. As at 19 May, 207 of the 210 Nottinghamshire cases have been dealt with. The remaining cases will be dealt with as a matter of priority. The cases falling within the Lincoln and Mansfield areas have all been dealt with.
  Unfortunately, due to the time required to produce replacements, some new order books will not be with post offices for customer collection until mid week.
  Customers affected by this will receive a telephone call to explain the reason for the delay and discuss their situation before the date originally set for collection of their replacement order book.
  Our customers will receive payments due to them as soon as possible and will be offered alternative methods of payment to ensure that they do not suffer hardship because of this technical difficulty.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much expenditure on the pension credit is expected to be paid to people who are aged(a) 60 to 64, (b) 65 to 69, (c) 70 to 74, (d) 75 to 79 and (e) 80 and over. [114552]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is in the table.

  Table 1: Estimated pension credit expenditure by age in 2004–05, in cash terms

  £ millions

  Age of head of household

  Estimated expenditure

  60–64

  1,500

  65–69

  900

  70–74

  900

  75–79

  900

  80 +

  1,800

  Total

  6,000

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure is estimated for 2004–05, the first full financial year of pension credit after its introduction.

  2. he forecast of expenditure by age is calculated separately for: (a) Underlying MIG expenditure. This is forecast on the basis of information from the Department's administrative data, and (b) Additional expenditure resulting from the introduction of pension credit. This is forecast based on the distribution of money among those eligible to pension credit, estimated in the Department's Policy Simulation Model. Figures should be treated as an approximation and may vary according to actual take-up.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  4. Figures are consistent with the Budget 2003 forecasts available on the DWP Internet site and contained in the Departmental Report 2003, Cm 5921.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pension credit claimants are expected to be aged(a) 60 to 64, (b) 65 to 69, (c) 70 to 74, (d) 75 to 79 and (e) 80 and over; and what proportion this is of people in each age group. [114553]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is not available. Information as is available is in the table.
  927W

  Number and proportion of potential Pension Credit claimants estimated for 2003–04

  Age bands

  Number of households entitled to pension credit (million)

  Proportion for each age group (percentage)

  60–64

  0.45

  25

  65–69

  0.60

  34

  70–74

  0.70

  42

  75–79

  0.75

  51

  80+

  1.10

  64

  Notes:

  1. The estimates in Table 1 are based on potential claimants eligible to Pension Credit rather than actual claimants.

  2. Column 3 relates to the proportion of households eligible to Pension Credit out of the total number of pensioner households for that age group.

  3. The estimates were calculated for all pensioners using the department's Policy Simulation Model based on the Family Resource Survey data for 2000–01 projected forward to 2003–04. This shows around 3.6 million households entitled to pension credit.

  4. The Policy Simulation Model excludes all pensioners in nursing or residential care homes. This is because the Family Resource Survey data does not contain information on these cases. We estimate that just over 200,000 pensioners in care homes will be entitled to Pension Credit. This means that total pension credit entitlement for 2003–04 is estimated to be about 3.8 million households.

  5. The figures in the table were rounded to the nearest 50,000 cases. The figures may not add up due to rounding.

  The Department's PSA target states that 3 million households will be in receipt of Pension Credit by 2006.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to introduce a free phone helpline for pensioners when the pension credit is introduced; [115291]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that the helpline for the pension credit will be adequately staffed. [115276]

  Maria Eagle
  The free pension credit application line became operational on 7 April 2003. The main purpose of the application line is to take applications for pension credit, but it will also deal with inquiries. Staffing levels for the application line have been based on a careful assessment of the likely numbers of applications for pension credit. A phased and measured approach to taking on applications will help to ensure that staffing levels are appropriate for the level of applications at any time.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 10 March 2003,Official Report, column 95W, on top-up fees, whether his Department plans to commission independent research showing the likely impact of top-up fees on the ability of those under 40 years of age to make reasonable contributions to their pension funds; and when he will complete his annual review of future research projects. [111073]

  Maria Eagle
  Development of the annual review of research continues so that the Department can take account of responses to the Green Paper "Simplicity, Security and Choice: working and saving for retirement", Cm 5677. The Department's research programme will be published in the Summer.

  Pensions
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if his Department will make clear in future public information campaigns that stakeholder pensions are not backed by the Government. [111441]

  Maria Eagle
  In its publicity, the Department is already careful to ensure that no claims are made about the investment performance of stakeholder pensions, or that the Government back their performance. The nature of the advice regime around the sale of stakeholder pensions is clearly important and the Financial Services Authority is currently considering whether any changes are appropriate to that regime.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the procedure to be followed by someone who wishes to open a Post Office card account. [114372]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 545W.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of enquiries from members of the public on automated transfer of benefits to bank accounts have enquired about the use of the post office card account. [114011]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, as at 9 May 2003, 257,405 customers have requested a post office card account.

  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which banks and building societies operate accounts into which direct payments of pensions and benefits may be made, and which can be accessed at Post Office branches. [114676]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There are a range of bank and building society accounts into which direct payment of pensions and benefits can be made.

  The institutions which agreed to make their basic bank accounts accessible at Post Offices, from April 2003 are: Abbey National; Alliance and Leicester; Bank of Ireland; Bank of Scotland; Barclays; Clydesdale bank; The Co-operative bank; First Trust bank; Halifax; HSBC; Lloyds TSB; Nationwide Building Society; NatWest; Northern bank; The Royal Bank of Scotland; Ulster bank and Yorkshire bank.

  In addition the Post Office provides banking services on behalf of: Alliance and Leicester; Barclays; The Co-operative bank; First Direct (Scotland only); Lloyds TSB and the Internet banks, Cahoot and Smile. The paper-based service enables customers of these banks to cash cheques at post offices free of charge. Also from 1 April 2003, the Alliance and Leicester have provided electronic access to their bank accounts at post offices and 10 million Barclays Bank current account holders can now withdraw cash from their accounts across any Post Office counter in the country, using the PIN pads newly installed there. Post Office Ltd. is seeking to extend such arrangements with other banks.

  Savings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the percentage of the population who have(a) no savings, (b) savings below £1,000 and (c) savings below £5,000. [115115]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on individual accounts and savings outside of the range £1,500 to £20,000 is not available.

  The Family Resources Survey can provide estimates for Great Britain of savings held within benefit units. This information is presented in the table.

  Percentage of benefit units

  Limit (£)

  Benefit units with savings below certain limits (percentages)

  No savings

  34.

  Below 1,500

  57

  Below 5,000

  71

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS). 2001–02 is the latest year for which data is available.

  2. Questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low level of response. Evidence suggests some under reporting of capital by respondents.

  3. A benefit unit is a single adult or couple living as married and any dependent children.

  Source:

  2001–02 Family Resources Survey, Great Britain.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list those items for which a social fund loan is available. [114364]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The discretionary Social Fund, which includes interest free budgeting loans and crisis loans, plays an important role in our agenda for tackling 930W
  poverty and social exclusion. It provides support to millions of people on low incomes who need help with unexpected and varied needs.

  Budgeting Loans are available to people who have been receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance for at least 26 weeks, to help with intermittent expenses which are difficult to budget for. Crisis Loans are available to anyone in an emergency or as a result of a disaster, whether in receipt of benefit or not, when they have no other means of preventing serious damage or risk to their, or a member of their family's, health or safety.

  The items for which Budgeting Loans can be awarded are not specified in detail; help is provided for a broad range of expenses for which an applicant may have difficulty in budgeting for from their benefit. Because a Crisis Loan is intended to cover immediate short-term needs, the help needed may be for a specific item or service or to meet immediate living expenses for a short period, usually up to 14 days.

  Part 4 of the Discretionary Social Fund Guide (para 6300 et seq.), lists the categories of need for which a Budgeting Loan can be awarded. A copy is available in the Library. Part 3 of the Guide (para 4700 et seq.) provides examples of the circumstances in which a Crisis Loan can be awarded.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received about the Social Security (Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations. [111732]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At various stages throughout the drafting of The Social Security (Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2003, consultation took place with local authorities, representatives of interested external organisations and with the Social Security Advisory Committee. Early drafts were also made available publicly in May 2002.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners have been released from prisons in Great Britain under the terms of the early release of prisoners scheme drawn up under the Belfast Agreement. [112899]

  Jane Kennedy
  To qualify for early release under the legislation, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, a person must be serving his sentence in Northern Ireland. Therefore, no prisoners have been released from prisons in Great Britain under the terms of the early release scheme. Nevertheless, 21 of the 447 prisoners granted early release committed their offences in Great Britain but had transferred to prison in Northern Ireland prior to making application.

  Assaults (Hospital Staff)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many verbal and physical assaults took place on(a) nurses and (b) other staff working in areas of mental health and learning disabilities in Northern Ireland in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [115281]

  (2) how many verbal and physical assaults took place on (a) nurses and (b) other staff working in general hospitals in Northern Ireland in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and (iii) 2002. [115282]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available in the format requested. However the number of recorded assaults (both physical and verbal) on Health and Personal Social Services Staff in all disciplines, during those financial years, is detailed in the table:

  Year

  Number

  1999–2000

  1,677

  2000–01

  1,956

  2001–02

  2,438

  Court Proceedings (Police Presence)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is in relation to police officers being present in court while criminal proceedings are taking place. [114037]

  Jane Kennedy
  Currently, police attend magistrates' courts to look after prisoners and to produce them to the court. Where there is reason to believe that a breach of the peace is likely to take place, police may also perform duty in the courtroom. Administrative functions, such as acting as ushers, or jury keepers are no longer carried out by the police.

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of(a) the in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Department in 2002. [104257]
  932W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Within the Northern Ireland Office expenditure on in-house canteen and other catering services cannot be disaggregated. In the financial year 2001–02, the total for the Department, including its Agencies but excluding NDPBs, was £533,718.

  Within the Northern Ireland administration in-house canteen facilities are not provided. The total cost of providing contracted out catering services in the financial year 2001–02 was £680,000.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) press conferences which have been sponsored by his Department and which took place on non-Departmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104279]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Downpatrick Courthouse
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisation was responsible for security at Downpatrick courthouse on the day in the week beginning 5 May. [114038]

  Jane Kennedy
  The responsibility for security at Downpatrick magistrates court was shared between the PSNI, the Prison Service and the NI Court Service through the civilian security provided by Maybin Security Services. On 5 May a number of remand prisoners were handed into police custody by Prison Office staff. The prisoners included the two persons who subsequently escaped from custody.

  General Practitioners (Ards Peninsula)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to enhance the out of hours general practice service for those living along the Ards Peninsula. [115064]

  Mr. Browne
  I am satisfied that the current out of hours arrangements for the Ards Peninsula are working satisfactorily and that service users living there receive the same level of service as those living elsewhere in the North Down area.

  International Fund for Ireland
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many grants were made by the International Fund for Ireland for each Parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [113780]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Board of the International Fund publishes an Annual Report of its activities, including a list of all projects that receive financial support. Copies of the Reports are held in the House of Commons Library.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what amount the salaries of members of the Northern Ireland Executive have been reduced since its suspension. [105070]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As Ministers do not hold office during suspension, the salaries of members of the Northern Ireland Executive were reduced by the following amount since suspension:

  £

  Salaries reduced by

  First Minister and Deputy First Minister

  69,862

  Other Ministers

  36,241

  This amount includes retrospective pay rises.

  In addition the Assembly member element of the Ministers' salaries was reduced by £9,504 with effect from 15 November 2002, abated as required by the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in respect of those Members who are MPs and MEPs.

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to bring forward legislation on life sentences for murder in Northern Ireland. [114546]

  Jane Kennedy
  In October 2001, the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 ("the Order") introduced new provisions for the sentencing, review and release of life prisoners in Northern Ireland. The arrangements introduced by the Order arose from a widely supported recommendation of the Review of the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland.

  Proposals are currently before Parliament by way of the Criminal Justice Bill for the amendment of the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 to provide a statutory right for review by the Life Sentence Review Commissioners of NI life prisoners simultaneously detained under the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many non-departmental public bodies there were in Northern Ireland in April 1998; and how many there are now. [113872]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information sought in the question is available in the "Public Bodies" publication produced annually by the Cabinet Office and made available through the Stationery Office and on the Cabinet Office website at http: //www. cabinet-office. gov.uk/ agencies-publicbodies/. This publication provides information on the size, spend and membership of public bodies in the UK and includes non-departmental public bodies attached to the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. The current edition of the publication, "Public Bodies 2002" is available in the House of Commons Library. An updated version for 2003 is currently being prepared and should be published by the Cabinet Office before the end of the year.

  Northern Ireland Centre for Trauma and Transformation
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money the Northern Ireland Office has granted to the Northern Ireland Centre for Trauma and Transformation in Omagh; and for what purpose. [111697]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office has allocated £1.5 million over three years for the development of the Northern Ireland Centre for Trauma and Transformation.

  Its aims and objectives are summarised as follows:
  To develop the centre in Omagh and to provide other related services or facilities in Northern Ireland and elsewhere for the purposes of:
  i. assessing, treating and caring for those who suffer psychological or psychiatric trauma related disorders, illness or disability as a consequence of traumatic or distressing experiences arising out of the Troubles in Northern Ireland;
  ii. undertaking research and innovation, for learning, and for the education and training of those involved in the assessment, treatment and care for those persons who have suffered, are suffering or will suffer psychological or psychiatric trauma related disorders, illness or disability in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, as a result of the Troubles and other traumatic or distressing experience;
  iii. applying and disseminating the knowledge and expertise of the Centre and other related services or facilities for the assistance and benefit of others involved in the assessment, treatment or care of other persons or communities affected by strife or disaster; and
  iv. working in collaboration with others through therapeutic and service networks to support those affected by traumatic events, including those affected by the Troubles in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

  Parades
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of policing Loyalist band parades in Lurgan on 25 April and on 3 May; and how many personnel from(a) the PSNI and (b) the Royal Irish Rangers were involved in policing each event. [113345]

  Jane Kennedy
  25 April 2003: Star of the North Band Parade 88 Police Officers were on duty at the above band parade at a notional cost of £12,500. 3 May 2003: Craigavon Protestant Boys Band Parade 101 Police Officers were on duty at the above band parade at a notional cost of £14,000.

  The military support to the police at both of these events was around 100 personnel and provided by the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment.

  Police Escorts
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is in relation to police escorts for prisoners being transported to and from courts in Northern Ireland. [114036]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Prison Service escort prisoners from prison to court. The Police Service can assist if requested and an armed presence is required. Once in court, police officers look after prisoners in the court cells and escort them into the courtroom and back to the
  935W
  cells, before being transferred back to prison by the Prison Service. Where prisoners appear in court for the first time and are committed to custody (for example, on remand or if sentenced), police officers will escort them to prison.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the PSNI are(a) seconded and (b) serving with police services overseas. [113447]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are currently 29 PSNI officers seconded overseas. The following table shows the reason and location of these officers.

  Number of Officers

  Reason and Place of Secondment

  25

  United Nations Mission in Kosovo

  3

  European Union Policing Mission in Bosnia

  1

  United Nations Transitional Aid to East Timor

  Press Office (Costs)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total costs of the press office of the Northern Ireland Office were in 2002–03, broken down by(a) staff costs, (b) administration and (c) other. [113445]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following costs are for the core Department's Press Office. (Outside the core it includes only Prison Service NI.)

  Costs for core Department's Press Office2002–03

  £

  Cost

  (a) Staff costs

  1,292,309

  (b) Administration

  585,186

  (c) Other costs

  398,588

  Total

  2,276,083

  Secure Units
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase the number of places in secure units for children and young people in Northern Ireland. [114380]

  Mr. Browne
  It is planned to increase the number of secure residential care places for children from 15 to 16 by 2005. Based on a recent inspection by the Social Services Inspectorate no substantial increase is proposed as it is anticipated that the Department's plans for an expansion in the general residential childcare sector will reduce the pressure on the need for secure care places.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many places there are in secure units for children and young people; how much is being expended on such provision in 2003–04; and what recent assessment he has made of need. [114378]
  936W
  Mr. Browne
  There are currently 15 secure care places provided for children in the care system at Shamrock and Linden House, Lakewood, Bangor. The cost of providing these places in 2003–04 will be approximately £1.8 million.

  In 2002 the Social Services Inspectorate carried out an assessment, which resulted in a business case being made to replace the existing accommodation and to expand the secure care places from 15 to 16.

  Sports Funding
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding is being given to hockey players in Northern Ireland who will be competing as part of a British team at the Olympics. [113861]

  Angela Smith
  At present no hockey players in Northern Ireland are in receipt of funding to compete as part of a British team at the Olympics.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether it is his policy to make funding for victims' support groups available for the foreseeable future; and if he will make a statement. [106353]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since 1998 this Government has allocated more than £20 million to fund victims' initiatives. More than £6 million—around 30 per cent.—of this has gone to pay the core running costs of victims' groups. This is in recognition of the valuable work that victims' groups do and I continue to press the case for more money for victims' initiatives. In allocating any further such funding that may become available I will of course have regard to this work. Equally, I must take into account the fact that many victims do not align themselves with victims' groups.

  Warm Homes Scheme
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the take up has been of the Warm Homes scheme by(a) numbers of completed jobs and (b) moneys spent since its inception, in each parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland. [113781]

  Mr. Browne
  This information is not available in precisely the format requested. Work under the Warm Homes Scheme is categorised by postal code areas. However, the following table identifies the number of jobs, both energy efficiency and heating measures that have been completed in each area in years 1 and 2 of the Scheme.

  Constituency1

  Completed jobs

  Combined total £

  East Antrim (BT36, 38, 39, 40)

  443

  96,144.89

  East Belfast (BT4, 5, 6)

  853

  218,991.63

  East Londonderry (BT49, 51 52, 55, 56)

  499

  139,710.68

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone (BT68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 92, 93, 94 and part BT78)

  1,329

  343,959.17

  Foyle (BT47, 48)

  640

  168,032.45

  Lagan Valley (BT25, 26, 27, 28)

  759

  194,747.73

  Mid Ulster (BT45, 46, 71, 80)

  668

  212,481.02

  Newry and Armagh (BT34, 35, 60, 61)

  994

  337,126.52

  North Antrim (BT42, 43, 44, 53, 54, 57)

  769

  224,492.42

  North Belfast (BT13, 14, 15, 37)

  762

  176,766.54

  North Down (BT18, 19, 20, 21)

  481

  108,918.23

  South Antrim (BT29, 41)

  732

  176,093.66

  937W

  Constituency1

  Completed jobs

  Combined total £

  South Belfast (BT2, 7, 8, 9, 10)

  358

  91,729.86

  South Down (BT30, 31, 33)

  983

  242,059.60

  Strangford (BTI6, 22, 23, 24)

  326

  93,973.92

  Upper Bann (BT32, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67)

  717

  148,834.24

  West Belfast (BT11, 12, 17)

  721

  314,171.16

  West Tyrone (BT79, 81, 82 and part BT78)

  656

  205,038.90

  TOTAL

  12,690

  3,493,272.62

  1 Comprising the post codes in brackets.

  Weston Park
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress by His Honour Judge Peter Cory in the investigation of cases identified at Weston Park in July 2001. [114716]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Justice Peter Cory was appointed by the British and Irish Governments in May 2002 to carry out an investigation into six cases where collusion has been alleged. The judge is independent and his work programme is a matter for him.

  As Justice Cory made clear in his third progress report to the British and Irish Governments in April, he has already completed his work on the cases of Patrick Finucane, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright. These reports are being stored securely by the Canadian authorities until the conclusion of his investigation. The judge has indicated that he is on schedule to complete his report in the Autumn. The Government is very grateful to Justice Cory for taking on this important task and remains committed to co-operating fully with his investigation.

TRANSPORT

  Action Plan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 8 April, Official Report, column 157–58W, on the pay review, whether his action plan on the subject will be published. [112325]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The action plans for my Department and its agencies will be placed in the Library of the House in due course after full consideration has been given to the issues identified. This will not apply for NDPBs as there was no formal commitment for them to review their pay systems.

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many agency workers have been employed by the Department in each of the last two years; and at what cost to public funds. [115197]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport was created following machinery of government changes on 29 May 2002. From that date to 30 April 2003 the cost of employing agency workers has been £933,229. The information requested in relation to the number of agency workers employed by the Department is not readily available or easily obtained and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Air Travel
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what health impact assessment has been undertaken of the options contained in the consultation on the Future Development of Air Transport in the UK. [115726]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The consultation documents and supporting papers set out the range of impacts, including health-related impacts—in particular, noise and local air quality—associated with the various airports options under review. Following the consultation, we will ensure that all relevant considerations, including health-related ones, are taken into account in our decision-making process, through use of an integrated policy appraisal.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on EU proposals for legislation to oblige air carriers to protect passengers in the event of bankruptcy; and what discussions he has had on voluntary initiatives by carriers to protect passengers in the event of airline financial collapse. [115378]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The European Commission has not published a proposal for legislation to oblige air carriers to protect passengers in the event of bankruptcy and I have had no discussions with airlines on a voluntary financial protection scheme.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 337W, on Central Railway, if he will invite the Strategic Rail Authority to comment on further information submitted by Central Railway. [115104]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA are fully involved in considering the proposals from Central Railway.

  Civil Contingencies
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional expenditure over and above that identified prior to 1 April 2002(a) was spent in 2002–03 and (b) will be spent in 2003–04 on national and regional resilience work for essential services; whether arrangements exist to release expenditure during the current financial year for resilience projects under consideration for essential services; and if he will make a statement. [113924]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 May 2003]: My Department's contribution to the essential services element of the Government's resilience capabilities programme has been undertaken within our existing budget. To support our overall effort on improving resilience we have committed £1.8 million capital this year and £0.6 million additional annual running costs.

  The capabilities that we are working to deliver have been developed to allow the Government to deal with the fullest range of scenarios. Should a specific additional urgent operational need arise, at any point of the spending cycle, action would be taken to meet it. The public expenditure framework the Government have put in place provides the flexibility to deal with unexpected pressures.

  Congestion Charging
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many local authorities have submitted plans for the introduction of local congestion charging regimes in each of the Government office regions; and if he will make a statement. [115549]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Apart from Durham County Council, whose scheme order was approved on 24 September 2002, no other local authority in England has submitted

  Name of ESD

  External consultancy since 2001 Y/N

  Name of consultancy firm

  Applications for clean up grants

  N

  —

  Aviation: on-line consultation and white papers

  N

  —

  Aviation: on-line permits to foreign airlines

  N

  —

  Booking of disability driving assessments

  N

  —

  Bus services operators' grant

  N

  —

  Collecting local transport plans data

  N

  —

  Computer-based theory tests for drivers

  Y

  Prometric

  Computer-based theory tests for trainers

  Y

  Prometric

  Cycling Advisory Scheme

  Y

  AEA Technology

  Drivers hours regulations

  N

  —

  Drivers' services

  Y

  IBM Fujitsu; Schlumberger/Sema; Capita; Prometric; Logica; Insight Consulting

  Driving tests publications and information

  N

  —

  Driving tests theory practice

  N

  —

  DVO internal systems

  Y

  IBM

  Electronic linking between mobility centres

  N

  —

  Electronic service delivery of abnormal loads

  Y

  Anite.Net 3 October 2001 to 30 September 2002; PA Consulting 2 January 2003 to date

  Integrated register of driving instructors

  Y

  Calibrand Ltd.

  Integrated transport information

  N

  —

  Internal sharing of information within DVO

  Y

  IBM Fujitsu; Schlumberger/Sema; Capita; Prometric

  International coach service authorizations

  N

  —

  International road haulage permits

  N

  —

  Licensing of trucks, buses and coach operators

  Y

  Hedra

  Management of utility company works

  Y

  Amtec

  Mobility advice and vehicle information service

  N

  —

  On-line roads consultations

  N

  —

  Port traffic statistics

  Y

  MaTSU, part of AEA Technology plc

  Powershift programme

  N

  —

  Practical test bookings for driving trainers

  Y

  Capita

  Traffic control centre

  Y

  Carlbro IBI; Denton Wilde Sapte; Tony Ham; PricewaterhouseCoopers; Halcrow Group Ltd.

  Transport direct portal

  Y

  Schlumberger/Sema; Hedra; Centaur; Anite; TRL; AEAT; Capgemini

  Transport security data

  N

  —

  Transport security: vetting of staff

  N

  —

  Vehicle registration and amendment

  Y

  IBM Fujitsu; Schlumberger/Sema; Capita; Prometric

  New cars' fuel consumption and emissions data

  Y

  KMS Internet solution Providers Ltd.

  New cars fuel consumption and emissions labels

  Y

  KMS Internet Solution Providers Ltd.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114117]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has a PS A target to achieve annual 2.5 per cent efficiency improvements across the Department. The target takes, as a measure of efficiency improvements, savings in the Department's total net administration costs as published in the 2003 Departmental Report.
  940W
  either a road user charging or a workplace parking levy scheme order for confirmation by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  E-Government Projects
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [114188]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 May 2003]: The consultancies used by my Department on e-government projects since 1 January 2001 are in the following table.

  English Regions Cycling Development Team
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the report of the English Regions Cycling Development team will be published. [114713]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The English Regions Cycling Development Team has been assessing highway authorities1 planning and provision for cycling. They are due to report their findings to the National Cycling Strategy Board in June. The Board expects then to publish reports in July.

  London Underground
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 10 March 2003,Official Report, column 47W, on London Underground, if he will provide the whole year figures for 2002–03. [115149]

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

  London Underground rolling stock, track and signal failures by line

  Line

  2002–03 rolling stock failures

  2002–03 track and signals failures

  Bakerloo

  1,156

  298

  Central

  2,419

  609

  Circle/Hammersmith and City

  2,045

  431

  District

  1,433

  849

  East London

  99

  77

  Jubilee

  1,281

  443

  Metropolitan

  1,296

  667

  Northern

  1,597

  843

  Piccadilly

  2,821

  572

  Waterloo and City

  86

  38

  Victoria

  1,140

  487

  Total

  15,373

  5,314

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he estimates passengers will experience improvements in(a) reliability and (b) comfort under the PPP contracts for the London Underground. [115587]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Tube Lines have announced that, for the Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly lines, within the first 12 months of the contract they will be cutting delays by nearly 10 per cent., saving passengers some 430,000 hours. They have also improved the cleaning regime implementing deep cleans of trains and stations much more frequently than before. At the same time they are beginning the long-term work to upgrade the lines and increase capacity, including additional rolling stock for the Jubilee Line to increase train lengths from 6 to 7 cars, and awarding a contract for new signalling systems for the Jubilee and Northern Lines to allow a substantial increase in the service capability on these lines. These new signalling systems should be in place by 2009 and 2011 respectively.

  For the lines being maintained and modernised by Metronet, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on 8 May 2003, Official Report, column 830W.

  Motorway Tolls
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the agreement setting out the basis for the determination of toll levels on the BNRR/M6 Toll was(a) made and (b) approved. [115680]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Concession Agreement between the Government and Midland Expressway Limited for the M6 Toll (formerly the Birmingham Northern Relief Road) was signed on 28 February 1992.

  SARS
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure the safety of passengers and crew of(a) airlines and (b) passenger ships against the SARS outbreak. [111003]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the Statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 28 April 2003 Official Report, columns 38–41. My officials have worked closely with the Department of Health to ensure that appropriate information on recognising the symptoms of SARs and on how to seek appropriate medical advice is given to those travelling to the UK from infected areas. The situation is being monitored closely and further action will be taken if necessary on public health grounds.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why he plans to increase the number of staff as measured in staff years in his Department by 190 in 2003–04 compared with 2002–03. [114773]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: The increase in the number of staff is mainly due to the need for specialist external recruitment.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the number of staff measured in staff years in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency increased in 2002–03 by 903 compared with 2001–02. [114937]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: The difference of 903 staff years between 2001–02 and 2002–03 reflects a change in the way that staffing figures are recorded, to include casual staff and a number of changes in DVLA operations.

  The main operational changes that contributed to the actual increase were:

  (a) new policy initiatives such as the mandatory vehicle registration document scheme and to support London congestion charging;

  (b) to safeguard delivery of the core business such as improving the accuracy of the database and the new strategic partnership to support DVLA's substantial change programme for service delivery improvements; and

  (c) increased workload involving initiatives to improve customer service delivery such as the introduction of extended hours in the Agency's call centre and growth in business volumes (5.9 per cent. higher in 2002–03), offset by more efficient working practices and the increase in electronic business.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the number of staff measured in staff years in the Drug Standards Agency is planned to increase in 2003–04 by 547 compared with 2001–02. [114938]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: Demand for driving tests has increased from some 1,481, 210 in 2001–02 to an estimated 1,635,500 in 2003–04. To meet this rising demand, and to reduce waiting times for driving tests, the Driving Standards Agency has recently recruited over 130 driving examiners and plans to recruit 330 more in the coming

  943W
  year. The increased levels of test demand also impact on the number of support staff, such as call centre agents, that are needed.

  In addition, DSA is boosting other activities in line with commitments in the Government's "Road Safety Strategy", such as delivering a national programme of "Arrive Alive" presentations to youngsters in schools and colleges. In 2003–04, some 6,000 presentations are planned, compared with some 2,700 in 2001–02.

  The increase in full-time equivalent staff for the Agency, shown in the Department's recently published Annual Report for 2003, reflects these higher levels of activity and changes in the way that staffing figures are recorded.

  Stansted Airport
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the potential impact of a second or third new runway at Stansted Airport on(a) the local environment, (b) the quality of life of the residents and (c) economic development if there is a dependence on low-cost carriers. [R] [115376]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have conducted no detailed assessment of this kind other than what has already been published as part of the on-going consultation, 'The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East'.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to achieve greater transparency in relation to the SRA's use of funds. [114820]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On 14 April 2003, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued a revised SRA Financial Framework, setting rules governing the financial aspects of the Strategic Rail Authority's activities and transactions. My right hon. Friend will also shortly issue an accounts direction, which will direct the Authority to ensure that its annual accounts 2002–03 give a true and fair view of the income and expenditure and cash flows for the year. Finally, the Authority is statutorily required to produce an annual report including a section on accounts, copies of which are placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the SRA's assumptions and plans for rail traffic and capacity growth in the next five years. [115247]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's plans and priorities are set out in its Strategic Plan, published at the end of January, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Sustainable Communities
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of the change in the annual number of(a) journeys and (b) kilometres travelled that will result from housing development in the four growth areas within the Sustainable Communities Plan. [115725]
  944W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering, in connection with the ODPM, how far and to what time scale we should seek to develop the Thames Gateway and the other growth areas. Assessing the transport needs related to these developments is one of the main issues being considered.

  Thames Gateway Bridge
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the funding of the proposed Thames Gateway river crossings. [114606]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues.

  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made in developing plans for the Thames Gateway Bridge; and to what parliamentary procedures he expects the plans will be subject. [114604]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Thames Gateway Bridge project is the responsibility of the Mayor of London and Transport for London. They are developing the plans and the business case for the scheme. The Mayor has asked the Government to promote a hybrid bill for the project. We are considering that request.

  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if toll revenues from the Dartford Bridge will be ring-fenced for the proposed Thames Gateway river crossings. [114605]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Dartford net income forms part of the funding included in the 10 year transport plan. This income has not been ring-fenced for Thames Gateway river crossings.

  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether plans for the proposed Thames Gateway Bridge include segregated public transport lanes. [114602]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Thames Gateway Bridge project is the responsibility of the Mayor of London and Transport for London. They are developing the plans and the business case for the scheme. Segregated public transport lanes are among the options being considered.

  Traffic/Revenue Forecasts (Rail Companies)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the companies and consultancies which have undertaken traffic and revenue forecasts for(a) the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, (b) the Channel Tunnel and (c) Virgin West Coast Franchise. [114981]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On the basis of information readily available to the Department, which covers the period since May 1997, forecasts have been produced, respectively by:

  (a) Booz Allen and Hamilton, Mott Macdonald, Arthur D. Little, LEK, London and Continental Railways

  (b) none

  (c) Booz Allen and Hamilton.

  945W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the companies and consultancies which are undertaking traffic and revenue forecasts for the proposed north-south high speed passenger rail link. [114982]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority have had advice from Atkins, supported by Ernst and Young, and Roger, Tymm and Partners.

  Train Operators
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many train operators are running on a cost-plus basis; and what assessment he has made of the number of train operating companies that are technically insolvent. [114861]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is one train operating company operating under a franchise agreement which is on a cost-plus basis. Four other train operating companies operate under "management contracts" where they are paid annually on a predetermined budget amount: any variances from budget are at their risk. No train operating companies are technically insolvent.

  Trans-Pennine Franchise
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the rationale for the Trans-Pennine franchise; and if he will make a statement. [115246]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No. The new Trans-Pennine Express (TPE) franchise was developed by the Strategic Rail Authority in consultation with the five PTEs affected. The reasoning behind the TPE franchise is that strategic, high quality rail links are needed to help increase the already significant level of economic activity and growth in the north, and that these services are best provided by a dedicated operator.

  Travel Information
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards delivering integrated travel information. [115094]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Transport Direct was announced in "Transport 2010—The 10 Year Plan" in July 2000. Transport Direct will provide integrated travel information to help people to plan their journeys and to compare routes and prices across different types of transport. The ultimate vision for Transport Direct is to cover all types of transport within the UK, including rail, bus, car, ferries, air, trams, and taxis. Transport Direct will do three things:Tell the traveller what choices they have when planning the journey
  Allow the traveller to book and pay for their journey at the time of making their inquiry
  Advise the traveller about how their chosen travel option is performing in real-time before they set off.

  Initially it will be available over the internet through our Transport Direct Web Portal. Later on we hope to extend the service to mobile phones, hand held devices, high street kiosks and interactive TV.
  946W
  We expect the first release of the Transport Direct portal to be available by the end of 2003, and will include:
  multi-modal travel information on the internet, covering road journeys as well as all public transport modes at a single point of contact
  real-time (that is, actual rather than recorded or timetabled) train operating information
  some booking of long-distance multi-modal journeys on the internet
  development of Internet-based maps, which will allow travellers to examine public transport options both for visiting a specific venue and for general travel around an area they are considering visiting.

  The initial portal service will be enhanced in subsequent years.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the level of congestion was on the interurban trunk road network in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [114774]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: Congestion on inter-urban trunk roads can be measured in a number of different ways. One option, used in the Department's 10-Year Plan, is to take the difference between actual average speeds and estimated speeds achievable in the absence of congestion. Full details of the methodology are available on the DfT website.

  The estimated level of congestion on inter-urban trunk roads in England, measured in this way, was 3.2 seconds per vehicle kilometre in 2000. No equivalent data are available for 2001 and 2002.

  Urban Congestion
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the level of congestion was in large urban areas in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [114898]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Congestion in large urban areas can be measured in a number of different ways. One option, used in the Department's Ten Year Plan, is to take the difference between actual average speeds and speeds achievable in the absence of congestion, estimated by measuring night time speeds. Full details of the methodology are available on the DfT website.

  The estimated level of congestion in large urban areas in England, measured in this way, was 24.8 seconds per vehicle kilometre in 2000 and 24.9 in 2002.

  Vehicle Registration Numbers
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) objectives and (b) terms of reference are of the Modernisation of Vehicle Registration Implementation Board; what their programme of work is; and what provisions are in place to ensure wide consultation before decisions or recommendations are made. [115371]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Modernising Vehicle Registration Implementation Board was set up to carry forward the proposals made by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science report on modernising the vehicle registration
  947W
  system. The Board is driving forward a programme aimed at reducing vehicle crime and enhancing compliance with road traffic law in the UK.

  The Board have advised on a package of improvements to tackle car crime, reduce car dumping and ensure that every vehicle has a traceable keeper. As a consequence of the Board's advice, a range of proposals were announced by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (David Jamieson) today that will significantly tighten the registration and licensing system, and make it much easier to deter and detect motorists who fail to insure or tax their vehicle. It will also be easier to trace the keepers of abandoned vehicles. The measures announced include; the registered keepers of vehicles remaining legally responsible at all times for taxing their vehicle, offenders will be penalised from the record when their tax-disc expires or Statutory Off-Road Notification lapses. Those that fail to comply will face a new automatic £80 penalty. Determined offenders could face a minimum £1,000 fine if taken to court.

  The Government intend to consult on the secondary legislation that it plans to bring forward to implement these proposals. A wide range of stakeholders have already been consulted on these new measures and further consultation will take place as future initiatives are considered by the Board.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been raised in each of the past five years by the DVLA from the sale and auction of cherished registration numbers. [115372]

  Mr. Spellar
  Over the past five years, the scheme has raised, net and (gross):

  £ million

  Year

  Telesales

  Auctions

  Total

  1998–99

  31 (46)

  15(18)

  46 (64)

  1999–2000

  34 (50)

  13 (16)

  47 (66)

  2000–01

  43 (63)

  13(15)

  56 (78)

  2001–02

  47 (69)

  17(21)

  64 (90)

  2002–03

  53 (81)

  20.5 (26)

  73.5 (107)

  Since its inception in 1989, the scheme has raised over £720 million gross for the Exchequer.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the harmonisation of vehicle registration numbers across Europe. [115373]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have had no such discussions.
  948W
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who the members are of the Modernisation of Vehicle Registration Implementation Board; and what plans they have to consult with(a) motoring organisations and (b) those with knowledge of and an interest in classic or historic motor vehicles. [115374]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Modernisation of Vehicle Registration Implementation Board (MVRIB) membership, is made up of representatives of the Department for Transport, the Police, Home Office, Cabinet Office, No. 10, AA, RAC, the insurance industry, motor manufacturers, motor traders, and the TUC.

  The AA and RAC representing motoring organisations, will continue to be invited and consulted as MVRIB meets in the future. My officials have also met with organisations representing the owners of historic vehicles, and we shall continue to include them in any future consultation undertaken in connection with the MVRIB programme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gaza (Waivers)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Israeli Government regarding the requirement for foreigners entering the Gaza Strip to sign waivers which absolve the Israeli army of responsibility should they be injured or killed by Israeli forces.[[113734]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have asked officials to take this matter up with the Israeli authorities in London and Tel Aviv as soon as possible.

  Aceh
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the political situation in Aceh. [113705]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Cessation of Hostilities Agreement (COHA), signed by the Indonesian Government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) on 9 December 2002, has broken down. Talks held in Tokyo on 17 to 18 May 2003, aimed at salvaging the peace process, failed to reach agreement. The Indonesian Government have declared a state of martial law in Aceh, with the risk that the security situation will deteriorate.

  Despite the efforts of both sides, we regret the talks held in Tokyo did not achieve a positive result. We continue to impress upon both sides that a long-term solution to Aceh can only be achieved through peaceful dialogue and full implementation of the COHA. We hope that both sides will quickly return to the negotiating table.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indonesian Government regarding attacks on international observers and civilians in Aceh. [113706]
  949W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A joint declaration by the co-chairs of the Tokyo Conference on Peace and Reconstruction in Aceh, Japan, EU, US and the World bank, was issued on 9 April 2003. The statement deplored the violence and threats of violence directed against several of the international monitoring teams, and urged the Indonesian Government to take immediate steps to ensure the security of monitors in the field. The monitors have since been withdrawn from Aceh.

  The EU, Japan and the US recognise that the end of the peace process could bring violence and suffering to the people of Aceh. Co-sponsors have been actively involved in persuading both sides that they should continue the political dialogue. We hope that both sides will quickly return to the negotiating table.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the formation of an inclusive transitional Government for the Democratic Republic of Congo. [113636]

  Mr. Rammell
  There has been good progress on the formation of a transitional national Government (TNG) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) since agreement on its establishment was reached on 2 April 2003 in Sun City (South Africa). Most candidates for the TNG have now been selected. We understand installation is envisaged in June 2003.

  The UK has been actively engaged with our African, EU and UN partners in promoting a peaceful resolution to the conflict in the DRC. We will continue to play our part, as a member of the International Committee for Support to the Transition, which is tasked with supporting the transitional process in the DRC.

  Egypt (Murders)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Egyptian Government on bringing the murderers of Christians and a Muslim in El-Kosheh to justice; and if he will make a statement. [113873]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We were deeply concerned by the sectarian violence in El-Kosheh in 2000, which left 20 Christians and one Muslim dead. In the resulting trial, four men were convicted (out of 96 accused), all for the murder of the Muslim and public order offences. After an appeal, a re-trial began in May 2002. The verdict was issued on 27 February 2003. Two of the original convictions were upheld and harsher sentences passed, but the other two were acquitted, along with the 92 acquitted at the first trial.

  On 13 March 2003, the Prosecutor-General appealed again. This is an indication that the Egyptian legal authorities recognise that justice has not been done and are taking steps to attempt to rectify the injustice. We will continue to follow developments closely.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposed visit by Her Majesty the Queen to Gibraltar. [114004]

  Mr. MacShane
  Her Majesty's programme of visits for the next calendar year has not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent talks between the UK Government and Spanish Government in relation to Gibraltar; and whether an agreement was reached between the UK Government and Government of Spain over the future of Gibraltar. [114175]

  Mr. MacShane
  There are frequent discussions between the Government and the Government of Spain on a range of EU and other foreign policy issues. There have been no recent discussions concentrating on Gibraltar.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government has had with the Government of Spain in relation to the territorial waters between Gibraltar and Morocco; and whether agreement was reached with the Government of Spain over the sovereignty of the Straits of Gibraltar. [114176]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have had no discussions with the Government of Spain on this issue.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the terms of imprisonment for those held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are in accordance with UN resolutions on the protection of all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment. [113720]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The US has told us that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are being treated humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Conventions. We have only had limited access to detainees so it is difficult to make an independent assessment.

  Iraq
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the implementation of UN resolution 57/232 to deploy human rights monitors in Iraq. [114318]

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to assist the United Nations Security Council in playing an effective role in the promotion and protection of human rights in post-conflict Iraq. [115456]

  Mr. Rammell
  The fall of Saddam Hussein's regime has brought to an end a long period of violations of the Iraqi people's human rights. The draft UN Security Council Resolution, put forward by the UK, US and Spain, proposes that there should be a UN Special Representative whose responsibilities would include the
  951W
  promotion of human rights. Working to support the people of Iraq in moving toward the establishment of a representative government affording equal rights and justice to all Iraqi citizens will be the best means of ensuring that their human rights are protected.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to secure the establishment by the United Nations Security Council of an impartial commission to examine and analyse information regarding(a) war crimes, (b) crimes against humanity and (c) genocide committed in Iraq. [115455]

  Mr. Rammell
  The draft resolution tabled in the Security Council by the UK, US and Spain calls on all member states of the UN to support action to bring to justice members of the previous Iraqi regime responsible for crimes and atrocities. The UN Special Representative is given a specific mandate to encourage international efforts to promote legal and judicial reform. We believe that the process of dealing with past crimes should be led by the people of Iraq. A team of experts is currently assessing the capacity of the Iraqi judicial system to deal with such crimes, and the extent of international assistance that will be needed.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to ensure that the Occupying Powers in Iraq report to the United Nations Security Council their provisions for the promotion and protection of human rights for Iraqi civilians. [115457]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK and US, as Occupying Powers, intend to report regularly to the UN Security Council on all aspects of their responsibilities in Iraq. The draft resolution currently under discussion in the Security Council reflects this intention, as well as providing for regular reporting by the Secretary-General on the activities of his Special Representative. The latter is specifically charged with promoting the protection of human rights.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amendments he plans to table to the draft UN resolution on reconstruction in Iraq to enable UN expertise in post-conflict institution building to be exercised in rebuilding Iraq. [115458]

  Mr. Rammell
  The role of the Special Representative of the Secretary General, as envisaged by the draft resolution currently under discussion in the UN Security Council, covers a wide range of institution-building activities, specifically:Working intensively with the Authority (the occupying powers), the people of Iraq, and others concerned to advance efforts to restore and establish national and local institutions for representative governance, including by working together to facilitate a process leading to an internationally recognised, representative Government of Iraq;
  952W
  facilitating the reconstruction of key infrastructure, in cooperation with other international organisations;
  promoting economic reconstruction and the conditions for sustainable development, including through coordination with national and regional organisations, as appropriate, civil society, donors and the international financial institutions;
  encouraging international efforts to contribute to basic civilian administration functions;
  promoting the protection of human rights;
  encouraging international efforts to rebuild the capacity of the Iraqi civilian police force; and
  encouraging international efforts to promote legal and judicial reform.

  We believe that this adequately addresses the UN role, and have not, therefore, proposed further amendments to the text.

  Israel
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with the Israeli Government regarding the decision not to allow(a) foreign diplomats and (b) visiting politicians to meet Israeli officials if they also intend to meet Yasser Arafat. [115287]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Israeli officials have informed us of this decision. It will not help the cause of peace. We will continue to talk to President Arafat when we judge that this will be useful.

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts his Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113684]

  Mr. Rammell
  Since 1997 contracts have been awarded to KPMG or Atos KPMG Consulting, (which was created in August 2002 from the merger of Atos Origin and KPMG's UKand Dutch management consultancy operations), for the following projects:Development and Implementation of the FCO's Information and Communications Technology Strategy;
  Development of PRISM, the FCO's new financial and human resource system;
  Support for Knowledge Programme;
  Support for Future FIRECREST, the FCO's new global IT infrastructure system;
  Business Transformation Programme;
  Forecasting income from Consular Fees;
  Review of Financial Regulations in Overseas Territories.

  Laos
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the treatment of Christians and (b) the recent release of Christian prisoners in Laos. [113752]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are aware of reports of the detention and mistreatment of Christians in Laos and our Embassy in Bangkok (which is accredited to Laos) monitors the situation. We raise concerns about human rights in Laos, including the treatment of Christians, when the opportunity arises. In London in January the Asia Pacific Director at the Foreign and Commonwealth
  953W
  Office discussed these issues with Sayakane Sisouvong, the ASEAN Director General at the Lao Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  It remains a concern to us that the Lao government detains people, albeit comparatively few in number, on charges which run counter to internationally accepted standards of human rights. But we welcome any release of Christian prisoners in Laos as an indication that the human rights situation in Laos is improving.

  North Korea
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the deliberations at the UN Security Council meeting on 9 April 2003 pertaining to North Korea. [109381]

  Mr. Rammell
  During preliminary discussion of North Korea's nuclear programmes on 9 April 2003, the UN Security Council expressed its concern and agreed to follow developments. Council members are considering the issue in more detail at expert level. We believe that this is a matter concerning international peace and security, and therefore, a legitimate issue for the Security Council to discuss.

  Middle East (Peace Activists)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the Israeli Government regarding the safety of peace activists in the Occupied Territories. [113733]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials at our Embassy in Tel Aviv and our Consulate-General in Jerusalem have taken up individual cases with the Israeli authorities and will do all they properly can to help British nationals in difficulty in the region.

  On 11 April, I spoke to the Israeli Ambassador to raise our concerns about the case of Thomas Hurndall, a British peace activist shot in Gaza on 11 April and other cases. On 8 May, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, about the shooting of Thomas Hurndall (and also of James Miller, a British cameraman). We both called for a full and transparent investigation into the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) shooting to be carried out by the Israeli Military Police. Our Ambassador in Tel Aviv has also raised our concerns locally with the Israeli authorities. The Israeli Government took note of our concerns and promised to co-operate.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government has made to the Israeli authorities on the decision to ask peace activists to sign a waiver before entering Gaza. [113696]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) today (UIN 113734).

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Department has taken to publicise its Public Service Agreement targets; and at what cost to public funds. [114454]
  954W
  Mr. Rammell
  The text of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Public Service Agreement for the 2002 Spending Review period has been placed on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk) and included in the FCO's annual Departmental Report for 2003 and its Business Plan for 2003–2006. These actions have been taken in the course of normal business and no additional expenditure has been incurred.

  Road Accidents (France)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens have been killed in road accidents in France in each of the last five years. [114070]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The French authorities have notified us that the following numbers of British citizens have been killed in road accidents in France since 1998:

  Number

  1998

  44

  1999

  25

  2000

  17

  2001

  27

  2002

  47

  Shaiboub William Arsal
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has to raise the case of Shaiboub William Arsal with the Egyptian authorities in advance of his appeal later this year. [113751]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. We are monitoring the appeal process, which we hope will be conducted in accordance with Egypt's international human rights obligations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Egypt is a party.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development(a) have been incorporated into the Department's existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements and (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113938]

  Mr. Rammell
  Commitments from the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) Plan of Implementation, such as action on illegal logging and sustainable tourism, have been incorporated into the delivery of the FCO's Public Service Agreement (PSA) for the period 2003–06. In particular FCO PSA target 7 seeks to "Make globalisation work for sustainable development in the UK and internationally (and particularly in Africa) by promoting democracy and the rule of law, good economic and environmental governance, and security of long term energy supply, measured by specific underlying targets." FCO programme funds, including the new Global Opportunities Fund, will be used to support work in pursuit of this target.
  955W
  Guidance on Public Service Agreements and delivery plans for the period covered by the 2004 Spending Review (2005–08) will issue later this year. Decisions on incorporating WSSD Plan of Implementation commitments into those will be taken in light of that guidance.

  UN Voluntary Trust Fund (Slavery)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the UK Government are giving to the United Nations Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery. [113702]

  Mr. Rammell
  Earlier this year, the Department for International Development gave £10,000 to the UN Voluntary Trust Fund on Contemporary Forms of Slavery which was allocated to project grants.

  Visas
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visas to enter the UK in each of the last five years were made(a) in total and (b) at (i) Accra, (ii) Banjul, (iii) Harare, (iv) Karachi, (v) Kiev, (vi) Lagos, (vii) Madrid, (viii) Manila, (ix) Peking, (x) Quang Zhou, (xi) Rome and (xii) Shanghai. [113715]

  Letter

  Country

  Post

  Total staff

  Total visa staff

  Locally engaged staff

  A

  Zimbabwe

  Harare

  60.9

  4.2

  3.1

  B

  Somalia

  Mogadishu

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  C

  Afghanistan

  Kabul

  23.0

  0.1

  0.0

  D

  Iran

  Tehran

  116.0

  26.2

  18.0

  E

  Turkey

  Ankara

  83.5

  2.7

  2.5

  E

  Turkey

  Istanbul

  113.3

  34.0

  23.3

  F

  Congo

  Kinshasa

  60.0

  2.0

  1.8

  G

  Sri Lanka

  Colombo

  107.8

  14.6

  10.0

  H

  Serbia/Montenegro

  Belgrade

  77.3

  6.0

  4.0

  H

  Serbia/Montenegro

  Pristina

  43.0

  1.0

  1.0

  I

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  387.6

  104.8

  64.6

  I

  Pakistan

  Karachi

  91.0

  28.0

  19.0

  I

  Pakistan

  Lahore

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  I

  Pakistan

  Sylhet

  3.0

  2.0

  2.0

  J

  India

  Chennai

  48.0

  22.9

  15.9

  J

  India

  Kolkata

  49.0

  6.0

  4.1

  J

  India

  Mumbai

  119.6

  42.2

  28.1

  J

  India

  New Delhi

  348.4

  61.2

  46.0

  K

  Albania

  Tirana

  34.0

  3.8

  2.5

  L

  Algeria

  Algiers

  66.7

  7.5

  6.4

  M

  Angola

  Luanda

  42.5

  1.3

  1.0

  N

  Bolivia

  LaPaz

  40.1

  0.4

  0.3

  O

  Brazil

  Brasilia

  132.4

  0.3

  0.2

  O

  Brazil

  Rio de Janeiro

  34.2

  2.8

  2.2

  O

  Brazil

  Sao Paulo

  42.8

  0.0

  0.0

  P

  Bulgaria

  Sofia

  78.1

  14.2

  10.5

  Q

  China

  Beijing

  215.7

  46.3

  31.6

  Q

  China

  Chongqing

  10.5

  0.0

  0.0

  Q

  China

  Guangzhou

  46.0

  20.3

  15.0

  Q

  China

  Hong Kong

  160.8

  7.2

  6.1

  Q

  China

  Shanghai

  49.2

  13.7

  9.7

  R

  Colombia

  Bogota

  99.6

  11.9

  8.2

  S

  Croatia

  Zagreb

  50.8

  10.7

  8.1

  T

  Egypt

  Alexandria

  13.6

  0.5

  0.5

  T

  Egypt

  Cairo

  161.0

  12.5

  10.0

  U

  Ghana

  Accra

  193.5

  48.6

  32.5

  956W
  Mr. Rammell
  All entry clearance issuing posts submit an annual statistical return. This information is collated in the Entry Clearance Annual Statistics booklet, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. This information is available for the years 1997 to 2002. We are currently collecting data for the year 2002–03 and this will be placed in the Library of the House when complete.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs(a) how many staff are employed, (b) how many staff are employed in the visa section and (c) how many staff in each visa section are non-British nationals in Her Majesty's embassies, high commissions and posts in (A) Zimbabwe, (B) Somalia, (C) Afghanistan, (D) Iran, (E) Turkey, (F) Congo, (G) Sri Lanka, (H) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, (I) Pakistan, (J) India, (K) Albania, (L) Algeria, (M) Angola, (N) Bolivia, (O) Brazil, (P) Bulgaria, (Q) China, (R) Colombia, (S) Croatia, (T) Egypt, (U) Ghana, (V) Nigeria, (W) Jamaica, (X) Kenya, (Y) Morocco, (Z) Romania, (AA) Sweden and (BB) Czech Republic. [115226]

  Mr. Rammell
  The information requested is set out in the following table, however, we hold no records centrally on local staff nationality and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We have therefore provided the total number of local staff in each visa section. The figures reflect staff year full time equivalents i.e. two officers working part time at 50 per cent. equals one full time officer.
  957W

  Letter

  Country

  Post

  Total staff

  Total visa staff

  Locally engaged staff

  V

  Nigeria

  Abuja

  113.5

  18.2

  12.0

  V

  Nigeria

  Lagos

  261.3

  71.9

  46.9

  W

  Jamaica

  Kingston

  73.5

  7.8

  5.6

  X

  Kenya

  Nairobi

  140.7

  13.2

  7.9

  Y

  Morocco

  Casablanca

  27.0

  7.5

  5.1

  Y

  Morocco

  Rabat

  32.3

  0.4

  0.3

  Y

  Morocco

  Tangier

  3.0

  0.9

  0.9

  Z

  Romania

  Bucharest

  84.2

  13.5

  9.8

  AA

  Sweden

  Stockholm

  59.5

  4.4

  4.4

  BB

  Czech rep

  Prague

  71.0

  2.5

  1.8

  4,068.5

  699.7

  482.6

  Western Sahara
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the UN Secretary General and James Baker to publish their proposals for the Western Sahara. [113527]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UN Secretary-General is due to report to the Security Council on the situation in Western Sahara in advance of the expiry of the current mandate of United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) on 31 May 2003.

  Zimbabwe
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning an award by Interpol to the Commissioner of Police for Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [114988]

  Mr. Rammell
  We were not involved in Interpol's decision to appoint the Zimbabwe Police Commissioner as Honorary Vice President, and we believe it was wrong. With our strong support, the EU Presidency will write to the Secretary General of Interpol, expressing the EU's concern and asking them to reconsider this appointment.

HEALTH

  Amputations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) NHS audits and (b) other statistical assessments which require records to be kept of amputations. [111768]

  Mr. Lammy
  Clinical audit is organised both locally and nationally. All clinicians are required to participate in clinical audit. Given this requirement it is expected that vascular and orthopaedic surgeons, those most likely to perform amputation procedures, participate in a range of local clinical audit activities. There is no central record of local clinical audits.

  The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) has the responsibility for developing a programme of national clinical audits. Currently there is no national clinical audit in the programme specifically targeted at amputation. The development of a national clinical audit for diabetes may provide data of associated amputations.
  958W
  The Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland maintains a clinical database of activity related to vascular surgery, and is actively considering a national clinical audit of amputation.

  Amputation data is collected through the Department's Hospital Episodes Statistics system. Current in-patient data from the HES system is shown in the table.

  Main operation (X07-X11) amputations; Finished consultant episodes; In year admissions; NHS hospitals England 1999–00 to 2001–02

  OPCS 4 operation code

  3 char Main operation description

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  X07

  Amputation of arm

  113

  111

  116

  X08

  Amputation of hand

  3,126

  3,074

  3,081

  X09

  Amputation of leg

  5,462

  5,505

  5,415

  X10

  Amputation of foot

  580

  568

  569

  X11

  Amputation of toe

  5,028

  4,980

  4,777

  Total

  14,309

  14,238

  13,958

  An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  The main operation is the first of four operation fields in the HES data set, and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode.

  Figures in this table have not yet been adjusted for shortfalls in data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Information is also available on the National Amputee Statistical Database (NASDAB), managed by representatives from UK NHS Prosthetic Centres, British Healthcare Trade Association, NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, and Information and Statistics Division Scotland. The database records, and publishes annually, the considerable detail about new referrals to UK prosthetic centres.

  Care Standards
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role the Commission for Health Inspection and Audit will play in assessing the quality of(a) health care and (b) clinical governance as it affects residents in care homes. [114745]

  Mr. Lammy
  Clause 99 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will, subject to Parliamentary approval, transfer the regulation of independent healthcare from the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI).
  959W
  All other NCSC functions, including the regulation and inspection of care homes will transfer to the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI).

  Under clause 116 of the Bill, CSCI will be able to ask CHAI for help with the discharge of its functions.

  Cheshire and Merseyside SHA
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements are in place for reviewing the performance of the Chief Executive of Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority; and when, and by whom, such reviews are carried out; [112308]

  (2) by what means hon. Members can contribute to a review of the performance of a Chief Executive of a health authority. [112798]

  Jacqui Smith
  The performance of chief executives of strategic health authorities (SHAs) is the responsibility of the relevant SHA board in partnership with senior officials at the Department of Health. Hon. Members can convey their views to the relevant SHA Chair.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people applied for the post of Chief Executive of the Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority; and how many were interviewed. [112310]

  Jacqui Smith
  At the time when the chief executive posts for the strategic health authorities (SHAs) were advertised, the boundaries had not been identified. Candidates were therefore required to express an interest in the following areas: Eastern; London; North West; Northern and Yorkshire; South East; and South West.

  As such no candidates expressed an interest in, or were interviewed for the Cheshire and Merseyside SHA.

  Children's National Service Framework
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether performance indicators will be included in the Children's National Service Framework to measure outcomes. [114764]

  Jacqui Smith
  It is intended that the national service framework (NSF) for children, young people and maternity services will contain advice on possible performance indicators to measure outcomes of NSF implementation. These indicators are to be developed by the NSF in conjunction with the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of regional variations in staff turnover in his Department. [112747]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department regularly monitors turnover for staff working in London and in other parts of the country. The most recent information, for January to October 2002, is shown in the table.

  Location

  Percentage by location

  London

  10

  Elsewhere

  13

  Overall total

  11

  Depression (Schoolchildren)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what health professionals are available in schools to deal with problems of depression among pupils. [114788]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's strategy for the development of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), initiated in 1999, has made significant progress in improving the overall quality and accessibility of local services for children and young people with mental health problems. Our current investment programme, £250 million over the coming three years, aims to secure comprehensive services in all areas by 2006 and will increase the capacity of 'core' specialist CAMHS to underpin the work of other key agencies, including education.

  The Department for Education and Skills "Behaviour Improvement Programme" funds multi-agency teams, which offer targeted support to pupils who have mental health problems such as depression. The teams known as behaviour and education support teams (BESTs), have a complementary mix of education and health professionals, which may include clinical psychologists, educational psychologists, social workers and mental health workers. There are approximately 80 BESTs working in 33 local education authorities (LEAs) supporting over 70 secondary and 300 primary schools. BESTs are being implemented in a further 27 LEAs during 2003.

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the clinical effectiveness of ibogaine in treating drug addiction; and what funds are available for further trials. [112364]

  Ms Blears
  No specific assessment has been made on the clinical effectiveness of this drug. It is not licensed for use in the treatment of drug dependence. Licensing of medicines in the United Kingdom is determined by science. The same standard of safety and efficacy would be required for ibogaine as for any other medicine.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths amongst old people in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire were attributed to cold in each year since 1997. [114758]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 22 May 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many deaths amongst old people in (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire were attributed to cold in each year since 1997. (114758)
  Cold is not recorded as a cause of death in itself, however hypothermia1 (subnormal body temperature) may be mentioned on the death certificate. For the period 1997 to 2001 (the latest year for which data are currently available) the total number of deaths of usual

  961W
  residents of (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire, aged over 65 where hypothermia was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate was less than five in both cases.
  1Defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code N991.6 for the years 1997 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (1CD-10) code T68).

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of health services for an elderly person in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997. [114762]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not held centrally.

  Independent Complaints Advocacy Service
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Independent Patient Advocacy Services will be in place by the time community health councils are abolished; and if he will make a statement. [114166]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has put the contracts to provide the Independent Complaints Advocacy Service out to tender. Only organisations that can provide the service from 1 September 2003 will be considered for the contracts.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 19 March 2003,Official Report, column 850W, on patient advocacy, which organisations will be invited to tender for interim contracts to become specialist complaints support providers. [114167]

  Mr. Lammy
  Tendering exercises of this kind follow Department of Health procurement guidelines, which protect the commercial confidentiality of tenderers while the invitation-to-tender process is underway.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis individuals will be assessed to be suitable candidates to be specialist patient support providers under the Independent Complaints Advocacy Service. [114168]

  Mr. Lammy
  Those tendering to provide the interim Independent Complaints Advocacy Service (ICAS) will have to demonstrate that they can provide the service to the ICAS Standards set by the Department of Health. When primary care trust patients' forums commission or provide the service, they will abide by standards set by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health.

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts his Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113685]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not centrally hold a record of individual contracts. However, our financial records show the following payments made by the Department, excluding its Agencies, to KPMG by fiscal year since April 1997.

  £000

  Value

  1997–98

  333.7

  1998–99

  166.9

  1999–2000

  222.8

  2000–01

  33.0

  2001–02

  1,715.2

  2002–03

  3,255.2

  Liver Disease
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on research within the NHS into developing the technique of transplanting hepatocytes into those suffering a variety of liver diseases. [114312]

  Mr. Lammy
  Research on the transplantation of hepatocytes into those suffering from liver disease has been undertaken by Dr. Anil Dhawan of the Supra Regional Paediatric Service at King's College Hospital National Health Service Trust. The primary aim of the project is to develop the use of isolated hepatocytes for clinical cell transplantation in paediatric patients with liver-associated metabolic defects or acute liver failure, as an alternative to whole liver transplantation. The research involves the establishment of a new facility and a case control study. It has been funded by the Children's Liver Disease Foundation and the National Lotteries Charities Board.

  Medicine Usage
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will launch an inquiry into how GPs and pharmacists may be better able to advise and counsel patients on how to use medicines more appropriately. [112454]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]: General practitioners and pharmacists are highly skilled health professionals with access to a range of sources of advice about the use of medicines. They are therefore well placed to advise and counsel patients.

  Considerable progress is already being made on providing patients with more advice and counselling about their medicines. "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan", launched in September 2000, sets out a programme of reform through which pharmacists will play a full part in delivering better services to patients. The aim is for all primary care trusts to have schemes in place so that people get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines by 2004. Working closely with GPs and giving patients more information about the effective use of medicines is central to this progress.

  Mental Health
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many primary care trusts have within their area talking treatments available for those with mental health problems on prescription from general practitioners. [115909]

  Jacqui Smith
  Although patterns and levels of provision vary as a result of staffing levels and local decisions on how to meet population needs within available resources, talking treatments are available to every primary care trust.

  Psychological therapies, counselling and psychotherapy are listed in the mental health national service framework among the range of effective treatments for people with mental health problems, including those with severe and enduring mental illness.
  963W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assistance has been given to primary care trusts in the last year to support mental health services in treating drug users with mental health problems. [114231]

  Ms Blears
  Funding for those who suffer from dual diagnosis, that is drug users with mental health problems, is available from two main sources. These include the National Service Framework for Mental Health (1999) which was supported by additional investment of over £300 million by 2004 as announced in the NHS Plan and the pooled drug treatment budget which was increased to £243.6 million this financial year.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the percentage of service personnel returning from Iraq likely to need access to mental health services; and to what extent he has drawn on the experiences of the first Gulf conflict in making that assessment; [114736]

  (2) what provision has been made to meet the mental health needs of young soldiers returning from Iraq, with particular reference to those who have undergone combat experiences. [114735]

  Jacqui Smith
  Armed forces personnel returning from the Gulf who need mental health care would normally receive treatment from the Defence Medical Services. Treatment may also be provided by the National Health Service, if necessary. It is still too early to know whether any major mental health concerns will emerge among those who took part in Operation Telic.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the address of each mental health NHS Trust in England. [114905]

  Jacqui Smith
  The address of each National Health Service mental health trust in England has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will introduce provision within plans for the transition into new arrangements for NHS Dentistry contained within the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill to ensure that(a) patients and (b) dentists are kept informed of changes and to ensure that the livelihoods of dentists already providing NHS dentistry are safeguarded; and if he will make a statement; [113274]

  (2) what proposals he has included within the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill to attract (a) dentists, (b) dental nurses, (c) dental hygienists and (d) dental therapists into NHS dentistry; and if he will make a statement; [113273]

  (3) what provisions there are in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill which will increase the proportion of the NHS budget allocated to NHS dentistry. [113272]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is the intention of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill to better match the provision of primary dental 964W
  services with local oral health needs through local commissioning of the service. This would enable local flexibility to be built into the system.

  It is also the intention of the Bill that providing oral health services to national health service patients becomes a more attractive option to general dental practitioners by making it possible to pay them differently. The current item-of-service remuneration system is widely recognised as the main reason for dentists' disaffection with NHS work as they are paid only for treatments rather than oral health care. Under this proposed approach, the whole dental team would be better able to advise patients on improving their oral health allowing further improvement of the quality and patient focus of their care. In addition, NHS dentists and other members of the dental team will increasingly become part of the NHS family, participating in local dental public health programmes and benefiting from primary care trust (PCT) support networks and in due course, to NHS occupational health services. By contracting with a PCT, dental practices will receive a more secure and predictable income in return for a longer term commitment to the NHS.

  All stakeholders are being kept abreast of the proposed changes. The patients forum has met officials and is broadly supportive. A working group, led by the Department's Director for Patient Experience and Public Involvement and including patient representatives, will undertake a review of the charging regime. To improve patient experience of NHS dentistry, each PCT will be required to publish information about the primary dental services in its area.

  A series of events for dentists was held by the NHS Modernisation Agency earlier this year. The events were designed to explain the proposals in "NHS dentistry—Options for Change" and to encourage their involvement. Workshops for PCTs are being run by the national primary and care trust development programme and the Department of Health. In addition, learning events are being provided for local dental committee representatives by the British Dental Association, together with the NHS Modernisation Agency.

  The legislation before Parliament proposes transitional arrangements under which a dentist already providing general dental services must be offered a new GDS contract, the terms of which would include remuneration.

  Subject to Parliament, funding will be allocated to PCTs, which will then hold a predictable financial resource to secure primary dental services. Funding for primary care dentistry, hitherto held centrally and administered by the Dental Practice Board, will then be part of PCT general allocation, which has in recent years seen a higher rate of growth than that in the general dental service. Over time, PCTs will be better able to target these resources and to increase their spend on dentistry in the light of local circumstances.

  Funding is being made available for a support team for NHS dentistry to support local health economies during this period of substantial change to develop their

  965W
  capacity for local commissioning of primary care dentistry and to assist them in addressing immediate or potential access issues.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to encourage dentists to continue to offer dental treatment on the NHS; [113742]

  (2) what action he is taking to protect patients who are having dental treatment on the NHS withdrawn by their dental practice; [113741]

  (3) if he will make a statement on dental practices which are withdrawing NHS treatment for existing patients while offering to continue treatment through private dental plans. [113740]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) today.

  General dental practitioners are independent contractors and, as such, are free to choose whether they wish to provide national health service or private dentistry or a combination of the two. However, very few practices are exclusively private, with only about 5 per cent. offering no NHS treatment. Under their NHS terms of service, dentists who stop offering NHS services are required to complete any outstanding treatment on the NHS or notify the appropriate primary care trust if this is not possible.

  A number of initiatives have been introduced in recent years to encourage dentists to continue to offer dental treatment on the NHS:
  The commitment payments scheme was introduced in 2000 to encourage dentists' commitment to the NHS. Dentists who have offered NHS treatment to patients for five years or more and who have a certain level of NHS commitment receive extra payments. Dentists in England earned an extra £23 million under the scheme in 2002–03.
  £10 million was made available between 1997–99 under the Investing in Dentistry scheme to allow dentists to increase their NHS commitment or start new practices in areas of poor access.
  A Dental Care Development Fund of £4 million was made available in 2000–01 along with £6 million Dental Action Plan money in 2001–02 to allow practices to grow and treat more patients.
  A Modernisation Fund of £35 million was made available in 2001–02 for practices to expand or improve their premises.

  Where dentists withdraw from providing NHS dentistry, PCTs can apply to the Secretary of State for agreement to fund salaried general dental practitioners under Section 56 of the 1977 NHS Act. Any such applications recently received have been given a positive response.

  In addition, a number of dental access centres (DAC) have been set up primarily in areas where access to NHS dentistry is difficult. Patients do not have to be registered to receive treatment in a DAC.

  A range of dental treatments is available under the NHS to unregistered patients through the occasional treatment arrangements. This ensures that those patients who require urgent treatment can receive it without registering with a dentist.
  966W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 12th May, Official Report, column 107W, on NHS dentists, what the gross increase in the number of dentists treating NHS patients was. [114632]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: 4,922 dentists joined the general dental service (CDS) between September 1997 and September 2002. Due to dentists leaving the CDS on retirement and for other reasons in the same period, the overall increase of dentists was 1,672.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire accept new patients for treatment on the NHS that are (i) elderly, (ii) children, (iii) unemployed and (iv) disabled. [114760]

  Mr. Lammy
  Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority has provided the following information.

  In Shrewsbury and Atcham, one practice is currently accepting children up to age 18. One practice is currently accepting adults eligible for free National Health Service dental care. This includes patients who are pregnant, or claiming benefits.

  In Shropshire, there are thirteen practices currently accepting children. Seven practices are currently accepting adults eligible for free NHS dental care. This includes patients who are pregnant, or are claiming benefits.

  In addition, there are dental access centres (DACs) in Shrewsbury, Oswestry, Whitchurch, Market Drayton, Bridgnorth, Ludlow, Craven Arms and Telford. Patients do not need to be registered to receive treatment in a DAC.

  No separate figures for elderly patients, unemployed patients, or patients with disabilities are available.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS dentistry, with particular reference to(a) Portsmouth and (b) the rest of Hampshire. [114863]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Burnley (Peter Pike) today, at columns 964–66W.

  I recognise that the access to routine national health service dental in Southern Hampshire and the Isle of Wight remains difficult. Access is particularly difficult in Fareham and Gosport, East Hampshire and Southampton City primary care trusts.

  Five dental practices in Portsmouth City PCT are currently accepting new NHS patients for registration, although all have waiting lists.

  Arrangements are in place across Hampshire to ensure that patients with an urgent need for treatment can be seen within 24 hours. The PCT helpline staff can make an appointment the same day, or within 24 hours, for such patients in either a dental access centre, or with one of a number of general dental practitioners who have contracted with the PCT to provide a number of urgent appointments.
  967W
  Three out-of-hours emergency dental service facilities operate in Hampshire.

  It is anticipated that with the local commissioning of primary dental services proposed in the Bill currently before Parliament, PCTs would be better placed to address local access issues as they arise.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide additional resources to primary care trusts for commissioning dental care under the proposals set out in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. [114522]

  Mr. Lammy
  Subject to Parliament, funding will be allocated to primary care trusts as part of each PCT's general allocation.

  The exact allocations are yet to be determined.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have been recruited from(a) within the EU and (b) other countries to work in NHS dentistry since 2000. [113548]

  Mr. Lammy
  Information on the number of dentists who joined the general dental service, by country of qualification, in the years 2000–02 in England and Wales, is shown in the table.

  Year ending 31 December

  2000

  2001

  EU (not including UK)

  230

  197

  UK

  670

  693

  Other Countries

  198

  172

  Note:

  Excludes dentists whose status is currently shown as Statutory Exam or Awaiting Entry

  NHS Trusts (North-West)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 66W, what informal meetings have taken place to discuss the financial problems of North Cheshire Hospital NHS Trusts. [113084]

  Jacqui Smith
  In accordance with the Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) role in monitoring and supporting national health service trusts to meet their financial responsibilities, officers of the Cheshire and Merseyside SHA hold meetings and have discussions with all hospital trusts, primary care trusts and health communities within their boundary, either individually or in groups, on a regular and on-going basis.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when and by whom an approach was made by the Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority to the chair of the Five Boroughs Mental Health trust, for assistance with the financial problems of North Cheshire hospitals NHS trust; and what the nature was of the assistance requested. [113085]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority (CMSHA) has not approached the chair of the Five Boroughs Partnership national health service trust concerning the financial status of the North Cheshire Hospitals NHS trust. However, the CMSHA has agreed a six months secondment of an experienced 968W
  director of finance from a Merseyside NHS trust to cover a vacancy at the north Cheshire hospitals NHS trust.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 663W, if he will make a statement on the recovery plan agreed in June 2002 for north Cheshire hospitals NHS Trust; how much money was to be transferred from other trusts in north Cheshire; and which services would be affected as a result. [113086]

  Jacqui Smith
  Recovery plans were developed by the north Cheshire health community, including the north Cheshire hospitals national health service trust. Those plans were reviewed by the Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority (CMSHA) and after they were seen to be failing, a revision was requested in October 2002, which is now subject to a review by the Audit Commission. No money was to be transferred from other NHS trusts in north Cheshire. However, the CMSHA has facilitated brokerage from other organisations elsewhere in Cheshire and Merseyside to ensure that there is no impact on services in north Cheshire and to facilitate local developments.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 663W, if he will place a copy of the Audit Commission's review of the recovery plan for the North Cheshire Health Community in the Library. [113087]

  Jacqui Smith
  The current review by the Audit Commission will take the form of a facilitative approach to confirm the trust's financial position and further develop cross-organisational co-operation to improve financial and operational performance. It is expected to report back via presentational feedback, rather than as a formal report. However, when the review is completed, the chief executive of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority will write to the hon. Member for Warrington, North, the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) and the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) with its findings.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time taken by the Chief Executive of Cheshire and Merseyside SHA to respond to a request from an hon. Member that she telephone them since her appointment. [113089]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Chief Executive of the Cheshire and Merseyside strategic health authority treats any contact from an hon. Member very seriously. It is her policy to return calls on the same day where possible or at the earliest possible opportunity.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual running costs are of the headquarters of the Cheshire and Merseyside SHA; and how many staff are employed there. [113090]

  Jacqui Smith
  Each strategic health authority was allocated a budget of £4 million in 2002–03 to cover their running costs.

  Organ Removals
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the removal of the brains from deceased patients without the consent of the next of kin ceased in the UK. [113970]

  Mr. Lammy
  In the past, the Human Tissue Act 1961 has been subject to different interpretations, as it lacks clarity in a number of important respects, not least in the area of consent.

  The Department has issued guidance to ensure that consent is sought before the removal of any organs from deceased patients, except where this is covered by the law relating to coroners' post mortems.

  This guidance was first issued in March 2000 and new guidance was issued as recently as April 2003, in anticipation of changes to clarify the law.

  Patient Forums
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will issue guidance on setting up patients forums. [114692]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) is responsible for all operational matters relating to forums, including organising the recruitment to them and ensuring that they are properly supported.

  Therefore, any advice that is issued about the setting up of forums is a matter for the CPPIH.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects patients forums to be in place. [114693]

  Mr. Lammy
  The intention is that all patients forums will be in place by the end of the year.

  Pharmacies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community pharmacies in(a) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, (b) Teesside, (c) the North East region and (d) England were (i) closed and (ii) opened in each year since 1997. [114313]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows information on the number of pharmacies opening and closing in each year since 1997 in Tees Health Authority. For the North East region and England, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), on 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 266–67W. Such information for Middlesborough South and East Cleveland is not held centrally.

  Tees Health Authority

  Year1

  Number of NHS pharmacies opening

  Number of NHS pharmacies closing

  1997

  2

  0

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  1

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  2001

  0

  1

  2002

  0

  0

  1 Ending 31 March.

  970W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to publish an interim report at the end of June on the position of his Department in relation to the OFT report on pharmacy services. [115295]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government intends to publish a progress report at the end of June and to come forward with proposals in response to the Office of Fair Trading's study on retail pharmacies before the summer recess.

  Primary Care (Greater Manchester)
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the distance from target for each primary care trust in Greater Manchester for each of the three years of the current spending settlement. [113017]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]: The information requested is shown in the table. It shows distance from target for each primary care trust (PCT) in Greater Manchester, as determined by the weighted capitation formula for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Distance from target (percentage)1

  Primary care trust

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Ashton, Leigh and Wigan

  -3.38

  -3.19

  -3.12

  Bolton

  -5.12

  -4.83

  -4.71

  Bury

  -1.99

  -1.87

  -1.82

  Central Manchester

  1.03

  0.79

  0.59

  Heywood and Middleton

  -5.21

  -4.92

  -4.79

  North Manchester

  0.12

  0.09

  0.07

  Oldham

  -7.73

  -7.30

  -6.00

  Rochdale

  -4.18

  -3.94

  -3.84

  Salford

  -1.08

  -1.02

  -0.99

  South Manchester

  -3.55

  -3.35

  -3.26

  Stockport

  2.19

  1.74

  1.29

  Tameside and Glossop

  -2.75

  -2.60

  -2.53

  Trafford North

  1.87

  1.44

  1.07

  Trafford South

  12.82

  12.32

  11.75

  1 A negative distance from target shows that the PCT is under target. A positive distance from target shows that the PCT is over target.

  Prison Health Services
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what health services are available in prisons; how much has been allocated to the prison health service since 1997; and what action is taken when a prisoner faces serious health difficulties. [115156]

  Jacqui Smith
  From 1 April 2003, the Department of Health assumed budgetary responsibility for prison health care in England, other than at contractually managed establishments. There has not, historically, been a separate budget for health care within overall prison service expenditure but the total Home Office baseline costs for 2002–03 were identified as £117.7 million. This baseline was transferred to the Department of Health, which will, over the next three years, make further resources, rising to around an extra £46 million a year by 2005–06, available to improve prison health services.

  Prisons which receive prisoners directly from court undertake a full health assessment on a prisoner's first reception into prison custody. There is, at the minimum, a primary health care service at every establishment.

  971W
  Most will also have some of a range of other services, such as in-patient facilities in a health care centre and dental, optical, mental health, substance misuse, genitourinary and communicable disease services. Prisoners with physical or mental health problems which cannot be satisfactorily treated within the prison setting are admitted to hospital.

  Statins
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much on average primary care trusts charged their prescription of statins during 2002; and at what cost. [114588]

  Mr. Lammy
  The average cost of prescribing statins by primary care trust for 2002 was £181,492, representing an increase of 31 per cent over the equivalent figure for 2001.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people on NHS waiting lists died before receiving treatment in the past 12 months. [111020]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is collected on the number of people removed from NHS lists. This covers a number of categories, including those who have died. These categories are not separately identifiable.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area were waiting for in-patient treatment in each of the last two months for which figures are available. [112378]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]: There were 9,174 patients waiting for in-patient treatment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust at the end of February 2003 and 8,577 at the end of March 2003.

  Source:

  QM08 Quarterly Return

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area were waiting over 13 weeks for an outpatient appointment for the latest available quarter. [112379]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]: There were 450 patients waiting 13 weeks or more for an outpatient appointment at Mid Essex Hospital Services National Health Services Trust at Quarter 4 as at 31 March 2003.

  Source:

  QM08 Quarterly Return

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 9 April 2003.Official Report, column 334W, on waiting times, whether any of the figures for waits in the table were in excess of national targets. [111725]

  Mr. Hutton
  Waiting time statistics from hospital episode statistics (HES) are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. It is therefore not possible to identify any 'breaches' of the waiting time targets using the data from the answer given on Wednesday 9 April 2003,Official Report, column 334W. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period, whereas the
  972W
  published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision-to-admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Central America
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development if he will publish the outcome of the study commissioned on violence in the Central American region; and what action is proposed based on the study's findings. [114712]

  Hilary Benn
  The DFID funded Study on Violence in the Central America Region (by Caroline Moser and Alisa Winton) has been published by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) as Working Paper 171. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library. We are in discussion with the Government of Nicaragua about how we may support their efforts to reduce the cycle of violence and social exclusion.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the killing of two UN observers in the northern Democratic Republic of Congo. [115417]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government condemn the killing last week of two unarmed military observers from Malawi and Jordan in the Ituri District of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Their bodies were recovered on 18 May 2003. We express our condolences both to their families and the Malawian Government and the King of Jordan.

  We are very concerned about the situation in the Ituri region and are monitoring developments closely. The UN has asked the UK and others to participate in an emergency multinational peacekeeping force to stabilise the security situation. We are considering this request urgently. We have asked for more details of the proposed deployment to enable us to look at possible options for providing assistance.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo with particular reference to Ituri. [115451]

  Hilary Benn
  Recent data from the NGO International Rescue Committee and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) continues to provide evidence of a very serious humanitarian situation in DRC. Ituri is particularly badly affected. Militia commanders have agreed to allow overland access but want food for troops, which is not acceptable to the UN. The UN is planning a joint assessment. Access and the operating environment are the main constraints rather than funding at this stage.
  973W
  In March 2003 we provided funding of £1 million through UN OCHA for emergency humanitarian interventions in DRC including in Ituri. We remain willing to support agencies able to address urgent humanitarian needs in Ituri.

  Our total funding support to DRC has increased considerably in recent years. In 2000–01 our total funding was £3.09 million; in 2001–02 our total funding came to £5.56 million; in 2002–03 our total funding was £12.9 million. The allocation for 2003–04 is £16 million of which £4.26 million has already been committed.

  We continue to play our part alongside our international partners in seeking to change the situation through our support to the peace process in the DRC. It is only through this that the prospects of a real improvement in the situation in the long term can be achieved.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent discussions his Department has had with(a) officials in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and (b) the UN concerning the humanitarian situation in the DRC with particular reference to Ituri. [115452]

  Hilary Benn
  We are liaison closely with the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) on the situation in Ituri. UN OCHA is Concerned to ensure that the immediate needs of civilians at the airport and at the MONUC camp are met. Militia commanders have agreed to allow overland access but want food for troops, which is not acceptable to the UN. The UN is planning a joint assessment. Access and the operating environment are the main constraints rather than funding at this stage.

  We continuously monitor the humanitarian situation in the DRC. We have increased our total funding to DRC in recent years. In 2001–2002 our total funding was £5.56 million, of which £5.18 million was humanitarian assistance. In 2002–03 our total funding was £12.9 million, of which £10.89 million was humanitarian assistance. In March 2003 we provided funding of £1 million UN OCHA for humanitarian emergency interventions in DRC including in Ituri. The Head of UN OCHA has recently visited and assessed the situation in the area and will be funding those humanitarian agencies that are currently active and effective. The UN OCHA Deputy Head for New York will also be visiting Ituri at the end of this week. DFID will shortly be sending its Humanitarian Adviser to visit the region to assess the situation and look at how DFID can effectively assist further alongside other international donors.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the possibility of deploying a rapid reaction force to the area of Ituri, Democratic Repubic of the Congo, and the possibility of humanitarian aid entering that area. [115453]

  Hilary Benn
  We are very concerned about the situation in the Ituri region of the Democratic Republic of Congo and are monitoring developments closely. The UN has asked the UK and others to participate in an emergency multinational peacekeeping force to stabilise the security situation and we are considering this request 974W
  urgently. We have asked for more details of the proposed deployment to enable us to look at possible options for providing assistance.

  The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) continues to confirm a very serious humanitarian situation in Ituri. Militia commanders have agreed to allow overland access but want food for troops which is not acceptable to the UN. The UN is planning ah urgent joint assessment. Access and the operating environment are the main constraints rather than funding at this stage.

  Departmental Annual Report
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what the estimated cost was of the reprinting of the Department's 2003 Annual Report following the resignation of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) as Secretary of State. [114700]

  Hilary Benn
  The printer's estimate for the reprint of the DFID 2003 Departmental Report is £29,340.

  The total estimated cost of printing the 2003 Departmental Report, including the reprint cost, is £76,480. This compares with £61,236 for the 2002 Departmental Report, and £81,577 for the 2001 Departmental Report.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development how much it cost to pulp the original edition of the 2003 Departmental Report; and for what reason the decision was taken. [115671]

  Hilary Benn
  The printers estimate for reprinting the DFID 2003 Departmental Report is £29,340. Copies of the original edition were recycled at a cost of £40.

  The relevant Secretary of State presents Departmental Reports formally to Parliament, and if that person changes after printing but before presentation, we have to change the Departmental Report to reflect the fact.

  DFID's Secretary of State changed the day before publication. The Departmental Report produced for the former Secretary of State had already been printed ready for the presentation to Parliament. The report was therefore amended and reprinted to reflect the change in Secretary of State.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many departmental staff are employed in Iraq; and what their role in Iraq is. [115450]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID currently has four advisers in the Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) in Baghdad. A number of additional short-term advisers will be seconded to ORHA over the coming days. DFID advisers are working on humanitarian assistance and liaison between ORHA and Iraqi administrators, UN agencies, the International Committee of the Red Cross, relevant NGOs and the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq.
  975W
  DFID has two advisers seconded to the UK military in Basra. A third is expected to arrive soon. A further two staff based in Basra are liasing with the humanitarian agencies as well as with the UK military based there.

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development how many contracts the Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113687]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has awarded 67 contracts to KPMG since 1 January 1997. This does not include any lower value contracts issued by our overseas offices, details of which are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Kuwait
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent discussion he has had with the Ministry of Health in Kuwait concerning the treatment of Ali Ismaael Abbas and other Iraqi children in the Ibn Sina Hospital in Kuwait. [115449]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not had any discussions with the Ministry of Health in Kuwait concerning the treatment of Iraqi children in hospitals in Kuwait.

  DFID's priority is to work with our partners to help improve health care for all Iraqis who need it. The UN, Red Cross/ Red Crescent, Save the Children Fund, Merlin and International Medical Corps have all received DFID funding for this work.

  We agree with the International Committee of the Red Cross the priority is to ensure that the Iraqi medical service is able to treat Iraqis, rather than have the war-wounded flown out of Iraq. If in exceptionally grave situations, children are taken abroad for treatment, they should be cared for in neighbouring countries where possible.

  Middle East
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will place in the Library a copy of the memorandum sent during the week commencing Monday 12 May to the Quartet envoys by international development agencies operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories concerning the impact of restrictions on their freedom of movement and ability to operate imposed by the Israeli Government since 1 April 2003; if he will list the restrictions involved; and what his assessment is of their impact. [114902]

  Hilary Benn
  I have placed in the libraries of both Houses copies of the 12 May note by the Association of International Development Agencies (Palestinian Territories) and the United Nations press release of 18 May on this subject.

  These documents list the restrictions involved. In particular they highlight the difficulties for people without diplomatic passports in entering the Gaza Strip. These restrictions are seriously impeding the ability of
  976W
  humanitarian agencies to carry out their work, in the context of an already deteriorating humanitarian situation.

  This is unacceptable. The British Government continues to make representations to the Government of Israel, bilaterally, through the EU, and with our other partners in the international community.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what proportion of the Department's funding in sub-Saharan Africa is allocated to(a) primary health care and (b) reproductive health care. [114896]

  Hilary Benn
  Provisional figures for 2002–03 show that of £747 million DFID bilateral spend in Africa, approximately £113 million was directly in support of the health sector, some 15 per cent. of the total. This figure will represent an underestimate as some development assistance instruments, for example direct budget support to national Governments, support a range of national programmes, including health, without us necessarily being able to identify the specific level of support to each of the sectors.

  Similarly, in an increasing number of African countries, DFID is providing general health sector budget support to the overall national health plan. In many situations, we believe this to be a better approach than financing specific ring-fenced initiatives within the health sector. For this reason, it is no longer possible, or indeed appropriate, to specify the proportion of DFID funding in Africa allocated to primary health care and reproductive health services. We would, however, expect both primary health care and reproductive health services to be priority components of the national health plans to which we provide sector budget support. However, we do continue to support specific primary health care and reproductive health services investments in a number of African countries where budget support is not appropriate.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of State for International Development what progress has been made on the eradication of third world debt during the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [114851]

  Hilary Benn
  To date, 26 countries out of a total of 37 eligible countries have qualified for relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, and will receive over US$62 billion in debt relief. Of these, eight countries (Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda) have reached Completion Point and have received an irrevocable reduction in their stock of debt. The other 18 (Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Zambia) have reached Decision Point and are receiving interim relief on their debt servicing payments. During this stage of the process, these countries are no longer required to make any further payments on the debt to be written off. We expect most of these 18 countries to reach
  977W
  Completion Point within the next two years when they, too, will receive full debt relief. It is difficult to predict when the remaining 11 countries will qualify for HIPC relief, as many are still affected by conflict and governance problems. We expect the Democratic Republic of Congo to reach its Decision Point in the coming months, and the Central African Republic, Comoros and Cote d'Ivoire to do so later this year but, in some cases, this will depend on progress towards peace. The other countries (Burundi, Congo Republic, Liberia, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Togo) are a long way from qualifying, as they are affected by conflict or have serious governance concerns.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the outturn expenditure of the Audit Commission was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; what the estimated expenditure is in the forthcoming financial year; and if he will make a statement. [111077]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on expenditure by the Audit Commission at constant 2002–03 prices is tabled as followed:

  £ million

  Year

  Expenditure

  1 April 1996–31 March 1997

  111.1

  1 April 1997–31 October 1997

  71

  1 November 1997–31 October 1998

  120.1

  1 November 2002–31 October 2003

  217 (estimated)

  Note:

  The Audit Commission's financial year, which is earlier years ran from 1 April to 31 March, was amended to run from 1 November to 31 October with effect from 1 November 1997. Information on the transitional seven-month period 1 April 1997–31 is therefore shown separately.

  The Commission has taken on a significant number of new responsibilities since 1997, notably those derived from the Local Government Act 1999 on local authority performance. These included the setting up of the best value inspection service and the development of the comprehensive performance assessment process.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) staff (full-time equivalent) and (b) press and public affairs staff were employed by the Audit Commission in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98; how many are employed now; and if he will make a statement. [111078]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested on staff directly employed by the Audit Commission is tabled as follows:

  Year

  Total staff directly employed

  Press and public affairs staff directly employed

  1996–97

  1,277

  1

  1997–98

  1,349

  1

  2002–03

  2,400

  8

  Note:

  During 1996–97 and 1997–98, the majority of press office and public affairs work was contracted out to an external consultant. The press office is now located in-house, although some advice on public affairs is obtained from an external consultant.
  978W
  The Commission has taken on a significant number of new responsibilities since 1997, notably those derived from the Local Government Act 1999 on local authority performance. These included the setting up of the best value inspection service and the development of the comprehensive performance assessment process.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was raised in council tax in East Sussex in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and how much is expected to be raised in 2003–04. [115473]

  Mr. Leslie
  Tabled is the figures for budgeted gross council tax income in East Sussex for each financial year. Gross council tax income includes council tax collectable by local authorities and council tax funded through Council Tax Benefit.

  £ million

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Eastbourne

  3.8

  4.0

  4.3

  6.1

  Hastings

  4.0

  4.2

  4.6

  5.2

  Lewes

  5.4

  5.6

  6.3

  6.9

  Rother

  3.8

  4.1

  5.0

  5.5

  Wealden

  9.2

  9.8

  10.7

  11.3

  East Sussex county council

  128.5

  142.5

  150.9

  181.7

  Sussex Police Authority1

  10.6

  11.4

  13.6

  19.1

  Total

  165.3

  181.6

  195.4

  235.8

  1 Amounts payable by council tax payers in the East Sussex area only.

  The above figures are the amounts expected to be collected in respect of each financial year. They are not the amounts actually collected within the financial year. Some of the council tax due for a particular year is not collected within that year. This means that the amount actually collected in any particular year is made up of income in respect of that year plus amounts collected from earlier and/or later years

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. David Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what conditions building regulations impose on the builders of new homes for owner occupation in respect of energy efficiency; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the conditions on energy efficiency. [113782]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Building Regulations require that all new dwellings, regardless of intended occupancy, must comply with the energy efficiency requirements in Part LI. The person carrying out the work must also provide an Energy Rating calculated using the Government's Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP).

  In the Regulatory Impact Assessment supporting the amendments to Part L of the Building Regulations that came into effect last year, it was estimated that the changes would improve the energy performance of new dwellings by around 25 per cent. and contribute an overall carbon saving of around 0.3 Mtonnes per year in 2010.

  Faith Advisers
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities employ faith advisers; and if he will list them. [114363]

  Mr. Leslie
  This information is not currently available. However the Inter Faith Network of the UK has been commissioned by the Home Office, and is
  979W
  working with the Local Government Association, to conduct a survey of inter-faith activity in all local authority areas in England and Wales. This includes relevant work by local authorities themselves. The results will be available in a report to be published before the autumn by the Inter Faith Network.

  Fire Service College
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who the chief executive officer of the Fire Service College is. [112705]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The chief executive of the Fire Service College is Robin Currie OBE QFSM FIFire E.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures he will bring forward to ensure that Council Directive 96/82/EC relating to hazardous substances and land use policies will be complied with under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. [114350]

  Mr. McNulty
  The land use planning requirements of Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances are implemented through the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 and associated Regulations, the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 1992 and the Planning (Control of Major-Accident Hazards) Regulations 1999. These will all remain in force after the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill receives the Royal Assent. Additional measures will not be necessary.

  Home Owners
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of the adult population were home owners in(a) 1973, (b) 1983, (c) 1993 and (d) 2000. [115111]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is tabled below. Where the year shown is not that specified, the year given is the closest for which figures are available.

  Percentage of households in England that were owner occupiers

  1977

  54

  1984

  61

  1993

  68

  2000

  70

  Source:

  The figure shown for 1977 comes from the National Dwelling and Housing Survey carried out in 1977–78; the figure shown for 1984 comes from the Housing Trailer t the 1984 Labour Force Survey. The figures for 1993 and 2000 come from the Survey of English Housing.

  Housing
  Mr. Andrew Lansley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether, pursuant to his Answer of 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 492W, on housing, he will respond to the Cambridgeshire county council's proposed modifications to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan; and whether he will object to the inclusion of any further consideration of development of land west of Trumpington Road in Cambridge on grounds of (a) the contribution which
  980W
  that land makes to the Cambridgeshire Green Belt and (b) the effect upon the environment of the Grantchester Meadows. [115309]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government Office for the East of England is currently considering the proposed modifications to the structure plan. It would not be appropriate for me to inform the House of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's intended response to that consultation in advance of representations being submitted to the strategic planning authorities.

  Housing Associations
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what role housing associations have in(a) the provision of voluntary and community services and (b) the development and delivery of policies to tackle social exclusion. [114351]

  Mr. McNulty
  Many housing associations deliver and manage housing in some of the most deprived areas of the country. They often provide or organise additional services for the community, such as neighbourhood wardens or community and youth facilities. They work closely with local authorities and other partners to tackle social exclusion in deprived areas and to deliver thriving communities. In addition the Housing Corporation's Community and Training Enabling programme empowers housing association tenants to take an active part in community initiatives.

  Housing Benefit
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average weekly housing benefit payment to(a) a council tenant and (b) a housing association is in each region of England. [115266]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply. The information, is in the table.

  Average weekly amount of Housing Benefit paid to local authority tenants and registered social landlord tenants in November 2002 by English Government Office Region.

  Government Office Region

  Local authority tenants

  Registered social landlord tenants

  North East

  39.10

  52.50

  North West

  45.10

  57.80

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  39.30

  65.60

  East Midlands

  41 .60

  60.20

  West Midlands

  44.10

  54.60

  East

  47.40

  63.20

  London

  67.20

  90.10

  South East

  51.50

  67.80

  South West

  45.40

  60.40

  England

  48.60

  66.00

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in November 2002.

  Joint Control Room
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the(a) practicality and (b) benefits of providing a joint

  981W
  control room for (i) social services, (ii) fire, (iii) ambulance and (iv) other emergency services on the Isle of Wight. [114365]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no such assessment. This is a matter for the relevant authorities to consider.

  Local Government Ombudsman
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister who investigates complaints about the Local Government Ombudsman; and by what means that body is accountable to Parliament. [113675]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Commission for Local Administration in England (the Local Government Ombudsman) is an independent statutory body with powers, set out in the Local Government Act 1974, to investigate complaints made by members of the public about maladministration by local authorities. Sections 28–32 of the Act set out the procedures which the Ombudsman must follow in carrying out his investigations. If an ombudsman fails to carry out his investigations in accordance with the provisions of the Act he may be challenged in the courts.

  Funding for the Commission is provided through a deduction from Revenue Support Grant, which is approved by the House of Commons. The National Audit Office has access to the accounts of the Commission.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated weekly cost to the Exchequer is of the Millennium Dome. [112644]

  Mr. McNulty
  English Partnerships (EP) owns and is responsible for managing and maintaining the Dome.

  The cost of management, maintenance and security of the Dome, including staff costs, in the six month period from September up to the end of February 2003, was £1.48 million, equivalent to around or around £57,000 per week, on average.

  During the same six month period, EP incurred costs of some £1.19 million in relation to the current sale process. No expenditure was incurred associated with decommissioning the contents of the Dome and its site in preparation for the future long-term use.

  These costs will be recovered from sale proceeds.

  Planning
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister within what period of time he intends that decisions on planning applications for proposed regeneration of derelict sites should be made where the decision has been removed from the local authority; and what plans he has to expedite decisions on such applications. [115294]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Planning Green Paper, published in December 2001, set a target of cutting in half the average time taken from the close of the inquiry to the issue of the decision on planning applications called in by my right. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and recovered appeals. Subsequently, a new Planning 982W
  Central Casework Division has been established in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with these cases.

  The Central Casework Division has a shared target with the Planning Inspectorate to decide 80 per cent. of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's cases (this includes both called in applications and recovered appeals), from close of Inquiry to decision, within 16 weeks by March 2004.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the status will be of supplementary planning guidance when the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is enacted. [114348]

  Mr. McNulty
  Supplementary Planning Guidance will remain in place until replaced by local development documents prepared by local planning authorities. The timetable for the preparation of local development documents will be set out in the local development scheme prepared by each local planning authority.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which policy planning guidance notes will be(a) withdrawn and (b) revised as a result of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill; and whether the provisions contained in PPG 12 on over-elaborate plan-making will remain. [114347]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to review existing planning policy guidance over the course of the next three years. The Planning Green Paper noted our intention to focus at first on PPG1 (General Policy and Principles), PPG4 (Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms), PPG6 (Town Centres and Retail Development), PPG7 (The Countryside), PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) and PPG16 (Archaeology and Planning). The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to withdraw PPG5 (Simplified Planning Zones) as a separate PPG and we are consulting on whether to replace PPG21 (Tourism) with good practice guidance.

  Planning Policy Guidance note 12 will be revised to provide clear and concise guidance on the framework for making plans. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to discourage over elaborate plan making.

  Regional Assemblies/Government
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the results of the soundings exercise on the level of interest in each English region in holding a referendum about establishing an elected regional assembly at 16 May; and how many of the responses received in each region were in favour of holding a referendum. [115110]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Responses to the soundings exercise are currently being logged and analysed. An announcement will be made shortly as to the region(s) that will proceed towards holding referendums first. At the same time, the Government will publish a summary of the responses received and a breakdown of the responses in favour of and against holding a referendum by region and type of organisation.
  983W
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 19 March 2003,Official Report, column 795W, on regional governance, if he will provide a total cost figure for the soundings exercise on the level of interest in holding referendums about establishing elected regional assemblies, updated to the end of the response period on 16 May. [115117]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The soundings document and an update to reflect amendments made to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act during its passage through Parliament have been produced in-house, from the design and printing to its dissemination through the Government's distribution centre at Wetherby. They are also available online and respondents have been able to email their views if they so wish. Production and distribution (including postage) has cost less than £2,500 to date.

  There have been some staff costs in recording and considering responses to the soundings exercise.

  Individuals and organisations may have incurred costs in preparing their responses.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether responsibility for greenbelt under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will lie with the regional spatial strategy. [114344]

  Mr. McNulty
  Once the general extent of the Green Belt has been defined it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances. Within that context, the regional spatial strategy will set the regional and sub-regional parameters for any Green Belt review. Local Development Frameworks will then define any detailed changes required to Green Belt boundaries.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what mechanism will exist in(a) the new Regional Spatial Strategy and (b) the new Local Development Strategy to (i) safeguard strategic transport routes and (ii) avoid planning blight. [114349]

  Mr. McNulty
  Transport routes will be safeguarded in Development Plan Documents rather than Regional Spatial Strategies. Local authorities will need to be realistic about the prospects for the infrastructure and sensitive to the implications of blight.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the time scale will be for revising(a) regional and (b) local development scheme and spatial strategy. [114392]

  Mr. McNulty
  The timetable for revising Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents will vary considerably depending on the nature of the document. The timetable for the former will be agreed between the Regional Planning Body and the Government Office. Each local planning authority will be required to prepare a Local Development Scheme which will set out the timetable for the preparation of Local Development Documents. The Scheme must be submitted to the Secretary of State who may direct amendments to it as he thinks appropriate.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authorities in the South East Region 984W
  which have been allowed to suspend the Right to Buy; and what criteria he used in permitting suspension in each case. [115314]

  Mr. McNulty
  There has been no suspension of the Right to Buy in any area, but nine local authority areas in the South East Region were included in the Housing (Right to Buy) (Limits on Discount) (Amendment) Order 2003—Statutory Instrument 2003 No. 498—which came into effect on 27 March 2003. These areas were:

  Chiltern—Epsom and Ewell—Hart

  Oxford—Reading—Reigate and Banstead

  Tonbridge and Mailing—Vale of White Horse—West Berkshire.

  The Order lowered the maximum Right to Buy discount available to tenants from £38,000 to £16,000 in 41 areas under the greatest housing market pressure as evidenced by high levels of homelessness and high local house prices. This was determined on the basis of two measures:
  homelessness—reflecting high demand for social housing. Using information provided by local authorities themselves in their regular Housing Investment Programme returns, the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation was compared with the number of local authority lettings and nominations to Registered Social Landlord dwellings given to households who were not homeless. A high value for this ratio indicates high homelessness and/or a low number of available lettings.
  house prices—reflecting the demand for private housing and affordability. The Land Registry lower quartile house price for the third quarter of 2002 was used, to indicate likely availability for first time buyers.

  Risk Management
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local fire authorities have responded to the request to draft Integrated Risk Management Plans; and what options will be considered once such plans have been received. [114295]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The initial guidance on Integrated Risk Management Planning, which is currently out for consultation, indicated that local fire authorities should take steps to produce a draft Integrated Risk Management Plan and Action Plan for 2004–05 by the end of September 2003.

  As at 19 May 2003, no formal response had been received from any fire authority, although 40 fire brigades had provided details of managers and practitioners who will be responsible for preparing the plans. The consultation ends on 30 May 2003.

  Fire authorities will be responsible for implementing the plans and are required to consider and take into account the views of their communities and other stakeholders, including HM Fire Service Inspectorate.

  Social Exclusion and Urban Policy Units
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many equivalent full time employees there were in the(a) Social Exclusion Unit and (b) Urban Policy Unit (i) when they were established and (ii) at 1 May 2003. [113560]
  985W
  Mrs. Roche
  The figures for full time equivalent staff in the Urban Policy Unit are:When established (2001)—40 and May 2002—110.

  The figures for full time equivalent staff in the Social Exclusion Unit are:
  When established (1997)—12 and May 2003—57.

  Social Housing
  David Wright
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many social housing units were disposed of, by financial year, by Telford Development Corporation and its successor bodies from 1979 onwards. [114141]

  Mr. McNulty
  Numbers of sales of dwellings belonging to Telford Development Corporation and its successor bodies is presented in the following table:

  Sales of dwellings by Telford Development Corporation and its successor bodies since 1980–81: Sales by Telford Development Corporation

  Financial Year

  All sales

  of which: Right to Buy1

  Sales by Telford Development Corporation:

  1980–81

  404

  Nil

  1981–82

  402

  Nil

  1982–83

  588

  Nil

  1983–84

  443

  Nil

  1984–85

  257

  Nil

  1985–86

  225

  Nil

  1986–87

  386

  Nil

  1987–88

  542

  Nil

  1988–89

  1,278

  Nil

  1989–90

  1,483

  Nil

  1990–91

  343

  Nil

  1991–922

  622

  Nil

  1992–93

  16

  16

  1993–94

  2

  2

  Sales by The Wrekin District Council (post transfer of stock from Development Corporation on 30 September 1991)

  1991–923

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  n/a

  n/a

  1993–94

  n/a

  n/a

  1994–95

  166

  157

  1995–96

  149

  149

  1996–97

  177

  177

  1997–98

  59

  59

  Sales by Telford and Wrekin Unitary Authority (created 1 April 1998)

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  1 While Telford Development Corporation reported few Right to Buy sales, there were significant other sales to sitting tenants recorded by the Corporation

  2 On 30 September 1991, Telford Development Corporation transferred some 3,925 dwellings to The Wrekin District Council and 374 dwellings to two housing associations. On 20 December 1991, Telford Development Corporation transferred 113 dwellings to a housing association

  3 October 1991 to March 1992 only

  4 On 25 March 1999 Telford and Wrekin Unitary Authority transferred its entire stock of some 13,045 dwellings to Wrekin Housing Trust Limited

  South West Regional Assembly
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money the South West Regional Assembly will receive from central Government in 2003–04; and how much of this will be spent on its advisory role on regional planning. [114897]
  986W
  Mr. Raynsford
  In 2003–04, the South West Regional Assembly will receive up to £600,000 from the Chambers Fund, to enable it to perform its role of scrutinising Regional Development Agency plans and performance. It will also qualify for £689,000 for regional planning, plus an additional £324,000 in Planning Delivery Grant.

  St Oswald's Park, Gloucester
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects a decision to be taken on the planning application on the proposed development of St. Oswalds Park in Gloucester. [115293]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 15 May my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister invited representations on the implications for the proposals of the Statement made to the House on 10 April 2003,Official Report, columns 27–29WS about town centre planning. Any responses will need to be circulated before the final decision can be made, which will be in due course.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how, and for what purpose, the Invest to Save funding awarded to the Criminal Records Bureau by HM Treasury will be allocated. [112034]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) received £575,000 to pilot an electronic link from the CRB to police forces, enabling Enhanced Disclosure checks to be undertaken with the minimum of manual intervention, while remaining under a police force's control. The objective is to reduce the proportion of enhanced applications referred to local police forces from 100 per cent. to 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. The funding is allocated solely to this project.

  The Invest to Save Budget (ISB) was set up in 1998 by Her Majesty's Treasury, in collaboration with the Cabinet Office. Its aim is to provide funding for projects that bring together two or more public bodies to deliver services in an innovative fashion.

  ISB provides a means of investing in partnership projects with the potential for transforming public services. The projects need to be further developed before this potential can be unlocked. Funds are allocated competitively and public sector managers are challenged to come forward with proposals that will make a real difference.

  To date, the ISB has supported 136 partnership projects with a total of £180 million, following the first two bidding rounds. A further 123 projects have been selected for funding following the third round. The projects are spread right across the public sector, involving central Government, local government, health authorities, police and others.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs have been incurred to date on enhancements and improvements to the system supplied to the Criminal Records Bureau by Capita(a) before and (b) after it started operations. [112040]
  987W
  Paul Goggins
  The costs incurred prior to the Go Live date were £10,590,581. Costs incurred from the Go Live date to 7 May 2003 were £541,789.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the assessment of the Criminal Records Bureau system testing by the Office of Government Commerce referred to in the main findings of the independent review team report published on 27 February. [112065]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is currently renegotiating the contract with its private sector partner, Capita pic. The release of the full text of the Gateway 4 and 4(a) reports, produced by the Office of Government Commerce, may influence these negotiations. Given Exemption 13 afforded by Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, edited copies of these reports will be placed in the Library. The purpose of Exemption 13 is to protect a third party's commercial confidences. Upon conclusion of the contract renegotiations the CRB will consider releasing these reports in their unedited form.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of whether the documentation of the current release of the Criminal Records Bureau system is(a) complete and (b) up to date. [112097]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Records Bureau's Main Agreement includes a requirement for full system documentation to be produced. Recent reviews have highlighted some deficiencies of a technical nature which are subject to a confidential report. These deficiencies will be addressed through the contract renegotiations. It would not be appropriate at this stage to prejudge the outcome of these negotiations.

  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the statement of 30 April by the hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn),Official Report, column 125WH, on the Criminal Records Bureau, when he expects to announce revisions to the charges for standard and enhanced disclosures. [112102]

  Paul Goggins
  As was pointed out during the Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. member on 30 April, the current charges for standard and enhanced disclosures are under review. We will make an at once the review has been completed.

  Prison Suicides/Self-harm
  Mr. Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) suicides and (b) incidents of self harm there were among 15 to 17-year-old girls in prison in each year since 1997. [112519]

  Paul Goggins
  There have been no self-inflicted deaths in prison of female juveniles in the years since 1997. The following table covers the number of recorded incidents of self-harm by female juveniles between 1998 and 2002. Relevant data on self-harm before 1998 are not available.
  988W

  Self-harm among female juveniles: 1998–20021

  Number of incidents

  1998

  8

  1999

  20

  2000

  44

  2001

  122

  2002

  107

  1 Up to and including December 2002.

  The Prison Service has made improvements in the recording of self-harm incidents, including the implementation of a new monitoring system from December 2002.

  The Prison Service has a duty of care to all prisoners in its custody and, recognising that self-harm is a particular problem among young female prisoners, is currently developing several interventions that may help them reduce and manage self-harm in prison. One such example is at Holloway prison where all prisoners, including juveniles, who have been identified as at risk of suicide or self-harm are offered individual crisis counselling.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will issue the grant of status letter to Ms Nargis Shaheen (Home Office ref no s1128716). [112672]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 May 2003]: I can inform my hon Friend that Mrs Shaheen's grant of Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom was issued to her legal representatives, Bury Law Centre, on 20 May 2003.

  Gun Crime
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes involving firearms have occurred in each of the last eight years in(a) Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland Constituency, (b) Teesside and (c) England per head of population; and if he will break down the figures to show those (i) involving airguns and (ii) resulting in fatalities. [114292]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Details of recorded crimes involving firearms are not collected on a constituency basis. Available information on the number of recorded crimes and homicides involving firearms in the Cleveland police force area and England is given in the table.

  Recorded crimes involving firearms

  Cleveland

  England

  All firearm offences

  Homicides

  All firearm offences

  Homicides

  1994

  190

  0

  12,718

  60

  1995

  218

  0

  12,799

  65

  1996

  201

  1

  13,214

  48

  1997

  144

  0

  11,816

  57

  1998–99

  245

  1

  13,283

  49

  1999–2000

  199

  2

  16,234

  62

  2000–01

  203

  0

  17,083

  72

  2001–02

  267

  1

  21,659

  95

  989W
  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which would have had the effect of increasing the number of offences counted. Similarly, some police forces adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in advance of its national implementation on 1 April 2002, and this may also have tended to increase the number of crimes counted, particularly in 2001–02.

  Heroin Addiction
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the waiting list times are for(a) residential rehabilitation and (b) treatment for heroin addiction, broken down by DAT area. [113783]

  Longest Actual Waiting Times

  DAT Name

  In-patient detoxification

  Community Prescribing Specialist

  Prescribing Community GPs

  Care Structured Planned Counselling

  Day Structured Programmes

  Rehabilitation Residential

  Barking and Dagenham

  3

  3

  2

  4

  1

  4

  Barnet

  6

  6

  2

  3

  0

  6

  Barnsley

  5

  6

  2

  6

  n/a

  12

  Bath and North East Some

  6

  41

  33

  41

  5

  11

  Bedfordshire

  4

  3

  3

  2

  0

  3

  Bexley

  8

  2

  4

  2

  2

  2

  Birmingham

  1

  60

  12

  0

  0

  0

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1

  16

  16

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  Blackpool

  12

  36

  n/a

  2

  2

  3

  Bolton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bournemouth

  9

  51

  4

  3

  10

  4

  Bracknell Forest

  2

  5

  4

  3

  1

  20

  Bradford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Brent

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  3

  Brighton and Hove

  13

  6

  2

  2

  2

  8

  Bristol, City of

  3

  4

  4

  4

  4

  5

  Bromley

  6

  3

  n/a

  3

  1

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  2

  1

  4

  1

  4

  Bury

  8

  9

  6

  9

  1

  0

  Calderdale

  4

  6

  2

  4

  1

  4

  Cambridgeshire

  4

  11

  4

  11

  4

  20

  Camden

  21

  18

  2

  2

  3

  21

  Cheshire

  13

  8

  2

  4

  8

  4

  City of London

  4

  11

  2

  2

  1

  3

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  10

  6

  0

  5

  2

  5

  Coventry

  3

  7

  2

  9

  0

  0

  Croydon

  12

  7

  2

  1

  1

  21

  Cumbria

  9

  6

  9

  8

  1

  7

  Darlington

  6

  18

  18

  3

  3

  12

  Derby

  0

  0

  3

  13

  3

  0

  Derbyshire

  2

  20

  2

  6

  3

  3

  Devon

  5

  8

  3

  3

  n/a

  14

  Doncaster

  0

  9

  0

  0

  n/a

  0

  Dorset

  6

  26

  15

  2

  10

  24

  Dudley

  0

  10

  10

  10

  n/a

  5

  Durham

  3

  12

  10

  24

  4

  0

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  8

  13

  0

  2

  2

  26

  East Sussex

  12

  3

  2

  3

  2

  12

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  6

  6

  2

  16

  13

  10

  Gateshead

  0

  n/a

  10

  0

  n/a

  0

  Gloucestershire

  16

  9

  0

  2

  2

  4

  Greenwich

  13

  12

  2

  12

  0

  3

  Hackney

  6

  11

  2

  2

  0

  5

  Halton

  4

  2

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3

  5

  5

  2

  2

  5

  Hampshire

  16

  15

  4

  12

  14

  12

  Haringey

  2

  8

  n/a

  2

  2

  2

  Harrow

  6

  3

  0

  3

  3

  3

  Hartlepool

  11

  4

  0

  2

  3

  11

  Havering

  2

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Herefordshire

  12

  2

  2

  18

  0

  12

  Hertfordshire

  12

  9

  6

  5

  2

  12

  Hillingdon

  10

  1

  n/a

  2

  n/a

  0

  Hounslow

  3

  6

  2

  0

  3

  3

  Isle of Wight

  12

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Islington

  14

  5

  6

  7

  10

  28

  990W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 16 May 2003]: Waiting times for residential rehabilitation and the other main types of treatment services in all Drug Action Team (DAT) areas are regularly monitored by the National Treatment Agency (NTA). Waiting times for the treatment of heroin addiction are not recorded separately from waits for other drug problems.

  The latest available figures are taken from the DAT Annual Returns submitted in April 2003 and reflect the position in December 2002. Initial analysis indicates that average longest waiting time for residential rehabilitation was 7.1 weeks.

  The following table sets out the waiting times for the main types of treatment in each DAT area.
  991W

  Longest Actual Waiting Times

  DAT Name

  In-patient detoxification

  Community Prescribing Specialist

  Prescribing Community GPs

  Care Structured Planned Counselling

  Day Structured Programmes

  Rehabilitation Residential

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2

  3

  2

  2

  3

  4

  Kent

  5

  20

  4

  6

  2

  16

  Kingston upon Hull, City of

  8

  13

  0

  2

  2

  3

  Kingston upon Thames

  14

  4

  3

  6

  3

  2

  Kirklees

  0

  5

  2

  5

  0

  0

  Knowsley

  8

  1

  1

  4

  1

  3

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  11

  35

  6

  12

  1

  4

  Leeds

  1

  5

  5

  2

  n/a

  6

  Leicester

  4

  10

  4

  3

  1

  44

  Leicestershire

  4

  10

  2

  3

  1

  44

  Lewisham

  40

  3

  2

  2

  6

  4

  Lincolnshire

  2

  3

  3

  12

  4

  2

  Liverpool

  8

  12

  8

  4

  n/a

  12

  Luton

  4

  4

  3

  3

  0

  1

  Manchester

  13

  1

  1

  0

  0

  10

  Medway

  5

  8

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  16

  Merton

  11

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Middlesbrough

  4

  4

  0

  3

  2

  4

  Milton Keynes

  2

  17

  2

  13

  1

  14

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4

  13

  2

  2

  4

  8

  Newham

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Norfolk

  32

  12

  2

  15

  n/a

  32

  North East Lincolnshire

  8

  8

  2

  1

  2

  8

  North Lincolnshire

  8

  11

  2

  4

  n/a

  12

  North Somerset

  19

  19

  19

  6

  8

  8

  North Tyneside

  3

  8

  1

  6

  6

  3

  North Yorkshire

  n/a

  10

  3

  4

  1

  n/a

  Northamptonshire

  8

  2

  2

  5

  1

  0

  Northumberland

  2

  8

  2

  9

  2

  6

  Nottingham

  8

  9

  3

  9

  n/a

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  12

  12

  12

  12

  9

  10

  Oldham

  12

  2

  2

  2

  1

  5

  Oxfordshire

  5

  3

  4

  16

  2

  4

  Peterborough

  4

  11

  4

  11

  4

  20

  Plymouth

  12

  65

  4

  4

  2

  12

  Poole

  9

  3

  n/a

  1

  11

  1

  Portsmouth

  8

  2

  n/a

  2

  1

  8

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  6

  4

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  10

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2

  3

  2

  4

  1

  3

  Richmond upon Thames

  4

  2

  1

  2

  2

  4

  Rochdale

  3

  8

  6

  3

  2

  2

  Rotherham

  2

  5

  0

  3

  2

  2

  Rutland

  4

  10

  4

  3

  1

  4

  Salford

  12

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Sandwell

  n/a

  4

  n/a

  2

  n/a

  n/a

  Sefton

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Sheffield

  4

  7

  5

  2

  2

  7

  Shropshire

  9

  21

  4

  22

  n/a

  18

  Slough

  4

  3

  7

  3

  1

  6

  Solihull

  n/a

  5

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Somerset

  30

  31

  12

  5

  n/a

  32

  South Gloucestershire

  2

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  South Tyneside

  2

  8

  n/a

  1

  2

  4

  Southampton

  4

  14

  n/a

  4

  n/a

  4

  Southend on Sea

  20

  6

  8

  20

  20

  4

  Southwark

  40

  4

  0

  4

  8

  16

  St. Helens

  4

  1

  1

  1

  0

  4

  Staffordshire

  7

  9

  3

  n/a

  2

  6

  Stockport

  8

  3

  4

  2

  n/a

  2

  Stockton on Tees

  9

  6

  7

  7

  4

  0

  Stoke on Trent

  7

  9

  6

  2

  4

  4

  Suffolk

  5

  8

  3

  4

  4

  5

  Sunderland

  n/a

  12

  n/a

  8

  2

  3

  Surrey

  26

  6

  4

  3

  9

  0

  Sutton

  12

  3

  na

  1

  na

  na

  Swindon

  1

  10

  7

  5

  6

  4

  Tameside

  8

  12

  3

  0

  0

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  4

  25

  3

  9

  n/a

  0

  Thurrock

  4

  3

  n/a

  4

  n/a

  4

  Torbay

  6

  20

  1

  4

  n/a

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  6

  18

  2

  4

  1

  6

  Trafford

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  4

  Wakefield

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Walsall

  6

  6

  3

  6

  n/a

  4

  Waltham Forest

  8

  8

  n/a

  7

  0

  10

  Wandsworth

  20

  5

  0

  2

  4

  8

  Warrington

  4

  4

  3

  2

  5

  6

  992W 993W

  Longest Actual Waiting Times

  DAT Name

  In-patient detoxification

  Community Prescribing Specialist

  Prescribing Community GPs

  Care Structured Planned Counselling

  Day Structured Programmes

  Rehabilitation Residential

  Warwickshire

  4

  5

  2

  2

  n/a

  8

  West Berkshire

  3

  2

  3

  2

  0

  6

  West Sussex

  2

  9

  2

  13

  0

  4

  Westminster

  2

  2

  1

  3

  4

  3

  Wigan

  14

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Wiltshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  0

  4

  5

  3

  0

  20

  Wirral

  2

  4

  2

  1

  2

  3

  Wokingham

  3

  2

  3

  2

  1

  3

  Wolverhampton

  4

  2

  n/a

  2

  2

  4

  Worcestershire

  0

  24

  6

  1

  n/a

  1

  York

  n/a

  8

  2

  4

  n/a

  n/a

  Average

  7.36

  9.26

  3.90

  5.04

  2.96

  7.18

  Information Technology
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his 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. [107175]

  Mr. Wills
  The Home Office's contribution to total managed expenditure consists of the total of spending under resource and capital budgets, less non-cash items in annually managed expenditure. Data for 1998–99 to 2001–02 was published in Table 1 of the Financial Tables of the 2003 Departmental Report (Cm 5908).

  Estimates of spending on Information Technology are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Probation Service
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional funding will be made available to the probation service to meet the costs of the Custody Plus scheme as set out on page 133 of the explanatory notes to the Criminal Justice Bill; what recent meetings he has held with representatives of the National Probation Service in relation to the provision of additional funding for the Custody Plus scheme; and if he will make a statement. [112147]

  Paul Goggins
  The costs shown on page 133 of the explanatory notes to the Criminal Justice Bill relate to the whole package of sentencing changes, not just Custody Plus. As the different sentencing proposals are inter-related it is not possible to meaningfully separate one particular aspect at this stage.

  The National Probation Service will receive the additional funding it requires to meet the extra costs of implementing the Criminal Justice Bill including Custody Plus. The exact timing of implementation of the proposals will of course determine the funding requirement.

  My hon .Friend, member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) had regular meetings with the Director General
  994W
  and other senior staff of the National Probation Service which include consideration of the additional costs and benefits of the Bill.

  Replica Firearms
  Ms Bridget Prentice:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many gun crimes were carried out using replica firearms in the last year for which figures are available in (a) the Borough of Lewisham, (b) London and (c) England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [114082]

  (2) how many people in England and Wales have been (a) injured and (b) killed as a result of modified replica weapons in the last year for which figures are available; [114080]

  (3) how many modifiable replica handguns were sold last year in England and Wales; [114083]

  (4) how many replica firearms the Government estimates were modified to shoot real bullets in the last year for which figures are available. [114081]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Numbers of recorded crimes involving replica firearms at London borough and police force level are not available. There were 1,201 recorded crimes involving imitation firearms in England and Wales in the year ending March 2002.

  Details of recorded crimes involving modified replica weapons are not collected separately.

  The number of modifiable replica handguns sold in England and Wales is not collected centrally. No estimates have been made of the number of replica firearms which have been modified to shoot live ammunition. It is illegal to modify a replica weapon to shoot live ammunition, or possess such a weapon. It is illegal to modify a replica weapon to shoot live ammunition, or possess such a weapon.

  It is also illegal to sell an imitation firearm which is readily convertible into a firearm and we are currently introducing a ban on the sale, transfer, import or manufacture of any air weapon using the self-contained air cartridge system which can be converted to fire conventional ammunition.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place under the Terrorism Act 2000. [113605]

  Persons1 proceeded against for offences under the Terrorism Act 2000

  Number of persons

  England and Wales 2000 and 2001 Offence description

  Statute

  22000

  2001

  Relating to membership of proscribed organisations

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.11

  —

  3

  Wearing any item to dress in support of a proscribed organisation

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.13(a)

  —

  —

  Wears, carries or displays any article in support of a proscribed organisation

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.13(b)

  —

  —

  Contributions toward acts of terrorism

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.15–18 and 22

  —

  1

  Failure to disclose knowledge or suspicion of acts of terrorism

  Terrorism Act S.19

  —

  —

  Failure to leave a cordoned area immediately when ordered to do so by constable in uniform

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.36(1) (a)

  1

  —

  Failure to leave premises, which about or are wholly or partially within a cordoned area, immediately if ordered to do so by a constable in uniform

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.36(1) (b)

  —

  —

  Failure of driver or person in charge of a vehicle which is in a cordoned area to immediately move the vehicle if ordered to do so by a constable in uniform

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.36(c)(d)(e)

  —

  —

  Contravention or a prohibition or restriction order made by a constable in uniform to a cordoned area

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.36(1)

  1

  —

  Making any disclosure likely to prejudice an investigation about acts of terrorism or failing to disclose information about acts of terrorism

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.39

  —

  —

  Failure to stop (power to stop and search vehicles and pedestrians)

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.43, 44 and 47(1)(a)(b)

  1

  1

  Wilful obstruction (power to stop and search vehicles and pedestrians)

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.43, 44 and 44 and 47(1)(c)

  —

  —

  Failure to move vehicle when ordered to do so by a constable in uniform, (vehicle had or both been permitted to remain at rest in contravention of any prohibition or restriction)

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.48 and 51(2)

  —

  —

  Leaves a vehicle, or permits a vehicle to remain at rest, on a road in contravention of a prohibition or restriction

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.48 and 51(1)

  —

  —

  Provides instruction; invites another to receive instruction in weapon training

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.54

  —

  1

  Directing terrorist training

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.56

  —

  —

  Possession of articles intended for terrorists purposes

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.57

  —

  —

  Collect, record or possession of information likely to be of use to terrorists

  Terrorism Act 2000 S.58

  —

  —

  Failure to furnish information when required by examining officer

  Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.7(5)(a)

  1

  —

  Failure to produce either a valid passport or identifying document when required by examining officer

  Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.7(5)(b)

  —

  —

  Failure to declare or produce any relevant documents when required by examining officer

  Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.7(5)(c)(d)

  —

  —

  Failure to submit to search by examining officer or person acting on his/her behalf

  Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.7(7)(8)

  —

  —

  Failure to complete and produce an embarkation card when required to by examining officer

  Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.7(16)

  1

  —

  Wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty in a cordoned area

  Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.5 S.36(1)(2)

  —

  —

  Wilfully obstructs, or seeks to frustrate to object of, a search in a cordoned area

  Terrorism Act 2000 Sch.5 (1–3)

  —

  —

  Total

  5

  6

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Staffordshire Police were only able to submit sample data for persons proceeded against and convicted in the magistrates courts in 2000. Although sufficient to estimate higher orders of data, these data are not robust enough at a detailed level and have been excluded from the table.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits have been issued in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by(a) occupation and (b) region of employment. [113652]

  Beverley Hughes
  Work Permits (UK) approved a total of 157,759 work permit applications from employers between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003. The following table sets out the number of permits issued to those 20 industries sectors to which the majority of these work permits were issued.
  996W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]: The information requested is contained in the table. Prosecutions are a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Act is working well.

  Statistics for 2002 will be available in the autumn.

  Industry/sector

  Number of work permits approved between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003

  Health and medical services

  41,173

  ENT and leisure services

  28,813

  Computer services

  17,059

  Admin, bus and man services

  16,751

  Hospitality and catering

  13,319

  Education and cultural act

  13,195

  Financial services

  7,068

  Manufacturing

  4,054

  Telecommunications

  2,719

  Construction and land serve

  2,707

  Sporting activities

  2,144

  Retail and related services

  1,810

  Transport

  1,503

  Extraction industries

  1,340

  997W

  Industry/sector

  Number of work permits approved between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003

  Agriculture activities

  1,115

  Law related services

  1,097

  Government

  801

  Utilities-gas, electricity, water

  650

  Real estate and property services

  311

  Secure and protect services

  130

  Total

  157,759

  Work Permits (UK) is unable to provide a breakdown of the number of work permits issued by geographical region.

WALES

  Press Releases
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many press releases his Department has released in each month since 1999. [115223]

  Peter Hain
  Press releases issued:

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  January

  n/a

  5

  5

  11

  10

  February

  n/a

  5

  5

  9

  11

  Department

  e-Government related project

  Consultants

  Lord Chancellor's department

  Departmental website (technical advice)

  Yale Consulting

  Land Registry

  Land register online

  Hewlett Packard

  Land Registry

  Land register online

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  Land Registry

  Land register direct

  Onstream UK Ltd.

  Agencies

  Court Service

  Xhibit (Exchanging Hearing Information by Internet Technology

  ASE Consulting

  Court Service

  Money claim online

  CMG

  Court Service

  Money claim online

  Compass Management

  Court Service

  Money claim online

  ASE Consulting

  NDPBs

  Legal Services Commission

  Just Ask! Website (technical advice)

  S. Dextre Clark

  Legal Services Commission

  Just Ask! Website (technical advice)

  Yale Consulting

  Legal Services Commission

  AdviceNow Project

  Cathedral Consortium

  Associated offices

  Office of legal ombudsman

  Website and electronic application form (technical advice)

  Analogue

  Grays Courthouse
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) when the appeal by Thurrock Council against the consequent closure of Grays Courthouse was lodged; when a decision will be made; what the cause was of the delay in processing the appeal; and if she will make a statement; [114657]

  (2) if she will allocate additional financial resources to the Essex magistrates courts committee to compensate for the costs incurred by the delay in implementing the Comittee's Private Finance Initiative proposals for Essex; and if she will make a statement. [114656]

  Yvette Cooper
  The appeal of Thurrock Council against closure of Grays Courthouse was lodged on 8 May 2002. I hope to make a decision in the near future.
  998W

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  March

  n/a

  13

  12

  11

  8

  April

  n/a

  9

  8

  13

  6

  May

  n/a

  10

  3

  11

  6

  June

  n/a

  10

  6

  10

  —

  July

  0

  12

  6

  15

  —

  August

  1

  5

  3

  4

  —

  September

  7

  6

  9

  7

  —

  October

  8

  10

  8

  10

  —

  November

  4

  8

  15

  24

  —

  December

  10

  7

  6

  6

  —

  Note:

  The figures for press releases do not include operational notes

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Consultancies
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list, by project, the consultancies his Department and its non-departmental public bodies have used on e-government projects since 1 January 2001. [112837]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 12 May 2003]: The information is in the following table. The projects listed are those that relate to the Government's 2005 e-Government target for getting services on line. The information requested for the period January to March 2001 is not held centrally and could be obtained now only at disproportionate cost.

  I can only make a decision on an appeal once all parties concerned have had sufficient opportunity to present their cases, and I have the opportunity to consider all the evidence. Grays has not been a simple case, and has, therefore, taken some time. One development which required attention was the potential impact of the Thames Gateway Project as described in the publication of the report "Sustainable Communities: building for the future," on the proposed closure. Financial resources will be allocated to the Essex Magistrates' Private Finance Initiative scheme once the Outline Business Case has been approved. the publication of the report "Sustainable Communities: building for the future," on the proposed closure.

  Financial resources will be allocated to the Essex Magistrates' Private Finance Initiative scheme once the Outline Business Case has been approved.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115881]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Privy Council Office does not have a dedicated Ministerial Correspondence Unit. All correspondence from Ministers and Members of Parliament is dealt with by staff in my private office.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114103]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Privy Council Office has no formal efficiency targets, but my Department constantly strives to make running cost savings and ensure value for money in delivery of its objectives.

  The Privy Council Office has a small Departmental Expenditure Limit, of which 75 per cent. is devoted to salary and accommodation costs. This, combined with the lack of any spending programmes, reduces the flexibility to make savings.

  Modernisation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Council if he will put forward to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons a proposal to establish a system of ad hoc committees. [114391]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Modernisation Committee has no plans to revisit the subject of select committees in the current Session.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many staff in the Department have been on long-term sick leave in each of the last two years. [115861]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 30 April 2003,Official Report, column 371W.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teachers (Temporary Contracts)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the use of temporary contracts for teachers. [115009]

  Mr. Miliband
  All schools make use of temporary contracts for teachers. These are mainly used as occasional cover for teachers who are absent on sick leave. Temporary contracts also give schools greater flexibility to respond to local circumstances in meeting their staffing needs. The number of occasional teachers has fallen for the second year in succession, by 2,600 to 1000W
  14,900. The wider picture shows substantial overall progress in terms of growing teacher numbers and falling vacancies.

  Schools (Laboratory Technicians)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the role of laboratory technicians in schools. [115010]

  Mr. Miliband
  Science technicians make a key contribution, as do the many other staff who support teachers in the classroom. We recognise the unique role played by technicians and the Department is working with the Consortium of Local Education Authorities for the Provision of Science Services, the Association for Science Education and the Royal Society to develop a better defined career structure and linked professional development for science technicians.

  Skills Strategy
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he intends to publish his Skills Strategy. [115011]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We intend to publish the Skills Strategy and delivery plan towards the end of June 2003.

  University Admissions
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received from universities concerning the effects on university admissions of his policies on higher education. [115012]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have received a wide range of responses to our White Paper, which we are currently looking at closely. University admissions decisions are a matter for universities.

  Higher Education (Wales)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will meet Vice-Chancellors of universities in Wales to discuss the future of higher education. [115013]

  Margaret Hodge
  I will be meeting the Vice-Chancellor of Cardiff University shortly. This follows meetings which my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Secretary of State for Wales, had earlier this year with a number of Vice-Chancellors from Welsh higher education institutions. We look forward to further meetings in the future.

  Careers Advice
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received from the business community in relation to careers advice and guidance; and if he will make a statement. [110194]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The business community is well represented on Connexions Partnerships Boards and Local Management Committees that are involved in the development of careers advice, guidance and other support for young people. While the Secretary of State
  1001W
  receives a number of representations from Connexions Partnerships these are not collated in any particular form.

  Children's Commissioner
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the Ninth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2002–03, HC666, on The Case for a Children's Commissioner for England; and if he will make a statement. [113772]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 19 May 2003]: Ministers are considering the Joint Committee's report, and the Government's response will be submitted to the Committee in due course.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of regional variations in staff turnover in his Department. [112753]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Staff turnover for my Department in 2002 for each of the regions in which it operates were:

  Percentage

  London

  30

  Yorkshire and Humber

  18

  North East

  13

  North West

  12

  Departmental Underspending
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reduce his Department's underspend in 2003–04 from that of 2002–03. [112781]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  End Year Flexibility allows us to manage our resources better over a three year cycle and get the best value for public investment, It avoids the old rush to spend at the end of the year and allows us to take account of the difficulties of forecasting such things as capital expenditure.

  Planned spending, including the planned use of End Year Flexibility, for the next three years is set out in my Departmental Annual Report published 14 May; Chapter 3, table 3.2 pages 25 and 26.

  Document Costs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was to his Department and its predecessor of publishing documents, brochures, leaflets and consultation papers in each of the last five years for which information is available. [111681]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department produces a number of different types of publications each year, for a variety of purposes. There are however, no central records of the costs of these. Many, but not all, such publications are handled through the Department's1002W
  Publicity Division. The following figures show expenditure on design and print work placed by that Division:

  £ million

  1998–99

  10.8

  1999–2000

  12.8

  2000–01

  11.2

  2001–02

  12.3

  2002–03

  6.3

  1 Expenditure from central budgets only—information on expenditure from individual programme budgets not available.

  It should be noted that from 2002–03 an increasing proportion of such work is handled outside Publicity Division through a system of devolving non-priority work to individual policy teams.

  Drugs
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to expand drugs education for children of primary school age. [114218]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) during the Drugs Cross Cutting oral session in Westminster Hall.

  Education Funding
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding was allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council to institutions(a) in each region of England and (b) in total in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04 (estimated). [113211]

  Margaret Hodge
  The recurrent funding for teaching and research paid by the Higher Education Funding Council for England to higher and further education institutions by region is shown in the following table.

  £ million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  East Midlands

  334

  349

  373

  East of England

  306

  308

  331

  London

  977

  1,020

  1,087

  North-East

  223

  239

  256

  North-West

  511

  543

  578

  Open University

  138

  147

  149

  South-East

  540

  569

  611

  South-West

  303

  330

  355

  West Midlands

  355

  375

  397

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  429

  459

  489

  Total

  4,116

  4,339

  4,624

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect of the ceiling on funding for South Gloucestershire Council on education funding in South Gloucestershire. [115003]

  Mr. Miliband
  The system of floors and ceilings is essential to the funding system. Authorities on the ceiling face the same choices as other authorities about how much council tax to add to Government grant and how to distribute the money between schools.

  Education, Youth and Culture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the outcome was of the Education, Youth and Culture Council held on 5–6 May 2003; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [112543]

  Margaret Hodge
  I attended the Education session of this Council.

  After discussion, the Council adopted conclusions on benchmarking. Benchmarking will feature in the 2004 spring report to Heads of State and Government on the contribution of education to the Lisbon objectives.

  Ministers adopted a common position on the planned higher education programme Erasmus Mundus, including the budget at€180 million. The programme aims to provide higher education institutions with scholarships, offering further opportunities to attract overseas students, and helping them to forge useful and stronger partnerships between themselves, and with those in third countries.

  The Council adopted a common position on the e-Learning programme, including the budget at €33 million. This programme aims to promote schools internet twinning, virtual campuses and digital literacy. Both these programmes will now go to the European Parliament for second reading.

  Ministers discussed the future role of European universities, including the importance of excellence in research, encouraging private investment, and of maintaining the competitive edge of European higher education in the world market.

  The Council adopted the Resolution on Equal Opportunities for Learners with Disabilities without debate.

  The Deputy UK Representative represented the UK at the Youth session. After debate on the objectives proposed in the Commission's Communication on the Youth Open Method of Co-ordination, Ministers agreed to aim to adopt a set of common objectives at the November Youth Council. The Declaration on Social Value of Sport for Young People was adopted without debate.

  A copy of the Council minutes will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Further Education
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) consulted on the contribution of further education to the economy. [112214]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: No research has been commissioned on the specific contribution of the further education sector to the economy, although research on the economic returns to the skills and qualifications provided through further education is a major component of the work of the DfES-sponsored Research Centre for the Economics of Education. Reviews have been conducted of research on the benefits of education and skills to the economy, including those provided through further education. A
  1004W
  range of evidence is discussed and cited in my Department's publications of 26 March 2003: "Developing a National Skills Strategy and Delivery Plan: Underlying Evidence" and of 6 May 2003: "Education and Skills: the Economic Benefit".

  GCSE
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the basis for the Government's policy on the importance of the GCSE as a certificate for all 16-year-olds. [114418]

  Mr. Miliband
  GCSE serves several important functions, it provides:a clear and worthwhile goal for students at the end of Key Stage 4;
  a progress check in subjects and helps young people choose what they want to study after 16;
  a record of what has been achieved in subjects that will not be pursued after 16;
  an important accountability measure for outcomes of 11–16 schools.

  The Tomlinson 14–19 Working Group is examining how the nature and amount of assessment for 14–19 should develop.

  Honours
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many officials in his Department have received honours; and how many honours are held by his officials, broken down by category of honour. [111483]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Our departmental records on this go back to 1998. Since then, 48 members of the Department for Education and Skills (and previously the Department for Education and Employment, not including the Employment Service) have received an honour. 20 of those recipients have since left the Department, therefore 28 honours are currently held by DfES officials. Four hold CBs (Companion of the Order of the Bath), three CBEs (Commander of the Order of the British Empire), seven OBEs (Officer of the Order of the British Empire) and 14 MBEs (Member of the Order of the British Empire). Any awards for staff before they joined the Department or for achievements not related to official duties have not been included.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many of his staff have taken sick leave due to mental health problems in the last year. [111987]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department is committed to managing sickness absences effectively and to maintain its efforts to try and meet the 2003 target for reduced sickness absence as set out in its Service Delivery Agreement.

  My Department also confirms its legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for employees and remains committed to meeting the targets for reducing the number of working days lost due to work related injuries and illness set out in the Government's

  1005W
  Revitalising Health and Safety initiative. These have been incorporated into the Departmental Health and Safety Policy statement.

  In the calendar year 2002, 279 staff in DfEs took sick leave due to anxiety, depression, stress and other mental illness.

  Part-time Students
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action the Government are taking to ensure an easy interface for part-time learners between higher education and(a) further education, (b) community-based learning and (c) work-based learning. [R] [113227]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are working with the Learning and Skills Council and the Higher Education Funding Council for England to streamline the funding route for institutions that deliver both further and higher education. This should allow these institutions to respond more flexibly to the needs of part-time students wishing to progress from further education to higher education.

  The vast majority of community-based learning through Adult and Community Learning is part-time and provides mainly first rung provision to encourage adults into further learning, which may lead into higher education.

  We are also supporting and promoting Advanced Modern Apprenticeships as a progression route into higher education, and in particular to Foundation Degrees. These can be undertaken in a variety of ways, including part-time and distance learning, while the students remain in employment.

  Positive Activities for Young People
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the role of a personal adviser in dealing with young people to be targeted within the Positive Activities for Young People scheme. [114202]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills is funding 435 (full-time equivalent) adviser posts within the Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP) scheme. The role of these advisers will be to provide support to an agreed list of hardest to help young people. They will work to remove barriers to young people's participation in PAYP during the school holidays, to build relationships with them and to support the young people back to education, training or employment at the end of the holiday periods.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the number of young people classed as at risk for the purposes of being targeted for the Positive Activities for Young People scheme. [114206]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  A minimum of 22,000 full-time places will be provided (a full-time place being from 12 noon to 9 pm), with a minimum of 6,200 receiving dedicated support from Connexions Personal Adviser Key 1006W
  Workers. These key workers will support an agreed list of hard to help young people to remove barriers to participation, to build relationships, to help the young people access the most suitable provision and to support them back into education or training at the end of holiday periods. These young people will be identified both by referral agencies and by targeting areas of geographical disadvantage. We expect that the programme will provide places for a wider group of young people in each community than those requiring key worker support.

  Schools Funding
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the funding of schools in Shropshire. [114997]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The increase in Education Formula Spending Share for Shropshire for 2003–04 was 7.3 per cent. I welcome the council's decision to pass on over 107 per cent. of the increase in schools funding to its schools budget, which resulted in an increase in the LEA's schools budget of 10.2 per cent.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what total amount of capital funding was allocated to schools in Brighton and Hove in each year since 1996–97. [114695]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table the sets out the capital allocations made to Brighton and Hove local education authority and its schools from 1997–98 to 2003–04. Funding data prior to 1997–9.8 were not collected on a comparable basis.

  £000

  Capital allocations

  1997–98

  3,926

  1998–99

  3,698

  1999–2000

  5,636

  2000–01

  7,661

  2001–02

  128,614

  2002–03

  5,487

  2003–04

  7,573

  1 Includes £24.8 million of PH credits

  Science
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the relevance of(a) materials science and (b) engineering to the development of scientific and technological understanding in AS and A level students. [114651]

  Mr. Miliband
  Engineering and materials science do have the potential to contribute to the technological understanding of advanced level students. Vocational A levels (AVCEs) are available in engineering and can include units in application of new technology, applied science and engineering processes. Materials science is taken into account when developing criteria for engineering and science based subjects for AS/A level students. For example, the Nuffield GCE A level chemistry specification includes a special studies
  1007W
  optional unit on chemical engineering and materials science. The Vocational A levels in engineering and in science have optional units addressing various aspects of materials science. These and other awards help promote an understanding of science and its applications in various technological industries.

  Secondments
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 6 May 2003,Official Report, column 646W, if he will list the organisations to which civil servants in his Department have been seconded since 1998 in (a) the private sector, (b) NGOs and (c) other, stating in each case (i) the dates of the secondments, (ii) the number of civil servants seconded to that organisation and (iii) their grade. [114174]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Student Debt and Retention Rates
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he plans to introduce to(a) address concerns about student debt and (b) improve retention rates in higher education. [108272]

  Margaret Hodge
  Our White Paper "The future of higher education" proposes a number of measures which address concerns about student debt, particularly for students from low income families. In particular, from 2004/05 around 30 per cent. of students will benefit in full from the new HE Grant of £1,000 per year and a further number will receive a proportion of £1,000. The grant will be additional to the loan but students can choose to reduce their loan take up, including costly commercial loans, and hence their future debt.

  From 2006/07 the abolition of the requirement to pay upfront fees and new university bursary schemes to support lower income students will also help reduce the need to borrow. The Government will continue to means test the first £1,100 contribution to fees; at present only 40 per cent. of students pay the full contribution. In 2001/02, 43 per cent. of students received a full grant to cover tuition costs and 16 per cent. received a partial grant, institutions that wish to charge higher, variable fees will be required to enter into an access agreement with the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). The access agreement will cover proposals to extend the bursaries and other financial arrangements they will offer, such as subsidised accommodation, travel, books, study aids etc.

  Student loans will continue to be offered at highly subsidised rates. Unlike commercial debt or mortgage there is no interest charged other than inflation. From 2005 the threshold at which students start to pay back will be raised from £10,000 to £15,000, helping new graduates and lower earners. This makes debt repayments lower and more affordable and repayments will continue to be income contingent. The new Student
  1008W
  Income and Expenditure Survey for 2002/03, currently being undertaken, will give authoritative information about students' cost of living and anticipated debt.

  We have asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to bear down on non-completion. To that end, HEFCE are funding Action on Access to highlight and disseminate good practice in student retention. Further measures planned by HEFCE to improve retention and increase information to potential students include:
  1. Asking Action on Access to establish a target group of institutions and work specifically with them to improve their retention rates.
  2. Bringing together of Aimhigher: Partnerships for Progression and Excellence Challenge under Aimhigher to create a more unified message for potential students.
  3. Ensuring that additional relevant information is put on the Higher Education and Research Opportunities (HERO) website to assist potential students make informed decisions.
  4. Working with the Department and other partners to establish a new HE Students Portal (HESP) which will provide a dedicated information service to students, their parents and advisers.

  HEFCE will take further steps in line with the proposals in the White Paper to ensure universities and colleges will be properly funded for the extra costs of attracting and retaining students from non-traditional backgrounds.

  The HEFCE have allocated £265 million to institutions in 2003–04 for widening access and improving retention. This figure recognises the additional costs of supporting students from non-traditional backgrounds and thereby increases the likelihood that they will complete their courses successfully. We expect HEFCE to come forward with further proposals for 2004/05 on how they intend to implement White Paper proposals on funding HEIs who are not making progress on improving completion rates.

  Teachers
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grant is available to head teachers to meet the cost of teachers who moved up the upper pay scale to point two from September 2002; and if he will make a statement. [113516]

  Mr. Miliband
  Movement to point two of the upper pay scale for post-threshold teachers is by performance points awarded on a discretionary basis in schools. The Department is contributing £205 million performance-related pay grant for 2003–04, which will be sufficient to meet all of schools' on-going commitments arising from the performance-related pay grant provided in 2002–03, and to support the costs of similar progress along the Upper Pay Spine for those teachers becoming eligible for performance points in September 2003. Discussions are continuing with employers and unions about the exact way this grant will be divided among schools.
  1009W
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time equivalent teachers were working in schools in Brighton and Hove in each year since 1996–97. [114696]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows full-time equivalent teachers (excluding occasionals) in the maintained schools sector in Brighton and Hove and its former parent local education authority prior to local government reorganisation, as at January of each year.

  Former East Sussex

  East Sussex1

  Brighton and Hove

  1997

  5,110

  —

  —

  1998

  —

  3,430

  1,600

  1999

  —

  3,410

  1,650

  2000

  —

  3,560

  1,660

  2001

  —

  3,610

  1,730

  20022

  —

  3,620

  1,800

  1 Post 1 April 1997

  2 The most recent teacher data available at local education authority level are for 2002

  1010W
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacancies he estimates exist within the teaching profession in schools in the Greater London area. [114856]

  Mr. Miliband
  There were 1,020 advertised vacancies for full-time permanent teaching posts in maintained schools in the London Government Office Region at January 2003. The corresponding figure for January 2002 was 1,356.

  School Places
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unfilled places there are in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the London borough of Wandsworth. [114854]

  Mr. Miliband
  In January 2001 there were 1,485 surplus primary school places and 465 surplus secondary school places in the London Borough of Wandsworth. Surplus places data for January 2003 will be collected in June and the results published in the autumn. The Department did not collect surplus places data in 2002.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Empty Homes
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  I have today published for consultation proposals that, if enacted, would allow local authorities, in defined circumstances, to take temporary management control of some private sector empty homes.

  The consultation paper "Empty Homes: temporary management, lasting solutions" follows on from the announcement in the Sustainable Communities Plan published earlier this year and builds on a recommendation of the Transport, Local Government and Regions Select Committee in a report published last year.

  We believe that it is vital to tackle the pernicious effects of empty homes. They blight our communities, are a magnet for vandals and criminals and tie up the resources of local authorities and the emergency services. Bringing empty homes back into use reduces the need to develop land for new homes on urban fringes and in the countryside.

  The objective of our proposals is to provide an effective back-up to voluntary leasing schemes that does not unduly penalise owners. The principle would not be to deprive owners of their property, but to allow local authorities to control their use on a temporary basis in order get homes re-occupied.

  Copies of the consultation paper are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Naval Manning Agency
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency for the financial year 2003–04 and are shown below. The targets build upon and are consistent with those demanded of the NMA since its vesting in July 1996 and encompass the full range of primary outputs demanded of the Agency:

  DEPLOYMENT OF NAVAL SERVICE PERSONNEL:
  The percentage of filled officer billets to be: 93 per cent. or greater
  The percentage of filled rating billets to be: 88 per cent. or greater
  The percentage of filled RM other rank billets to be: 86 per cent. or greater
  44WS
  NAVAL SERVICE CAREER MANAGEMENT:
  The percentage of officers receiving the required Notice of Change to be 60 per cent. or greater.
  The percentage of ratings and RM other ranks receiving the required Notice of Change to be 98 per cent. or greater.
  The number of occurrences where Minimum Time Ashore criteria are met to be: 99 per cent. or greater.

  FINANCIAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:
  To operate the NMA within zero to minus 1 per cent. of its 2003–04 Net Cash Allocation for Operating Activities.

  MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT:
  The variation of strength to be: Between + 1 per cent. and -2 per cent.

  BUSINESS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT:
  To achieve strict control of NMA manpower overheads to within plus or minus 2 per cent. of the baseline established for manpower overheads as at 1 October 2002.

  CUSTOMER RELATIONS MANAGEMENT:
  To achieve a Customer Confidence Score of 65.

  Gulf Veterans' Illnesses
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  The Ministry of Defence welcomes publication of the Medical Research Council's Review of Research into Gulf Veterans' Illnesses. We are grateful for the work that has gone into the Review, which was conducted following a request from the MOD. We have taken particular note of the Review's conclusions and recommendations for further research and will study these further in detail. The MOD notes that a number of the recommendations are scientifically complex and will approach the Medical Research Council with a view to holding detailed discussions about how they may be taken forward, the data they are expected to yield and the priorities that should be attached to them. Once this has taken place we will consult veterans and other stakeholders about the way ahead.

  Iraq—Update on Requirements for Reserves
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  In my written statement of 30 April 2003,Official Report, columns 15–16WS, I announced the call-out of up to 1,200 additional Reservists to support continuing operations within Iraq. This process is currently underway. I also acknowledged that there would be a further need for Reservists. A requirement for a further 1,500 Reservists has now been confirmed. I have authorised the issue of appropriate call-out notices. These will primarily be deployed, either as formed units or as individual reinforcements to regular units, in support of the Divisional Headquarters and its Logistic Brigade.

  In parallel, the process to demobilise those Reservists called up for the first phase of operations continues. To date, we have demobilised around 1,100 reservists who have completed their required tasks. Further Reservists have returned from operations in Iraq and are currently taking the post-operational tour leave to which they are entitled, following which they will also be demobilised.

  There will be a continuing role for our Reserve forces in Iraq, but we expect overall numbers of Reservists required to reduce over time. This further call-out demonstrates our continuing commitment to Iraq and

  45WS
  to the Iraqi people. In addition, we continue to plan in detail the withdrawal of forces that have completed their operational tour, and the deployment of further replacement forces to continue to fulfil our responsibilities in Iraq. I will inform the House as soon as these plans become firm. We remain determined to help the Iraqis to set the conditions for Iraq's re-emergence as a country that is both politically secure and economically stable.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Licensing
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  The Department of Transport is today announcing action to modernise the vehicle registration system, so as to attack the related problems of abandoned cars, vehicle crime, unlicensed vehicles, and those for whom the person responsible cannot be traced.

  We intend to bring forward secondary legislation to implement powers taken in the 2002 Finance Act to ensure that from 1 January 2004 the registered keeper of a vehicle will be liable for licensing the vehicle until it is notified as sold, scrapped, stolen or exported or unless a current Statutory Off Road Notification has been declared to the Driver and vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA).

  Under the same powers we will bring forward secondary legislation to provide for a new automatic fixed penalty for those who fail to re-license (tax) on time.

  The new measures aim to provide greater protection to honest motorists.

  Vehicle crime is an expensive burden on the honest citizen. It is estimated that there are about a million unlicensed vehicles on the road. These vehicles are frequently abandoned and often uninsured—adding an estimated £500 million to the overall cost of uninsured driving. This adds around £30 a year to the honest UK motorist's insurance premium. Vehicle crime is estimated to cost the economy £3 billion each year and accounts for more than a quarter of all reported crime. By ensuring vehicles do not fall out of the registration system, we can reduce the number of unlicensed and often uninsured vehicles on the road—tackling car abandonment and bringing dishonest motorists to book.

  Starting in January 2004,
  Motorists will be legally responsible at all times for re-licensing (taxing) their vehicle.
  Those who fail to re-license on time will be liable for a standard penalty of £80. Determined offenders could face a severe fine if taken to court. If the vehicle remains unlicensed, then following the provisions of the 2002 Finance Act, DVLA may prosecute and a court may fine the registered keeper of an unlicensed vehicle a minimum of £1000.
  Offenders will be penalised automatically when their tax-disc expires or Statutory Off Road Notification lapses—there will no longer be any need to see the unlicensed vehicle on the road.

  The level of the standard penalty will be subject to public consultation later this year
  46WS
  To support these measures:
  The DVLA will increase and re-focus its enforcement activities. It will give particular attention to enforcement from the record and increased cooperation with the police.
  Already, from 1 February this year, vehicles can only be licensed (taxed) with a valid logbook or DVLA reminder, to ensure that every vehicle has a traceable keeper.
  Motorists already have a legal obligation to ensure that their registration details are kept up to date. The DVLA will be issuing new-format vehicle registration documents (logbooks) to all law-abiding and by definition traceable vehicle keepers from January 2004. All previous logbooks will be invalid from 31 March 2005.

  To help safeguard honest motorists, the Government is also advising motorists who sell their car to keep a record of the identity of the person to whom they sell it. For example the number of the buyer's driving licence.

  The new measures form part of the Government's programme of initiatives to tackle vehicle crime. They follow recommendations agreed by the Modernising Vehicle Registration Implementation Board, which includes representation from motoring organisations, the motor trade, the insurance industry and the police. They also reflect recommendations put forward by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.

  These new measures will protect the majority of honest and responsible motorists and make the offenders pay.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education Admissions Project
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  Further to my Statement in the House on Tuesday 8 April 2003,Official Report, column 16WS, I am announcing today further details of the project to be undertaken by Professor Steven Schwartz on admissions to Higher Education.

  The terms of reference of the project will be as follows:
  To report to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the options which English institutions providing Higher Education should consider adopting in assessing the merit of applicants and their achievement and potential for different types of courses.
  To report on practical implementation of such options using evidence-based good practice.
  To report on the high-level principles underpinning such approaches which institutions would be expected to adopt.

  The Group should consider in particular:
  The need to reinforce public confidence in the fairness and transparency of admissions arrangements.
  The diversity in the missions of providers of Higher Education, and of their students.
  Maintaining the autonomy of institutions in academic matters including the systems and processes by which applicants are admitted.

  The report to the Secretary of State should be submitted by May 2004 following a period of consultation with universities and the wider public.
  47WS
  Professor Schwartz will be supported by a steering group whose membership will be as follows:
  Prof Sir Colin Campbell, Vice-Chancellor, University of Nottingham.
  Mrs Pauline Davies, Headmistress, Wycombe Abbey School, High Wycombe.
  Mr John Gardiner, Chairman, TESCO plc.
  Ms Janet Graham, Head of the Admissions Office, University of Cambridge.
  Prof Sir Howard Newby, Chief Executive, Higher Education Funding Council for England.
  Mr Peter Lampl, Chairman, Sutton Trust.
  Mr Anthony McClaran, acting Chief Executive, Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.
  Mr John Morgan, Headteacher, Conyers School, Yarm, Stockton-on-Tees.
  Dr Bernadette Porter, Rector and Chief Executive, University of Surrey Roehampton.
  Dr Alan Stanhope, Principal, Cornwall College of Further Education, St Austell.

  In addition, Professor Schwartz and the steering group may seek specialist advice from other persons and organisations.

HEALTH

  Cancer Services
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn)
  I am today announcing a £165 million investment programme in new equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. As a result, all computed tomography (CT) scanners, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners and linear accelerators introduced before 1996 will be replaced with new modern equipment. This will give the National Health Service in England a stock of diagnostic scanners as modern as any country in Europe. I am also announcing today the allocation of 38 CT and 43 MRI scanners. A list of the NHS Trusts in receipt of these has been placed in the Library.

  I have also today placed in the Library copies of a letter from the National Cancer Director and a report on investment in cancer services in 2001–02 and 2002–03.

  The report shows that while there was a shortfall in cancer investment in 2001–02, this was corrected in 2002–03 in line with the commitments set out in the Cancer Plan. Planned local investment in cancer alongside central budgets for 2003–04 will mean that the NHS will invest more than the £570 million provided in the Cancer Plan.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe Assembly/Assembly of Western European Union
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)
  I have placed in the Library today the latest Information Bulleting on the activities of the United Kingdom Delegation to the 48WS
  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union covering the period from November 2000 to October 2002.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Shellfish Waters
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  Further treatment than secondary treatment is being operated or is due to be installed at certain sewage treatment works discharging into 47 Shellfish Waters in England designated under the Surface Waters (Shellfish) (Classification) Regulations 1997, in order to fulfil our obligations under the Shellfish Waters Directive.

  So, in accordance with the criteria in Part I of Schedule I of the Urban Waste Water Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 1994 (which transposes the European Council Directive (91/271/EEC) concerning urban waste water treatment), I am today announcing the designation of these 47 water bodies as Sensitive Areas (Shellfish Waters) under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

  Maps and lists of the new Sensitive Areas have today been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. Maps showing the location of all current Sensitive Areas (Eutrophic), (Nitrate), (Bathing Waters), and now (Shellfish Waters) have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and at the head office of the Environment Agency and its principal regional offices.

  The maps will also be published on the Department's website.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance
  The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown)
  In a written statement on 12 December I announced the start of the review of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance and the terms of reference of the review:

  "The purpose of this review is to assess the case for reforming ELCI and, if such a case is demonstrated, to identify the objectives and options for such reform. Its terms of reference are to:
  Survey the operation of Employer's Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI), taking into account any relevant aspects of the state benefits systems.
  Assess the scale and nature of the current difficulties being experienced in relation to ELCI, in particular the extent to which these difficulties are likely to be short-term only, repeated in the future or permanent.
  Make recommendations to Ministers as to the case or otherwise for reforming ELCI.
  If a case for reform is found, make recommendations as to the objectives, principles and high-level options for such reform."

  The statement said that the review would report to Ministers in Spring 2003.
  49WS
  An interim, first stage report, has now been received by Ministers. This sets out our preliminary findings in what has proved to be a complex area and also sets out a work plan for producing a further report. Hon Members may also be aware that the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has been conducting a fact-finding study into the UK Liability Insurance market. That study has been looking at public, product, professional and
  50WS
  employers' liability insurance, and examining why premiums have recently increased and the way in which this market is working.

  Although the two reviews are separate they consider related issues. I have therefore agreed with OFT that it would be sensible to co-ordinate publication of the two reports. This will happen immediately following recess, on 3 June.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Hereford): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Sudan
Baroness Coxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to recent developments in Sudan, in the light of reports of continuing military attacks on civilians by the government forces in violation of the peace agreement.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the 4th February addendum to the memorandum of understanding in cessation of hostilities allowed for the establishment of a verification monitoring team. The team will verify reports of fighting on the ground. A British senior liaison officer has been appointed to lead that team. He arrived in Nairobi on 7th May. We have contributed other personnel and 500,000 dollars to the operation. We and other donors will continue to monitor the agreement very closely to encourage both parties to implement it in full.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that partially encouraging reply. Is she aware that the Government of Sudan have, according to reliable reports, continued to violate ceasefire agreements, launching military offensives against innocent civilians, particularly in the oil areas of eastern and western upper Nile, and building up huge supplies of military equipment in Wau, Kassala and Juba, indicating that they intend further military offensives? Can the noble Baroness explain why Her Majesty's Government continue to do business with a regime that, in some respects, has a worse track record than Saddam's Iraq, with 2 million dead and over 5 million displaced, and continues to kill civilians while talking peace?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, nobody will know more than the noble Baroness about the appalling position on the ground, but I am bound to say to her that part of what we are doing is trying to ensure that the reports that come through are verified.
The noble Baroness will know that a peace process is in train at the moment. There is a real prospect of peace, and we hope that the agreement, which was reached under the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development process—your Lordships have discussed it in the past—under the chairmanship of General Sumbeiywo, will render some results. It is due to do so by the end of June this year, although the timetable may slip a bit.
932
In the Government's view, there are grounds for hope. Of course, there are the continuing reports, which is why we felt that it was so important to ensure that the verification monitoring team got under way. I know that there were some initial difficulties over the modalities under which they were to operate, but we now hope that it will go ahead successfully.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, with regard to the reports that have come through, can my noble friend say whether, when the UN Commission on Human Rights terminated the mandate of the rapporteur, account was taken of the practice of inflicting 100 lashes on women—including 14 year-old girls—for committing adultery, without any action against the men responsible? Does my noble friend consider that there is a prospect that the commission may reconsider its decision?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we continue to be enormously concerned about human rights in Sudan and about the way in which such rights are abused with little regard to the background of the people involved. The promotion of human rights remains one of our central priorities.
We are aware of the terrible sentences of lashing imposed on young girls for alleged adultery. We make heavy representations on such issues. As my noble and learned friend will know, the Sudanese Government signed up to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. We shall continue to lobby them to ratify the convention that they signed.
The situation is kept under constant review. We are lobbying the commission on human rights again, as we did before the vote was taken on the suspension. It was enormously disappointing that that vote went the way that it did, but we continue to consult our colleagues in the EU on the next step.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the situation in Darfur, in western Sudan, has deteriorated particularly in the past two weeks? Has she seen Amnesty International's call that the Machakos protocol should be extended to cover Darfur, and that the situation should he monitored by the international human rights teams that both sides signed up to? Does she agree that Machakos still represents the best way forward in resolving the conflict?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware of Amnesty's call for an international commission of inquiry into what is happening in Darfur. The situation there remains complex, with unresolved inter-Arab disputes and Arab-African ethnic clashes. We share those concerns. Our embassy in Khartoum and the UK special representative for the Sudan are discussing the matter with the Government of Sudan and others concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, may be pleased to note that the EU heads of mission will raise Darfur in their meeting with Dr Mutrif, which is

933
taking place today in the Sudanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We have recognised the urgency of the situation and are taking the issue up today.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, in view of the barbaric behaviour of the Government of the Sudan and the urgent need to bring united pressure to bear on that government, can the Minister explain the extraordinary judgment of the United States that the Government of the Sudan was not unreasonably interfering with humanitarian efforts, which appeared to divide those who were trying to bring pressure to bear on the Sudan? Can she assure us that Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States are getting together to try to act in concert against that very unpleasant regime?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course we try to ensure that the view of Her Majesty's Government is properly discussed. The United States has a key role in making significant progress in Sudan. It may take a different view of how that will be done, but it has a significant role none the less. The United States' aim, as we understand it, is to complement the arrangements that already exist, and its support for the peace process is firm. Under the Sudan Peace Act, the US President determined on 21st April that the Government of Sudan and the SPLM were negotiating in good faith and said that those negotiations should continue.
We are directing our attention at the same issues as the United States. We try to make as much common cause as we can.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the assassination in February of a prominent Masselite Member of the Sudanese Parliament, Sharif Ishag Ibrahim, and of a prominent religious leader in Darfur, Sheikh Salih Dakoro? Both were assassinated in what appeared to be another calculated breach of the undertakings to which the noble Baroness referred. What is the reaction of Her Majesty's Government to that? Does the noble Baroness agree that attacks on individuals such as were mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, as well as those that I mentioned, and the co-ordinated military assaults referred to by my noble friend Lady Cox amount to an absolute defiance of international opinion and a total breach of undertakings given to international organisations? Can the Government do something more effective to curb that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are aware of the kind of incidents that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, described. Her Majesty's Government are doing what we can to support verification on the ground of what is happening, as I explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
The noble Lord asked what more we could do. It is important to recognise what Her Majesty's Government are doing today. Her Majesty's Government are taking part in an EU meeting with the
934
Sudanese Government today to discuss a range of issues. I spoke about Darfur a moment ago, but there are also human rights issues.
We are also contributing to the verification monitoring force. The difficulties over that have been ironed out as of 20th May. I very much hope that we will be getting a real presence on the ground, headed by a British officer—Mr Rob Symonds—who will do what he can to ensure that there is an international presence lending its weight to ensure that such abuses do not continue.

Gulf War Veterans
11.10 a.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest, not a financial one, as Honorary Parliamentary Adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion and a co-opted member of the United States Congressional Committee of Inquiry into Gulf War Illnesses.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what recent representations they have had from the Royal British Legion in relation to the problems and needs of veterans of the first Gulf War and the dependants of veterans with undiagnosed illnesses who have died subsequent to the conflict.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, this year my honourable friend the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has met representatives from the Royal British Legion on at least four occasions and has discussed issues surrounding veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict. Officials attended the Royal British Legion Gulf War Inter-Parliamentary Group meeting in March and a number of informal discussions. As it happens, I shall be attending the Royal British Legion annual conference this coming weekend and will make the keynote speech which will include reference to veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf conflict.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Is he aware of the Legion's concern about whether the protocol for administering the anthrax vaccine has been strictly observed in all cases; about the seemingly endless haggling in tribunals and courts with veterans, some of them terminally ill, over war and service attributable pensions; and about distress among widows, many in broken health, who would have been better treated had they been US and not British citizens?
Is it not shaming that lottery funds are now in prospect to fund support services for our veterans? Moreover, is he aware that already soldiers back from Iraq are seeking advice from the ex-service community for serious illnesses that they have had since receiving multiple vaccinations on the same day?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as far as concerns the anthrax vaccine, there is no clinical evidence that anthrax vaccine is unsafe if used in combination with other vaccines or treatments. But we are not deaf to Gulf veterans' concerns and our guidance to medical staff states that the vaccine should be separated from other vaccines wherever possible and specifically states that anthrax vaccine should not be given within five days of a live vaccine. We have made standard service vaccines routine so there should be no need to administer the anthrax vaccine alongside other vaccines upon deployment.
In response to the last question that my noble friend asked—I pay tribute to the incredible work that he does on behalf of the Royal British Legion—a number of research measures into the physical and psychological health of those who have been involved in recent operations in the Gulf were announced in this House on 8th May. The announcement also extended the Ministry of Defence Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme to include veterans of the recent operation. We have not received any reports of ill health following this deployment, but given the concerns surrounding this subject we have already put a package of measures in place.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the key expert in this area— Professor Simon Wesley—who is, indeed, the Government's own adviser, has said, referring to the previous Gulf War, that there is irrefutable proof that going to the Gulf has affected the health of some UK servicemen. The War Pensions Tribunal of the MoD itself recently decided that that was so in the case of Mr Izett and there is a further case later this month in which it may well come to the same decision. How long will the Ministry of Defence bury its head in the sand?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is not burying its head or any other part of its anatomy in the sand on this issue. Of course we accept that some troops who went to the Gulf came back ill. There is no question about that. The dispute is as to whether there is something which can be called Gulf War syndrome. All the medical evidence we have suggests that that is not so. As I understand it, the expert referred to by the noble Lord, is with us on that point.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I wonder whether the time has not come for Her Majesty's Government to make ex gratia payments in settlement without further commitment rather than to drag out endlessly expensive litigation and inconclusive clinical trials? Surely a little magnanimity now would not only be cost-effective but would also serve to relieve the continuing anguish of veteran sufferers and their families?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble and gallant Lord that we have not been magnanimous as far as this is concerned. As regards war disablement pensions, a very large number indeed have been awarded to those who bravely fought in the first Gulf
936
War. As the House will know, the burden of proof as regards such a pension is on the Secretary of State. He must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the illness or injury caused was not attributable to service. As a consequence of that extraordinarily heavy burden and standard of proof, a very large number of Gulf War veterans are receiving fairly generous pensions. I think that we have been magnanimous in this respect, but of course I shall take back what the noble and gallant Lord says and look at it again.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an estimate of the numbers of surviving veterans with problems and needs from the first Gulf War?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific figure. I can say that until now more than 3,300 patients have been seen by the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme. I have already mentioned that a large number of those who fought in that war are in receipt of a war disablement pension.

Bangladesh: Bihari Community
11.17 a.m.
Lord McNallyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent initiatives have been pursued by the Department for International Development to help resolve the difficulties faced by the Biharis community in Bangladesh.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos): My Lords, DfID's objective is the reduction of poverty and we provide £ 80 million of development assistance a year to Bangladesh —our third largest programme—for that purpose. We work closely with the Government of Bangladesh and a range of NGOs to bring the benefit of sustainable development to as many poor people as possible. It is not our policy to single out particular groups for special attention and DfID has not taken any recent initiatives with regard to the Biharis in Bangladesh.
However, the British Government are concerned by the periodic reports of discrimination against minorities. The British High Commission in Dhaka frequently raises human rights concerns, including on minorities, with the Government of Bangladesh.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I slightly regret the jobsworth tone of that reply. I recognise the commitment to Bangladesh by the Secretary of State's department. However, the point of the Question, like the point of the long campaign by the late David Ennals about this matter, is that the Biharis—a community of some 300,000—have been left stranded in Bangladesh. Is it not one of the world's refugee problems that is manageable and soluble given goodwill and initiative? Are not Her Majesty's

937
Government well placed, with their good relations with Pakistan and with Bangladesh, to take such an initiative?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that, in a sense, the Biharis have been left stranded; they are basically stateless because Pakistan is not making any particular effort to put in place the mechanisms that would allow those who chose to take Pakistani citizenship at the time the country of Pakistan was created to move into Pakistan. Some 66 camps now house those left in Bangladesh. The Government of Bangladesh provide rice and flour; water and electricity is supplied for free, while NGOs provide medical facilities. The Biharis are free to work, to carry out their business and to move in and out of the camps at will.
There may well be a chink of light here. On 5th May a court case was heard which may lead to some changes. Ten Biharis lodged a case on voting rights at the time of the 2001 elections. The high court ruled in their favour and granted them voting rights. In the past, the Bangladeshi Government have said that those Biharis who remain in Bangladesh could take up Bangladeshi citizenship, but administratively that has not worked out. However, we think that this ruling may well facilitate a process which would allow the Biharis to take up Bangladeshi citizenship and remain in that country.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, despite her responses to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, can the Secretary of State explain why assistance to the Bihari people was not mentioned once in the Bangladesh strategy paper? In the light of that, what proportion of UK aid to Bangladesh is allocated to the Bihari people? Furthermore, is any aid to Bangladesh made conditional on resolving the issue of the Biharis?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I think I made it clear in my initial Answer to the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we have not singled out any particular groups for special attention in Bangladesh. However, we have established a new human rights and governance fund to be used to finance human rights and governance activities by smaller NGOs. Bids have been made in respect of that fund to support the Biharis in Bangladesh, but I cannot say to the noble Baroness that a specific proportion of the £ 80 million allocated to Bangladesh is earmarked for work with the Biharis.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, no matter what support is offered by the Government and NGOs, Bangladesh still needs an enormous amount of help? Is she aware that a number of noble Lords are to form part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation that will visit Bangladesh later this year? I am one of those fortunate enough to be part of the delegation.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the visit of the CPA delegation to Bangladesh. In my previous
938
role as the Minister with responsibility for the Commonwealth, it had been anticipated that I would join part of that delegation visit; that will not now be the case. However, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed. Of course there is an urgent need for development assistance in Bangladesh. Through our High Commission, we shall continue to raise the issue of discrimination against Biharis when it is brought to our attention.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, speaking of the Commonwealth, might not there be scope for a Commonwealth or European Union initiative to help resolve this human rights problem? Would the Secretary of State be willing to take that forward?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is possible that there would be scope for an initiative through the Commonwealth, but it is important for the House to remember that Pakistan is currently suspended from the Commonwealth. However, the context in which the Commonwealth could consider this situation would be in terms of human rights as set out in the Harare Principles. There are a number of areas under those principles by which an initiative could be taken forward. I would be happy to take up this point with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that her supplementary responses were far better than her original Answer? I hope that that is a sign of her influence on the department. She made the point about possible new rights for the Biharis in Bangladesh. Does she agree that that offers a chink of light? There are signs that the younger generation of Biharis see this as a long-term solution. Is not that something which could and should be encouraged?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the younger generation of Biharis strongly envisage their future within Bangladesh. If we can sort out the issue of citizenship, it would mark a promising way forward.
I am pleased that the noble Lord found my supplementary responses more informative than the original Answer, but if I had given everything away, there would have been no opportunity for noble Lords to come back on this issue.

Togo: Presidential Election
11.25 a.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogartasked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultations they have had within the European Union to seek to secure satisfactory conditions for the holding of a democratic presidential election in Togo on 1st June.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are concerned that recent developments in Togo seriously undermine the chances of securing satisfactory conditions for the presidential election on 1st June. The United Kingdom has regularly raised these concerns with European Union partners. The United Kingdom fully aligns itself with the EU statement of 15th May which highlighted our concerns about governance and urged the Togolese authorities to create the right climate for democratic elections.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Is it not time that the European Union sought to galvanise the international community to promote the restoration of democracy for the 5 million Togolese people? They have been suffering for over 35 years—longer than any other African country— under a brutal dictator who has murdered his political opponents, and imprisoned and tortured others. Is it not clear that Eyadema has deliberately flouted the call made by the European Union as early as February for a broad-based agreement between the political forces on the conditions for democratic elections? Is it not also clear that the pending presidential election will be a sham and should not be dignified by the presence of French official observers? Since the French Government have undoubted influence in Togo, do the Government believe that that nation will be prepared to work with its partners in the European Union to bring an end to these dreadful wrongs?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan. There is no doubt that President Eyadema has broken his word, the word that he gave to President Chirac that he would serve only his current term and would not stand for election again. He has changed the law and effectively undermined all opposition in the country. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord has said.
The question here is what is the EU reaction. The United Kingdom will continue to work for a very robust EU position in the run-up to the election. We want an appropriate EU response in the light of the conduct of the election. It is no secret that different views are held within the EU on the strength of language to be used over Togo. We shall continue to argue for the use of very strong language over these issues, while no doubt others will continue to argue as they do at present.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that when Togo launched into a two-week campaign for the presidential election on Friday 16th May, the main opposition candidate, Mr Gilchrist Olympio, was barred from standing for election due to changes made to the constitution in December 2002. Can the noble Baroness explain what role she might see for NePAD in monitoring free and fair elections in African countries such as Togo?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are aware of what happened to Mr Gilchrist Olympio
940
and we deplore the fact that he was effectively ruled out of the running. The noble Baroness may be interested to learn that we remain in contact with the Togolese opposition, including Mr Olympio. It is important to make that point.
Of course NePAD has made good progress since its inception. We must try to ensure that those elements of the NePAD process dealing with good governance in Africa are applied to Togo and we must continue to argue in the way that I have indicated—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, was pleased with what I had to say—about the United Kingdom's position on this issue in the European Union being a very forward one.

Communications Bill
11.30 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into ommittee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 195 [Functions of OFCOM in relation to the BBC:]
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 146:
Page 175, line 27, at end insert "and to enforce the terms of the BBC Fair Trading Commitment as currently drafted"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to extend Ofcom's regulatory functions to include the BBC's fair trading commitment. The Royal Charter currently requires that the commitment is enforced by the BBC Board of Governors. The fair trading commitment places a strong obligation on the BBC to trade fairly and not to use the publicly-funded licence fee to its advantage against other commercial broadcasters. While we welcome such a commitment, we believe that the BBC governors have failed to effectively enforce its requirements to date.
The position of the BBC fair trade commitment, and the process by which compliance is achieved by the governors, requires closer scrutiny. The fair trade document contains provisions asserting the means by which the BBC brand should be used, in addition to including fair trade obligations that we believe should be subject to external regulatory oversight. The amendment ensures that the fair trade commitment as currently drafted would be subject to further scrutiny.
The power of the BBC brand cannot be underestimated. It is critical that its commercial activities are regulated in such a way that no question of cross-subsidy between licence fee-funded activities and commercial interests arises. It is critical that public confidence in the institution is maintained. If doubt arises as to the legitimacy of the commercial activities

941
of the corporation and no, or insufficient, mechanisms exist to ensure transparency, public confidence will be lost.
The role of the governors is of paramount importance in the BBC. It is twofold. The governors are responsible for policy formation, albeit strategic, and for internal regulation. The amendment, coupled with Amendment No. 152, seeks to give Ofcom the necessary authority to confer legitimacy and to ensure compliance with the fair trade commitment as it applies to the BBC's commercial activities.
Amendment No. 152 concerns the monitoring of the BBC's commercial activities. It seeks to confer a duty on Ofcom to monitor compliance by BBC companies with self-published guidelines regulating their commercial interests. It is essential that the regulatory framework within which the BBC commercial arm operates is clearly defined and monitored to remove any ambiguity among other parts of the commercial broadcasting sector.
The procedure through which compliance is currently adjudicated remains unclear. It is not appropriate within today's broadcasting ecology for such practices to remain without an adequate mechanism to ensure conformity. The amendment supports the proposal suggested by Amendment No. 146 and would enable Ofcom to obtain any BBC information, including access to books of account or contractual documents, as it believes necessary to fulfil its obligations under the clause.
The amendment would create a level playing field for all commercial broadcasters and would clarify the position of the BBC governors and Ofcom in respect of BBC Worldwide. It would ensure that the BBC's fair trading commitment and the relating commercial policy guidelines are scrutinised both internally by the governors and then externally by Ofcom. Implementing the clause alone would not remove the power from the governors to enforce these obligations; it would simply allow Ofcom to monitor the BBC's regulatory compliance. Amendment No. 146 would provide the mechanism of enforcement while Amendment No. 152 would grant Ofcom the necessary power to discharge its duty effectively.
The commercial arm of the BBC—BBC Worldwide—is not licensed by Ofcom but is conferred authority by the Royal Charter. This produces a notable irregularity. The commercial activities of the BBC would not, as the Bill is drafted, fully come under the external regulatory scrutiny of Ofcom, which does not have the same powers to monitor or request information from BBC Worldwide as it does from other commercial broadcasters. The only power that Ofcom will retain is the concurrent power exercisable with the OFT if it is proved that the BBC or BBC Worldwide are guilty of abuse of their dominant market positions, or if the BBC can be proved to have distorted the market. Such an abuse of power would be extremely difficult to assess and substantiate.
Transparency within the BBC is essential to guarantee the confidence of other broadcasters and the public, who are so important in this process. If the
942
governors are certain that the fair trading requirements have been adhered to, there should be no resistance to the proposed external scrutiny of the BBC fair trading obligations. Such an amendment can only serve to ensure that trust is developed within the industry as a whole and that any ambiguity as to the BBC's commercial activities is removed.
Amendment No. 275 seeks to ensure parity between the BBC and commercial operators in the matter of cross-promotion. It seeks to confer a duty on the BBC to make arrangements to secure that any rules made by Ofcom regarding the regulation of promotion of programmes, channels and related services are observed. This would ensure that any rules set by Ofcom which apply to commercial broadcasters apply equally to the BBC, thus reflecting the objectives of Amendments Nos. 146 and 152.
It is important to emphasise the problem of one-sided, unbalanced cross-promotions which can confuse viewers seeking to make informed choices between services to the detriment of broadcasting as a whole. Cross-promotions for mass market channels can be used to stifle competition unfairly. In both areas there is a strong case for the BBC to adhere to much more concrete and objective standards and to he subject to some kind of external scrutiny.
This is not only a theoretical problem. Many viewers and listeners complain—only slightly tongue-in cheek—that the level of advertising on the BBC is now worse than on commercial channels. Equally, there are concerns among rival broadcasters that new BBC digital services enjoy the benefit of free promotional airtime on BBC1 which would, if purchased from commercial stations, costs millions of pounds. Now that the BBC is a fully-pledged partner in the digital terrestrial platform, it is noticeable that its advertisements for digital television contain a throwaway reference to cable and satellite, followed by a eulogy on the benefits of Freeview.
A code on cross-promotions, most recently reissued by the ITC in January 2002, contains rules to which all commercial licensees must adhere. Consulting on the rules at the time, the ITC said that it sought to strike a balance between,
"giving viewers greater access to more information about the choice of services available in a multi-channel digital environment. whilst limiting the amount of promotional clutter and protecting the quality of the viewing experience".
In implementing this eminently sensible policy, the ITC introduced specific rules on avoiding excessive amounts of cross-promotional activity in any given period; avoiding excessive promotion of a particular channel, service or suite of channels or services; and a restriction on the promotion of any particular digital platform or platform service provider outside paid-for advertising minutage. In-programme promotions should provide information likely to be of value to the viewers of the programme containing the promotion and must not become advertising or compromise the editorial integrity of the programmes within which they are placed.

943
We would expect this code, or something like it, to be taken up by Ofcom. Ironically, the rules are now at least as much relevant to the BBC as they are to its main commercial rivals. It would appear that the BBC falls outside the code and has no intention of operating within it. In our view this is unacceptable. The code, by its nature, encompasses both content rules and competition rules, both of which the BBC and the Government have stated should apply to the BBC going forward. The amendment, which would add cross-promotion to Schedule 12 alongside all other matters where the BBC is expected to act as if subject to Ofcom's jurisdiction, plugs this important gap. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: I support Amendment No. 152, which stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I sat as quiet as a mouse through the first four days of the Committee's proceedings—rising only briefly to squeak when unutterably provoked—hut I am afraid that noble Lords will hear rather too much of me today because there are three successive amendments standing in my name. I apologise in advance if I bore the Committee. I declare an interest as a non-executive director of London Weekend Television.
The philosophy of the Bill is clear in that the BBC will be half-in and half-out of Ofcom. It will be in for tier one and tier two and, broadly speaking, in for competition issues. The public service remit of the BBC is outside Ofcom—rightly in the view of some, wrongly in the view of others—but commercially it is within Ofcom.
There is a problem in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, described very well, about the fair trading commitment and its implementation. Let me first clear up the confusion that bedevils our discussions on fair trading.
Sometimes when people talk about the BBC trading unfairly, they mean something very broad. They mean something like, "We have 'Sky News' and the BBC
comes along with 'News 24'; the BBC is paid for by a
licence fee while we have to earn our living. That is unfair". That is an arguable proposition; we could argue both sides of it and no doubt the Committee will return to it.
But that is not what this is about. This is about a much narrower concept of unfair trading: whether the BBC, an organisation with public service and commercial sectors, is appropriately treating those two activities as arms-length activities and not cheating in its commercial activities by cross-subsidisation from its non-commercial activities, or other forms of cheating.
The fair trading rules laid down by the BBC are governed by a code of internal practice of extraordinary complexity and detail. It is hard to argue with it. I am pleased to say that those rules are independently audited by somebody other than the BBC's auditors, and that is all to the good. However, there is still concern, not so much about the rules as about how they are implemented by the BBC. This has
944
rung true in various reports. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, who sat with me on the Davies committee on the licence fee, chaired by Gavyn Davies, will remember that we said:
"Despite the BBC's efforts to put in place procedures intended to achieve transparency and separation of public service and commercial operations, these procedures have not yet inspired public confidence".
We went on to say:
"We do not consider this is possible without some form of external scrutiny".
That is relevant to the BBC's internal reviews. There has been some scrutiny since by Professor Whish. and, like me, he cannot find fault with the rules, but this is outside his terms of reference. Professor Whish, who conducted the review for the Government, went on to say:
"A commitment to fair trading must be supplemented by adequate measures to ensure that compliance is maintained".
I do not know whether or not compliance is maintained, but one hears so many traveller's tales from people in the independent sector and the BBC's competitors, who I accept have an interest, about what the BBC gets up to. I heard from the head of the History Channel the other day. It wanted some film released by the BBC for a programme it was making— no dice. Was that a fair editorial decision to protect the public service or was it an attempt to shackle a channel that was competing with one of the BBC's? Is the BBC asking for fair value for its library items? Is it bundling together things that it wishes to sell in an unsatisfactory way so that people have to purchase things they do not want in order to get the things they want? I raise these questions as they are raised with us and with every noble Lord in this House who is available to hear them.
In conclusion, this is not an anti-BBC amendment— far from it. If everything is fine in the current set-up, independent scrutiny by Ofcom will find it to be fine. Ofcom will find these tales to be exaggerated or invented, the BBC can go ahead with its set of rules, and there is no problem. That would be a huge gain for the BBC—it would not be sniped at and attacked all the time, in this House and elsewhere. for its behaviour. I simply do not understand why the BBC does not enthusiastically endorse an Ofcom role as part of a sensible solution which would allow it to be free to conduct its public service broadcasting without fear that it is using that unfairly to subsidise its commercial activities.
11.45 a.m.
Lord McNally: I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has intervened only with the benefit of the BBC in mind. Only in Britain could we have a public enterprise body that is a market leader and a world success, and then spend so much time working out how we can cut it down to size. If some other public enterprises performed with the excellence of the BBC, the Prime Minister would probably sleep a lot easier at night.

945
It is worth putting this into context. Of course the BBC has been aggressively commercial. That was part of the deal for the last licence settlement. The BBC was told then that it could not just sit complacently on its archives and its assets—it had to work them and sweat them. Therefore, it is a little unfair to say, when it is carrying out its part of the agreement with the Government, "You should not be doing it like this". I am a little worried that we will tie the BBC down like Gulliver with a thousand different strings. I am also worried that Ofcom—which, my goodness, has to keep an eye on some other customers that I trust a lot less than the BBC—will have to face what I would describe as the whine of the week from the commercial sector about what the BBC is or is not doing. I have explained before that I want to see the commercial side of broadcasting as successful as it possibly can be, as long as they understand that it is the will of the British people and the will of this Parliament that we have a strong, aggressive, successful, public sector broadcaster called the BBC. That is an absolute distortion of the market as far as the purists are concerned. That is what we, the British people, want. We want a distorted market in our broadcasting because it allows us to have a public sector broadcaster that can influence our democracy, our culture and the overall standing of our broadcasting.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Could he explain how these amendments would in any way destroy or undermine the success of the BBC? That has nothing to do with the amendments. We are talking about proper external scrutiny of the commercial arm. We are here to underpin the success of a strong, commercial activity which we wholeheartedly support.
Lord McNally: I have heard the noble Baroness promising to support the BBC before. Indeed, I look forward to Mr. David Elstein's report on the BBC for the Conservative Party. That is like asking Count Dracula to look after the blood transfusion service.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to the concerns about the BBC's aggressive commercial activity, and there is a case to answer. I will be listening very carefully to the Government's assessment of these amendments. We are only at Committee stage.
I hope that the BBC listens to some of these concerns and loses some of its macho commercial attitudes, because they weaken its friends' defence of it. But I will not sign up to restriction after restriction, thin thread after thin thread which, in the end, will lead the BBC hog-tied and weakened, like Gulliver. It is a question of an overall judgment. I probably will not intervene as often as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, as this speech-fest on the BBC unfolds, but we on these Benches will look at the overall picture to see what it does. We will not simply be responding to commercial pressures from those who do not like a successful BBC.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I had not intended intervening in this area of the debate, but I am
946
prompted to make a brief contribution in the hope that it illuminates what the amendments are trying to do and the market distortion that is being left totally undisturbed.
The major market distortion in this country, fully endorsed—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally—by everyone in the House, comes from the fact that the BBC is allowed to run many more television channels and radio services than any commercial operator. It is also allowed to cross-promote from one into another in a way that is impossible in the commercial sector because companies are under separate ownership. If I asked people from Scottish television to promote Scottish radio, they would rightly look for some money. The BBC is also allowed to intervene in the market place for magazines. Some BBC magazines are top sellers because the programmes they mirror are very popular.
That whole area is being left wholly undisturbed—a major market distortion. There is very little we can do about it if it is our decision—a decision I would endorse—that the BBC should be able to do all those things. The amendments address the question at a much lower level and do not affect the major position.
Lord McNally: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I conclude with one point on cross-promotion, which illustrates that the BBC simply cannot win, as when it fulfils its commitment to maximise its resources and is then accused of commercialisation. Unless the BBC uses its power to sponsor and promote free digital, we will not get digital switchover. Therefore, when the BBC is accused of using its power to promote free-to-air digital, it is carrying out a national interest and a government policy. It is totally unfair to say that it is abusing its power when it is simply responding to that interest.
I shall not intervene on every amendment of this sort, but when we reach Report stage we must take an overall view instead of hearing these reasonable cases for yet another silken thread to be spun over the BBC.
Baroness Noakes: I hope that I may be permitted to speak today, for although I have not taken part in deliberations on the Bill I have followed the proceedings in Hansard.
I want to take part because I feel that I have some knowledge that could be useful to the Committee. In my former life as a partner in KPMG, I was responsible for services provided to the BBC, which included both the financial audit and the audit of the BBC's fair trading commitment. I am probably the only person here who has practical experience of auditing the fair trading commitment, although I acknowledge that my noble friend Lady Hogg has considerable and more up-to-date knowledge of how it works from the governors' perspective.
It is fair to say that the BBC has become very much more open about its fair trading commitment over the years. I first became involved during the 1990s when the commitment and its audit first emerged. On

947
looking at the 2001–02 annual report I was struck by how far the BBC has moved in terms not only of the process of oversight of the commitment but also in disclosing the issues relating to fair trading. I pay tribute to the BBC for that and to the governors who have been committed to seeing greater transparency through their compliance committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, said, there is a potential for the BBC to trade unfairly, which is why it has the fair trading commitment. On the whole, the BBC has a good record on its commitment to the fair trading principles. On that basis it should have nothing to fear from the amendments. I understand that no organisation likes to subject itself to outside scrutiny. and I see where the BBC is coming from in that regard. It has devoted significant resources to monitoring its compliance to the commitment and can doubtless see no useful purpose in additional examinations.
The crucial features of the fair trading commitment are its complexity arid subjectivity, however. The governors' statement in last year's annual report said that fair trading issues were complex. From my experience, that is something of an understatement. When I was involved, the issues with which we had to grapple involved very difficult judgment calls, covering issues that were both intellectually and technically complex. They are not easy issues. The auditors' report emphasises both that the audit is not an absolute assurance that there are no breaches of the commitment and that the judgments applied by the BBC can be open to challenge. Both those points are entirely reasonable, and I do not criticise the auditors for making them. But they underline the fact that there are no absolutes when dealing with the fair trading commitment. That is why I believe that extra scrutiny from outside the BBC would be a valuable safeguard.
I have no doubt that the governors, who oversee the fair trading commitment through the compliance committee, approach their duties conscientiously and fairly. But the governors are also involved in making strategic decisions about the BBC, some of which may have fair trading consequences. Consciously or not, the governors carry some baggage with them into the compliance committee. I have no reason to doubt any single judgment made by the governors in relation to fair trading, but there are underlying concerns that the process is closed within the BBC and not sufficiently open to be robust over time. I hope that the Government are prepared to consider the amendments.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: I had not intended to intervene at this point, but I have some relevant experience inasmuch as I was a BBC governor and a member of the fair trading committee in the early days, and I was a member of the pre-legislative scrutiny group.
The BBC fair trading committee was unique in my commercial experience. No commercial company would dream of having a committee that agonised over the question of whether it was competing fairly or unfairly. My experience of the fair trading committee was that the benefit of the doubt was always given to
948
the complainants. One had to remind oneself that one was in severe danger of hobbling the whole organisation.
I also used to remind myself and my colleagues that the BBC was and remains subject to the ordinary competition law of this country. Our commercial rivals tend to speak as if competition law had in some way been suspended in favour of the BBC. It has not and it is not, and any action brought against the BBC on normal competition grounds has so far failed.
While I am moved to tears by the vision of the sunlit uplands, with happy commercial companies being able to get the answer that they want from Ofcom. I do not believe a word of it. This is in the normal area of people trying to deal with powerful rivals. We should bear in mind the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The fact that the BBC is powerful and successful is something that we have willed, and we should hesitate to undermine it.
Noon
Baroness Blackstone: I shall do my best to take the overall view suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I begin by immediately emphasising what my noble friend Lady Cohen has just said—that UK and EU competition law applies to the BBC, as it does to other broadcasting organisations.
The Bill gives Ofcom concurrent powers with the Office of Fair Trading to apply UK competition law to broadcasting and related activities. Ofcom's functions in that respect are set out clearly in Part 5 of the Bill. Over and above the requirements of competition law, the BBC is also obliged under the terms of its charter and agreement to adhere to the corporation's own fair trading commitment, the enforcement of which is the responsibility of the governors.
The fair trading commitment is reflected within the BBC's published commercial policy guidelines. As the Government explained in their response to the Joint Scrutiny Committee, the guidelines are internal documents designed to ensure that the BBC is properly equipped to comply with competition law in carrying out its activities, and that all those activities are consistent with and supportive of the BBC's core purpose as a public service broadcaster. The guidelines underpin compliance with the law, but do not substitute for it. The BBC's fair trading framework is also subject to annual audit by independent auditors, as we have heard, and their opinion is published in the BBC's annual report and accounts.
Given the nature and role of the fair trading commitment, it seems to us entirely right and proper that its enforcement should continue to be a matter primarily for the corporation's own board of governors, rather than an external regulator. It is an internal document like those used by many large companies and we would not expect Ofcom to enforce it. To give Ofcom the responsibility for enforcement would be wholly inconsistent with both its status and indeed its purpose.
The effect of Amendment No. 152 would be that, where the BBC had published guidelines for BBC companies undertaking any commercial activities in

949
the UK relating to the making, acquisition or selling of programmes, the responsibility for monitoring compliance with such guidelines would rest with Ofcom. That would effectively give Ofcom the function of enforcing further aspects of the BBC's fair trading commitment, which, as I have already said, is, and should be, the responsibility of the board of governors. So this amendment gives rise to the same objections as Amendment No. 146.
Amendment No. 275 appears to be designed to address the fact that, since Ofcom will not licence the BBC's public service channels, those channels will not be subject to Ofcom's cross-promotion rules. There are a number of points to be made about this. In the first place, the BBC's promotional activities are of course—I say this once again—covered by competition law which applies to the corporation, and which, as I said, will in future be enforced concurrently by both Ofcom and the OFT.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Something extra might be required for the BBC precisely because, under the current ownership rules, only the BBC would be able to behave anti-competitively by being able to cross-promote from radio to television and indeed into magazines. No private operator in this country would be allowed to own a television station and a radio station—and indeed magazines—in the same market. That is prohibited under ownership rules. The competition rules have not actually emerged because there is no opportunity to be anti-competitive. There is an opportunity in the case of the BBC. For that reason, one must be extra vigilant; no more than that.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention. However, I am afraid that he is worrying about something that he need not worry about. I believe that the BBC's own commercial policy guidelines are directly relevant here and that they operate effectively. They contain commitments that the BBC's core public services will not be used unfairly to promote BBC commercial activities, and there will be no promotion of BBC commercial products and services within BBC programmes on the public services.
I should also point out that the promotion of licence-fee funded services is in the interest of licence payers, because it informs them about the whole range of services for which they are paying. What could be the matter with that? Noble Lords will no doubt remember that the BBC's fair trading policies were subject to an independent review by Professor Whish, in 2001, which concluded that they were appropriate to ensure that the BBC does not distort competition in commercial markets. I think that we should accept the recommendations made by that completely independent review.
Lord Lipsey: We do accept them. However, Professor Whish's terms of reference precluded him from looking at whether the policies have worked in practice, and that is the problem that I have raised this morning.
Baroness Blackstone: I believe that the evidence shows that they are working in practice. I say to my noble friends Lord Lipsey and Lord Gordon of Strathblane that the OFT has negotiated undertakings with the BBC which regulate the BBC's ability, for example, to promote magazines on both BBC1 and BBC2. Those undertakings have now been in operation for more than 10 years.
The BBC also reports against its performance in its annual report. Of course I accept that the issue of BBC cross-promotion is an important and sensitive one. None the less, the Government's judgment on balance is that the current approach is the right one. We believe that the BBC's position is best handled on the basis of clear commitments by the BBC itself—and enforced by the governors—that licence-fee funded services will not be used to promote the corporation's commercial activities, such commitments being set firmly within the overall framework of UK and EU competition law.
I was extremely interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about the conscientious and fair way in which the BBC approached this issue and in the remarks of my noble friend Lady Cohen. I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and my noble friend Lady Noakes for their support for the amendments. I was somewhat disappointed by the inference from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we are somehow seeking to cut the BBC down to size. I do not actually know what that means. I hope that he listened to what I said in my opening remarks. I sometimes feel—I certainly felt it in last Thursday's debate—that no one has listened to a word that I said in speaking to an amendment. Last Thursday noble Lords seemed to have their speeches on the amendments ready and there was no deviation from them.
We are not seeking to cut anyone down to size. We are seeking to underpin the success of the BBC and to instil and entrench public confidence in the BBC to the greatest possible extent. The BBC is enormously successful. It is a unique animal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, has made absolutely clear, and she is absolutely right, a commercial company would not even attempt to dream up ways of deciding whether it has been completely fair with others; it would perhaps largely care less about it. The BBC is indeed a very different animal.
The BBC has a very successful commercial arm, so much so that we are pleased to report that that activity has provided additional funding to the BBC's publicly funded activities of £106 million. That is great. However, the BBC also has an input of £2.5 billion of taxpayers' money as well. In newspaper articles in recent weeks the BBC has openly and freely admitted

951
that it feels that there is a problem with cross-promotion, for example, as viewers are beginning to ask, "What do we have here? Is it a commercial business? Why are we paying a licence fee?"
I accept that there is an annual report which is extraordinarily helpful. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Noakes that the BBC has become much more open and transparent. We applaud it for that. However, most viewers do not read annual reports. They do not understand what they see as a breakdown in delineation between what they are paying for and what they are receiving. Most people assume when they pay their licence fee that they will not get any commercials. But they are getting commercials—for the BBC.
A number of very helpful points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, made it absolutely clear that we seek to allow the BBC to prosper. We accept that the BBC is allowed to prosper in a way that it would find impossible in the commercial sector. All we seek is some external scrutiny of the fair trading commitment under the umbrella of Ofcom.
I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for her helpful contribution. I believe that all Members of the Committee appreciate the input of someone with practical experience of auditing the fair trading commitment. As my noble friend said, these issues are complex and involve a certain amount of subjectivity. As my noble friend also said, we are asking for extra external scrutiny which would act as a valuable safeguard. That is a very important point.
I shall not press the amendment at this stage but before I withdraw it, I ask the Minister for advice. The BBC Agreement is about to be amended. The draft amendments can be examined. But will we in Parliament have the opportunity to debate those draft amendments to the BBC Agreement or will they simply be decided and agreed between the BBC and the executive? I ask the question because, following on from what I said on Thursday—which I shall keep repeating so long as we debate any aspects of the BBC—Her Majesty's Opposition are very keen to ensure that there is independence from government on the part of the BBC. We want to make sure that the BBC remains as independent from government as possible. That is why we have tabled the amendments that we are discussing. We want to help the BBC to remain independent from the executive. That is why we are very keen that any scrutiny should come under the wing of Ofcom as opposed to the executive. For now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 not moved.]
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 149:
Page 176, line 15, at end insert—
"(10) It shall be the function of OFCOM to oversee the terms of trade between the producers of independent radio and the BBC.
952
(11) In subsection (10), a reference to the producers of independent radio is a reference to such producers as the Secretary of State may by order specify."
The noble Baroness said: The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is unable to be here this morning to move Amendment No. 149. I agreed to move it on his behalf.
The BBC is required to commission at least 25 per cent of its television programming from the independent sector yet there is no such requirement for radio. The BBC operates a 10 per cent voluntary target for analogue radio. In a statement last year it said:
"We remain fully committed to our voluntary pledge that 10 per cent of eligible hours on our national analogue network will be made by independents. We also wish publicly to emphasise that we will continue to view this 10 per cent commitment as a floor not a ceiling".
There is no logical reason for the discrepancy in the treatment between BBC TV and BBC radio. As the Secretary of State, Tessa Jowell, said, the licence fee is the venture capital for creativity in this country. The ITC backed that up arguing that the licence fee was not just designed to create public networks but was also aimed at ploughing significant moneys into indigenous production. Yet in radio, unlike television, the BBC has complete discretion as to how it invests this money.
The Government have so far rejected calls for a statutory independent production quota for BBC radio. The noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Lipsey, have tabled an amendment that would introduce such a quota. That is supported by my noble friend Lord Astor. My noble friend's amendment would help to boost the independent radio production sector in the absence of a statutory quota on BBC radio. It would give Ofcom the power to regulate the terms of trade between the BBC and independent radio producers, preventing the BBC, therefore, from using its dominant position—it controls over 50 per cent of all radio listening in the United Kingdom—to dictate terms of trade that disadvantage its suppliers.
Unlike television the independent radio production sector is characterised by a single commissioner—the BBC. The BBC is far more dominant in radio than it is in television. Most independent producers are faced with a monopolistic—that is, a single—buyer of their services. What is more, that buyer is able to source products internally. That puts the BBC in an enormously powerful position vis-à-vis independent radio producers and means that it can effectively determine the terms on which it trades. Independent scrutiny is essential to ensure that the BBC does not abuse its dominant position.
The amendment would give Ofcom a duty to review and regulate if necessary the terms of trade between the BBC and independent radio producers. It has the support of a number of independent radio producers including UBC Media, Somethin' Else, Neon and Smooth Operations. My noble friend states that the BBC has nothing to fear from the amendment. Indeed, it should welcome the transparency and openness that it would inject into its negotiations with independent producers. Only last month the BBC said:
"We will work to open up commissions where appropriate to independent producers in order to develop the United Kingdom production sector".

953
My noble friend says that the amendment would do just that. I beg to move.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Later we may have a similar debate on the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Alli, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred. However, at this stage it is worth making several points about the difference in the nature of television production as opposed to radio production and about why it is more appropriate to stick with the present voluntary commitment of the BBC to 10 per cent of independent radio production.
The point that has been made to me, and which I certainly recognise as an old-time radio producer, is that 70 per cent of radio production—I believe that it rises to 90 per cent on some of the BBC radio channels—is live production. That is a very different situation from television production where most of the programmes are what is called in the jargon "built"; that is, they are recorded or prepared beforehand or are in some way already on the stocks when they are transmitted to the television audience. It is obviously more difficult to plan programmes that are concerned primarily with news, live music and recorded live music—if one can use such an expression—as many of the radio stations do.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, the present situation in which the BBC has a voluntary target of a 10 per cent figure with regard to independent radio programming works well. As she also said, the BBC regards that as a floor and not a ceiling. I understand that more recently the figure has risen to 14 per cent.
Commercial radio does not share that ambition and, therefore, has no commitment either voluntary or otherwise to independent production. Although I agree that it is obviously important that local independent radio is as vibrant as it can be, it is also worth noting that more than 30 per cent of the BBC network production spend is now devoted to production outside London. Small production units are involved with BBC radio. That is a success both from their point of view and that of the listeners.
I understand that the BBC management regard the 10 per cent figure as the floor not the ceiling of independent radio programming. As I say, that figure has risen recently to 14 per cent. But we must recognise the very different nature of television programming which, as I say, is often "built" in the sense of being pre-recorded. In the case of live radio, commissioning independent production is more complicated.
Lord Lipsey: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 274, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Alli. I apologise on his behalf for his absence; he is in Ethiopia, working with UNICEF. By the end of today, many of us might wish we were in Ethiopia as well.
I shall first respond to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I do not think that the amendment is unfair to the BBC: at least it is
954
commissioning 10 per cent of independent programmes and the commercial sector is not. Incidentally, that is precisely the reverse of the situation in television, where the BBC has been the laggard and the commercial sector has been the leader. However, I am absolutely delighted that there have recently been very strong signs that the BBC is radically changing its attitude to "indies". This year it might even meet its 25 per cent quota—who knows? It did not last year.
The case for increasing independent production in radio is very much the same as that in television. There is a cultural case because it favours diversity. That will become very important later when we reach, for example, cross-media ownership. There is also an economic case because, unless we have a vibrant independent sector, how can we benchmark the costs of the public service satisfactorily? There is a broad case for more independents.
I do not find the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, wholly convincing—the BBC repeats it—that there is some fantastic difference between radio because it is live and television because it is not. I defer to her experience as a radio producer.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: And as a television producer.
Lord Lipsey: The wisdom and experience of the noble Baroness extends globally, and certainly to both those subjects.
Although it is perfectly true that there are differences between live and recorded material, it is perfectly easy—I have confirmed it with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, who also has experience of the subjects—to work out a form of contract that would enable station integrity and personality to be preserved, even though individual programmes were made by an independent. The producer-provider split ought not to be news or problematic in this House in 2003. I do not accept the argument.
I partly accept the argument about the worry that the BBC is highly focused in its regional studios, and that a rapid move would undermine that. Equally, it is very important that we have a vibrant independent sector of production outside London that does not refer to some London-based organisation. In time, I hope that we can move to that.
Referring specifically to the amendment, I do not think there is any particular magic to 25 per cent. My noble friend Lord Alli and I thought, "Well, it's 25 per cent for telly, it might as well be 25 per cent for radio". However, we are open to bids and for the best figure possible. I should say for myself—I do not know whether it is true of my noble friend—that I have no particular desire to see the provision implemented statutorily in the Bill. The indies would like that, but it does not bother me in the slightest.
In response to the issue that we have raised, I would like a greater commitment from the BBC to push up that 10 per cent floor and the 14 per cent that it is achieving, and a wholehearted embrace of the

955
principle of a growing independent sector. With that, I would like the commercial stations to feel that they too could experiment more in the area and increase the size of the independent sector. We do not have an argument about goals. I accept much that the noble Baroness said about the shortcomings of the amendment as a way of getting where we want to go, but it is right that the issue should be canvassed and the BBC invited to respond positively, as I hope and believe that it will.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I support most of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. Obviously, it would be inconsistent with my previous position if I did not welcome the idea of greater transparency and, indeed, external regulation of how the BBC treats independents. However, I genuinely believe that it is entirely right in its contention that there is a major difference between television and radio. In the light of that difference, the BBC's achievement of 10 per cent or even more independent production is, frankly, remarkably high.
I have taken part in BBC programmes commissioned by independent producers. They were programmes that could he recorded in advance; they were programmes, as distinct from what we regard as programming—DJs who are on for three hours in the morning. Physically, how could one have a BBC in-house disc jockey on between 9 o'clock and 12, and then switch outside from 12 until 2 o'clock without having the same access to BBC traffic information, weather information and so on?
My reason for supporting my noble friend Lady Jay is that I genuinely believe that the distinction between programmes and programming, which tends to apply in radio but not television, makes the imposition of a higher target on the BBC undesirable and unworkable.
Lord McNally: I speak only because the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, with his usual political ruthlessness, airbrushed me out of Amendment No. 274, to which I also put my name. I did so as a gesture to our leading fluffy, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, whom we all wish well in Ethiopia. I also did so because I was under whelmed by the BBC evidence to the Puttnam committee about its commitment on television. Mr Greg Dyke was at his most churlish when he referred to that commitment. The evidence left me with the feeling that the BBC needs a prod and a nudge on such matters. It has failed to hit the target of 25 per cent in television, so it worries me that the commitments are ceilings rather than baselines.
When I discovered from the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that the commitment in radio was much lower, I again thought that a prod was useful. I did so based on a conversation that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on the margins of the debate about the growing importance of the creative industries within our whole economy. I was recently at a presentation by the GLA on what it wanted to do about London. London's base for the creative industries was greatly emphasised and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and I said that that was
956
equally true of many regional centres. That ties in with Tessa Jowell's comments about the licence fee being venture capitalism for the creative industries.
I added my name to the amendment because I want to prod the BBC. We will refer to the subject later in relation to commercial matters and music. I want the BBC to use the independent sector in radio and television to encourage creative industries, and to use its strength and power to support them, especially in the regions. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, we are not tied to any particular percentage at this stage. I say to the BBC that the amendment should not be seen as a threat, but a real opportunity to win friends and influence people by using the creative talent of the independent sector as venture capital and to strengthen greatly the quality of what is given to BBC listeners.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: As many Members of the Committee will be aware, there has been a statutory independent production quota for TV since 1990, and the Bill makes provision for that to go on. The BBC will also be subject to requirements on how it trades with independent television producers, and those will be enforced by Ofcom. In accordance with our general approach to the BBC, those requirements will be set out in the agreement rather than the Bill.
As my noble friends Lady Jay and Lord Gordon of Strathblane rightly said, there are major differences between independent production for TV and radio. In TV, independent producers have the option of a number of different commissioners—namely, public service television broadcasters—thereby providing a genuine market for the supply of programmes and the capacity for the independent supply industry to grow.
The independent radio programme supply market is, by contrast, characterised by a single commissioner, the BBC. It would therefore be difficult to build up an independent production sector by way of a quota, because, having only one commissioner for its programmes, the sector would not have capacity to develop it in the same way as it is done for television.
The corporation has consistently met, and often exceeded, its 10 per cent target ever since it committed itself to a target. It has reaffirmed its view that the 10 per cent commitment is a floor, not a ceiling. As my noble friend said, it often goes above the floor. The BBC believes that the independent radio production sector provides innovative and creative programmes which make a valuable contribution to its output.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and to my noble friend Lord Lipsey that the BBC's commitment in this area is clearly set out in its statement issued in December 2002. It is keen to open up commissions to independent producers and to develop the independent production sector. We believe that it is entirely right that the BBC should be commissioning a significant proportion of radio output from independent producers and we absolutely endorse the voluntary target which the corporation has set itself.

957
We are not persuaded that it is necessary to set a formal independent radio production quota which could apply only to the BBC. Nevertheless, the Government will keep the position under review as the radio market develops.
Turning to the terms of trade issue, the BBC is, as I have said, subject to a code governing the terms of trade with independent television producers. But that is not a requirement that applies only to the BBC; rather, it mirrors the requirements placed on all licensed public service broadcasters.
The code was developed in response to concerns raised by the Joint Scrutiny Committee and by the ITC in its programme supply review report. We are not persuaded that there is a case for applying a similar requirement, and one which applies only to the BBC, in the radio context.
The Government attach importance to the role of the independent radio producer sector and we want to see it grow. I know that the BBC takes a similar view; however, I do not believe that these amendments will help to achieve that aim. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will be willing to withdraw the amendment tabled by her noble friend.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her full response to the amendment. This has been a helpful debate. I shall encourage my noble friend Lord Astor to read the Minister's remarks in Hansard. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 195 agreed to.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 150:
After Clause 195, insert the following new clause—
"DUTY OF COMPTROLLER TO FULFIL REVIEW AND REPORTING OBLIGATIONS
(1) It shall be the duty of the Comptroller—

(a) as soon as is practicable after the period of twelve months beginning with the commencement of this section; and

(b) as soon as practicable after the end of each subsequent period as may be selected by the Comptroller for the purposes of this section,

to fulfil the review and reporting obligations.
(2) The period selected by the Comptroller for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) must be a period of not more than three years beginning with the end of the previous period for which the Comptroller has satisfied those reviews and reporting obligations.
(3) The review and reporting obligations for a period are—

(a) an obligation to carry out an examination into the efficiency, economy and effectiveness of the BBC's services;

(b) an obligation to prepare and publish a report on the matters found on the review.

(4) Subsection (3) shall not be construed as entitling the Comptroller to question the merits of the policy objectives of the BBC's services.
958
(5) In this section—
"BBC's services" means the television and radio broadcast services provided by the BBC;
"the Comptroller" means the Comptroller and Auditor General as identified in section 3(1)(a) of the National Audit Act 1983 (c. 44)."
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 address the need to enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to have full value-for-money access rights to the BBC, and thus to open it up to the same scrutiny on Parliament's behalf as all other bodies that are funded by tax. There is total consensus among members of the Commons Public Accounts Committee on this issue.
I think it important to say straight away that this scrutiny would not impinge in any way on the editorial independence of the BBC, but that it would give some measure of accountability and transparency. We believe that that would be in the best interests of the BBC.
A number of noble Lords spoke at some length about this matter at Second Reading. I should like to inform the Committee of some progress that has been made since that debate. Perhaps I may quote the remarks of the chairman of the BBC, Mr Gavyn Davies, on 6th May to the BBC All Party Parliamentary Group:
"In addition, in terms of talking about scrutiny, I know that many of you would like such improvements to involve the National Audit Office. The Governors are not opposed to this in principle, but are emphatically opposed both in practice and in principle to any NAO involvement which would undermine the authority of the Audit Committee or threaten the basic independence of the BBC from the political process. I am hoping that a way can be found of squaring this particular circle before the matter arises once again in the House of Lords in coming days or weeks. If so, then I will enthusiastically support a sensible way forward which protects our genuine concerns about independence, but also offers Parliament better reassurance about our use of public money".
We believe that that is a very helpful statement. In a sense it complements concerns; it responds to a letter written by the Public Accounts Committee to me and to others who have been involved in this debate.
The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my honourable friend Edward Leigh. MP, wrote with regard to National Audit Office scrutiny of the BBC:
"I can give firm assurances that what is proposed would present no risk to the BBC's editorial freedom, its independence and integrity. Nor would it in any way duplicate or undermine the role undertaken by the BBC Governors, internal auditors or external auditors".
That is an important point. There is no wish on our part in any way to supplant the role of the BBC governors.
With regard to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee went on to say that scrutiny would not challenge the BBC's editorial integrity. He said:
"It has sometimes been suggested that the National Audit Office might interfere with the BBC's editorial independence or somehow risk damage to the quality of its programming. I fully understand the concern but I cannot conceive of any circumstance in which the Comptroller and Auditor General would seek to

959
second-guess the BBC's decisions as to the programmes they make or their editorial content. The Comptroller and Auditor General is concerned only with sound financial management and achievement of value for money. I feel confident that he would not look at what programmes the BBC chooses to make, but at how it goes about doing it. In fact, the Comptroller and Auditor General is prevented by statute from commenting on the merits of policy objectives. Any suggestion that the Committee of Public Accounts would behave differently and attempt to interfere with the BBC's programming policy fundamentally misunderstands the way in which the committee works. The committee never gets involved in policy decisions".
My honourable friend went on to say:
"As for the BBC's independence, it is worth noting that the National Audit Office already has a role on some of the BBC's activities, including the collection of the licence fee. It is also able to scrutinise the BBC World Service and there has never been any suggestion that this has in any way compromised the service's independence. There are other bodies whose independence is important which arc subject to NAO audit, such as the research councils or the British Council, and again there has never been any suggestion that this in any way compromises their essential freedoms. The NAO also audits a number of bodies with creative purpose, such as the Film Council. Again, this has not compromised their activities in any way … The Committee of Public Accounts encourages well-managed risk-taking and innovation. It has sometimes been said that fear of scrutiny might discourage entrepreneurial risk-taking and innovation. In fact, the Committee of Public Accounts has made many recommendations over the years in support of risk-taking, as long as risks are well thought out. But where there is waste or mishandling of public money, it is right for Parliament to hold those responsible to account. Ninety per cent of the recommendations made by the Committee of Public Accounts are accepted, surely also demonstrating that our work, supported by the staff of the National Audit Office, consistently adds value".
My honourable friend went on to say:
"The role being sought for the Comptroller and Auditor General is quite separate from the role that will continue to be exercised by the BBC governors and its existing internal and external auditors. The role proposed for the Comptroller and Auditor General is that he should be able to carry out value for money examinations on behalf of Parliament into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the BBC has spent public money. In proposing that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be able to inspect the BBC's financial affairs in this way, I am not suggesting that he should audit the BBC's annual account. That work is already done by private sector auditors",
and my honourable friend sees no reason for those arrangements to change. He continued:
"A concern has been raised that the right to appoint auditors will be taken away from the BBC governors. It would not. Those arrangements and the specific responsibilities of the BBC's audit committee to oversee the audit process would continue intact. The National Audit Office's work on other bodies suggests a wide range of issues that would surely also be relevant to an organisation as large and diverse as the BBC. Those include matters such as good financial management, construction project management, implementation of information technology projects, routine procurement and best practice and performance measurement. None of those areas would impact on the BBC's editorial decisions but if money could be saved, surely that could only help to improve the quality of the BBC's programming output".
My honourable friend concluded by saying:
"I can understand if the BBC may be looking for further reassurance, particularly that National Audit Office access would not threaten its editorial independence. A good precedent in how this might actually be achieved has been established in the way the noble Lord. Lord Sharman's recommendations to extend the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit in other areas has been handled. Officials at the Treasury and the National Audit Office
960
prepared a practicalities paper setting out the detailed arrangements. In this instance, I can envisage a similar process involving the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC. I understand that the National Audit Office will be very willing to make its input into such discussions in order to reassure the BBC on matters that understandably concern the corporation. But the point of principle that needs to be established first is the clear and unambiguous statutory right of access".
I want to say little more than that because there is a genuine commitment on the part of the BBC—as was so clearly articulated by Mr Gavyn Davies—Her Majesty's Opposition, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office to try to seek consensus with regard to this issue between now and Report. I very much hope that we can achieve a consensus, which would benefit us all. Apart from anything else, it is important that it would maintain proper independence between the BBC and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness. Although this risks defying the long-established customs of the House, I shall not repeat the argument that I made at Second Reading for NAO scrutiny. I refrain from doing so partly because I perhaps showed a certain passion on that occasion. At this stage, the sooner that the heat is taken out of this issue and the cold light of reason applied, the better off we shall all be.
I want to make two points on the broad argument about issues that have been raised since Second Reading. The first involves the excellent article in the Guardian by my great friend, Will Wyatt, the former director-general of BBC television. He argued that the licence fee was not public money and therefore was no business of the NAO. That is a good try. The licence fee is voted by Parliament; it is a compulsory levy on everyone who has a television. If one does not pay up—this emerged in our debate the other day—one can even end up in gaol. I defer to many in this House in my knowledge of ornithology but if something swims like a duck, flaps its wings like a duck and quacks like a duck, so far as I am concerned it is a duck. To say that that is riot public money is ingenious but not plausible.
The second argument that has been raised—this is even more important and involves a genuine concern—relates to the belief that if the BBC were subject to such scrutiny, because the BBC falls under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and because the accounting officer for that department, as at all departments, is the Permanent Secretary, the Permanent Secretary would somehow or other get involved in the process. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, nods in agreement. I make it absolutely clear that if there were any danger of that, I should be as strong an opponent of that way forward as she has been.
That interpretation of what would happen cannot be sustained when one sees how the PAC proceeds. Concrete examples may be more helpful than

961
abstractions. On 30th April, Mr Phil Wheatley, the director-general of Her Majesty's Prison Service, appeared before the PAC. He was not accompanied by any Permanent Secretary; he is the accounting officer and he was accountable for what he said, not the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. On 14th May, Dr John Bell, the chief executive for the Food Standards Authority, appeared. Again, there was no Permanent Secretary—he was responsible; he was the accounting officer. I am afraid that it is a misunderstanding—I well understand how it came about—to think that reporting to the PAC would involve the Permanent Secretary as the accounting officer. I am sure that any reassurances that anyone required on that subject would be freely given by the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General. But that just is not so. It is for the BBC to say who would appear. I imagine that the director-general would appear and that he would be accompanied by John Smith, the head of the BBC's finances and a jolly good accountant. There is no question of any involvement by the Permanent Secretary.
That brings me—
Lord Burnham: Order.
Lord Lipsey: I believe—
Lord Swinfen: The noble Lord is speaking from the Gangway, which is out of order.
Lord Lipsey: I am so sorry to be in had form in the Chamber. That is two conventions that I have broken in one speech.
That brings me to my third and most important point. There have been misunderstandings about the proposal and great concern has been expressed, which I understand. That makes me determined to find a way forward that is based not on conflict but on agreement. I am, I hope, a reasonable chap, and I favour compromise over conflict in all circumstances. However, there is a further and much more important reason in this regard. We do not want the arrangement just as a totem of BBC accountability; we want it because we, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the PAC believe that bringing their great knowledge and experience of public sector economies to the BBC can help the BBC to save money.
That is much more likely to happen in an environment in which the BBC is going along with the NAO and the PAC being involved than in a situation in which it is hostile to that. The BBC is a marvellous organisation but among the things at which it is marvellous is bureaucratic delay and obfuscation. However, if the BBC gets in gear with this arrangement, something really creative and good for public money could come out of that way forward. I am encouraged not only by the remarks of my other good friend, the chairman of the BBC, to the Peers' meeting the other day, but also because I believe that privately he would strongly be of the view that if the BBC is going to go into this arrangement, it should do
962
so wholeheartedly and with full commitment and it should try to make it work. Then, at charter renewal, all of us will have a chance to think again.
That is why I so welcomed the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, to resolve this issue. I believe that since then further progress has been made in discussions, including indications given by the Comptroller and Auditor General. But it might well be for the convenience of the Committee if we were now to hear from the Minister on how they are going because we do not want to have an argument about things we do not need to have an argument about.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I rise to—
Baroness Blackstone: It would be helpful if, as invited by my noble friend, I intervened at this point. It might speed debate on the issue and, to pick up the terminology used by my noble friend, take some heat out of the issue.
We believe that safeguarding the BBC's editorial independence will always be a matter of the utmost importance. For this reason, we take the view that programming and policy decisions must remain the preserve of the BBC governors and not be subject to review by the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee, or to any form of political oversight or intervention.
However, I acknowledge that those who advocate extending NAO access to the BBC give assurances that the Comptroller and Auditor General does not comment on the merits of policy objectives and is prevented by statute from doing so. Nevertheless, successive governments—Conservative and Labour—and the BBC have judged that extending NAO access to the corporation would compromise the BBC's editorial independence and would undermine its existing audit arrangements.
On the other hand, we recognise the strengths in the argument that there should be clear accountability for the large sums of television licence fee revenue received by the BBC. Like my noble friend Lord Lipsey, I do not accept the view of my old friend, too, Will Wyatt, that this is not public money.
Therefore, the Government welcomed the extremely positive contribution which the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has made by suggesting a possible way forward. I can say to the Committee that provided we can satisfy ourselves on some of the details of the proposal, the Government intend to give their support to the arrangement that he has outlined, which would be put into effect by way of an amendment to the BBC agreement.
With your Lordships' permission, I would therefore like the opportunity to take the proposal away and examine it in detail. My intention would be to indicate the Government's conclusion before we reach Report stage. While that may not go quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would have wished, I hope

963
that it will reassure your Lordships of the Government's intentions and that this is something around which we are able to build a consensus.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I am most grateful to have had the opportunity of hearing the intervention of the noble Baroness before we have carried the debate too far today. I also recognise that coming to the debate at this stage, parachuting into the discussion as I have, may be a not wholly welcome intrusion. My credentials for doing so are that I served on the Public Accounts Committee for 16 years; for the duration of the 1990s I was a spokesman on broadcasting in another place; I have great concerns about the protection of the BBC; and I also have wider-ranging constitutional interests in ensuring parliamentary control over public funds.
No doubt at the Report stage we will hear more about the proposals of my noble friend Lord Sharman, which have been made available only in outline. But while the detail of those proposals is being borne in mind, it is important to remember the significant principles that must be recognised in any compromise. My view is neatly summed up by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Edward Leigh, in the last sentence of the letter which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, read to your Lordships. It stated that,
"the point of principle that needs to be established is the clear and unambiguous statutory right of access".
In considering these matters, it is perhaps sensible to take as a point of departure the earlier report made for the Government by my noble friend Lord Sharman on public accountability and external audit. The noble Baroness will recall that that report gave the reasons for external audit and pointed out that it has a wide purpose. It indicated that a crucial element of public accountability is independent external scrutiny. It provides a means of assurance to Parliament that public money has been properly spent. Public audit has a key part to play in helping public services to achieve value for money. Public audit is also deemed to he a key element in establishing public confidence that public money is properly spent.
In the light of the helpful remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, it is not necessary to animadvert on whether the licence fee is public money. He has effectively established that beyond question. But if there had been any doubt about it, one could reasonably turn to the report of the Gavyn Davies committee, which fully acknowledged that the licence fee is indeed public money; that it is essentially paid to the department which in turn pays the equivalent to the BBC.
It is also worth recording what the Gavyn Davies report said in considering the future funding of the BBC. The present chairman of the BBC was chairman of that committee and I know that he has subsequently distanced himself from some of its key recommendations. Its members comprised several Members of this House, including the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey. Lord Gordon of Strathblane and Lord Newton, and a number of distinguished independent figures.
964
The committee concluded—and it is worth quoting this and having it on the record—that the arrangements which apply to the commercial television companies which are subject to external regulation are missing in the case of the BBC and that the tension between the regulator and those whom they regulate, which is desirable, is absent here. According to the Davies report, it is not clear whether in the BBC such a divergence of interest can become transparent and effective. It goes on to say in terms and clearly that the most serious lacuna that results from this structure concerns financial control. It then points out that the annual grant of £ 170 million to the World Service is reviewed by the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee but that the much larger amount which comes from the licence fee is not.
The report quotes the view of a former chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr David Davis, under whom I had the honour to serve for a certain time, although not as long as under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon. The report states that the committee agreed and accordingly recommended that the Comptroller and Auditor General's inability to report to Parliament on how the BBC uses the licence fee seriously weakens the public accountability of the BBC. It agreed and accordingly recommended that the National Audit Office should he empowered to carry out periodic financial audits of the BBC's accounts and its fair-trading arrangements.
The report refers to the BBC's fear that such an audit would provide politicians with a handle with which to beat the corporation on its policy and even on its individual programmes. However, that is suitably dispensed with by references already made in the debate which demonstrate that by statute that is not open to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The report also states that the knowledge that BBC executives might be second-guessed by politicians could result in timid and safety-first decisions by programme makers.
Furthermore, the Davies report states that if the committee felt that these fears were justified it would not recommend a change, but it did not. It says that a comptroller is appointed by Parliament and not by the Government; that it is not his job to report on matters of policy; and that the fact that the licence fee collection and enforcement arrangements are already audited by the National Audit Office—the National Audit Office also audits the grant-in-aid for the World Service—demonstrates that it can have a legitimate role in ensuring due process in the BBC.
In the light of what we have heard about the discussion of a possible compromise being made, it is not appropriate for me to speak at length. However, it is important to remind noble Lords how in practice the Public Accounts Committee works; how its work differs from that of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport committee, which already has a right—and exercises that right—broadly to oversee the BBC through scrutiny of its annual report; and how its

965
chairman, Mr Gerald Kaufman, is not adverse—on his day—to making fairly trenchant criticisms of the BBC.
The Public Accounts Committee is quite different. It agrees the facts with the subject of the study before the report is published. It operates in a wholly non-partisan function. It produces unanimous reports. For more than 100 years, it has never produced a report in which there has been a dissenting voice. Its function and operations have always been at least as concerned with assisting the subject of the inquiry to do better as with underscoring any deficiencies which may have been drawn to the attention of the public by the National Audit Office. It is not an adversarial organisation. It is unsuited to being one. In my judgment it has provided a wholly non-partisan security to the public that their money is being spent wisely and that they receive value for that money. I hope that the advantages of that route will not be underestimated by the BBC and by the Government in considering the best way ahead.
1 p.m.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I want to put some of the debate into context. The National Audit Act 1983 excluded the BBC from examination by the National Audit Office. I was involved in the passage of that Bill. That was prior to my becoming chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The questions I put to the committee are: what were the arguments then; and, how far have they changed over the intervening 20 years? The Public Accounts Committee looked at those bodies whose accounts would be examined by the National Audit Office.
The passing of the National Audit Act in 1983 was a close-run thing. It was passed on the last day of the 1979 to 1983 Parliament, when any remaining legislation that has not already been passed comes before the House of Commons. All that is needed to block any Bill is for one Member—any Member—to shout "Object". That task was willingly provided by Dennis Skinner and a few others. On this occasion I personally went around explaining the importance of the Bill. Fortunately no dissent was heard and the Bill passed.
The accounts audited by the National Audit Office included such organisations as the British Airports Authority, the British Airways Board, British Telecommunications and so on. The BBC did not fit into the usual pattern of non-governmental organisations, so the legislation excluded it. Later, in 1987, when the BBC's World Service came before the Public Accounts Committee, the committee concluded that it should be examined by the National Audit Office. What were its reasons for concluding that? Why did it distinguish between the World Service and the BBC? That was a conscious decision and not an oversight. It was based on the fact that the World Service is financed largely by the Foreign Office. However, it also concluded that the present arrangements for voluntary examination of the BBC should remain.
966
The National Audit Office Act enables the National Audit Office to do value-for-money reviews with the agreement of the BBC and the Minister. I always thought that that was sufficient protection and that the advice, which I am sure would be valuable, was available if required. The expertise of the National Audit Office was therefore fully looked after.
Let me briefly explain how the National Audit Office goes about its work. The National Audit Office considers the areas for investigation. It looks at the whole range of expenditures. It then selects a number for examination—usually about 50 reports each year. The preliminary stage might take a few months when the decision is taken whether to investigate further. A full examination may take from about three months to well over a year. The report, after agreement, is then presented to the Public Accounts Committee. That committee has a meeting with the accounting officer and produces its report, which can then form part of the detailed annual debate in the House of Commons.
The process has worked very well indeed, as the noble Lord has mentioned. During my time as chairman more than 600 reports were published, all of which were unanimous. There are a number of difficulties in dealing with the BBC. First, the National Audit Office and then the Public Accounts Committee examine it for value for money. How can it be audited? It looks at economy, efficiency and effectiveness. What is the effectiveness of the BBC? How do we define it? Should we define it on the basis of how many viewers there are? Is the criterion a balanced output? Is it fair? Are the problems of complaints addressed properly? Should the range of programmes and how they are arranged be discussed? Are all those aspects available?
In the case of the BBC there are difficulties in auditing the effectiveness of arts programmes, in auditing a news service and in auditing an entertainment channel. As to ITV one has the test of profitability and only within that does one have to consider questions of fairness, decency, and so on. This is an impossible burden, which is obviously not put upon the National Audit Office.
I would wish to see the current position maintained. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has a proposition. I look forward to hearing it. But, after all, we have to consider what has gone wrong in those 20 years. Why has the situation changed? During that period many other aspects of the press, radio and television have either performed badly or could easily be improved. Attention might be focused there. But the BBC still stands as the one outstanding public service. That success has been achieved over a period of 80 years with the multitude of changes that we have seen since then.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: On the issue of what has changed, does not the noble Lord agree that the BBC has become subject to trenchant attacks in that period, some of which have suggested that money voted for one purpose was being used for another—digitalisation being funded by money intended for programming? Such charges may be totally without foundation, but they are wide and damaging. Would it

967
not provide the best possible assurance that they are seen off, as it were, to entrust consideration to that established process?
Lord Sheldon: We have the governors of the BBC, one of whom is present. I want to say something about their role and how I admire the work they have performed over a long period.
The task of examination of the accounts is undertaken by the National Audit Office. The Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer of the House of Commons. It was Sir Gordon Downey who implemented most ably and successfully the setting up of the National Audit Office. The current Comptroller and Auditor General is Sir John Bourn, who succeeded him. I have enormous admiration and respect for Sir John.
Under the 1983 Act, the selection of the Comptroller and Auditor General is made by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, with the agreement of the Prime Minister. I considered that to be one of the most important decisions of my parliamentary career. Following my interviewing of 15 candidates, Sir John stood out and I proposed him in a letter to Mrs Thatcher, who moved the appointment in the House of Commons.
Sir John has been an outstanding success. The National Audit Office has effectively been made in his image: efficient, innovative, and the very model of what I believe an institution created by a civil servant should be. But I must consider the problems of a future National Audit Office. How far could it become embroiled in controversy? No one in Whitehall or Westminster is more proud than I of the National Audit Office and of the C & AG. It is much better to leave those matters to the governors of the BBC in the manner that has worked, is working well, and continues to meet the requirements laid down so many years ago.
The question is: how could a future Public Accounts Committee behave in the years to come? How could the House of Commons behave when the PAC report came before it? The floodgates of criticism in the House of Commons could be opened, with much of the press on a bear hunt. That would be an excellent means for the anti-BBC press and others with their own agenda to harass the BBC. That is why I wanted to exclude the BBC. I still do, although I await further details of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman.
Baroness Noakes: I am encouraged by what my noble friend Lady Buscombe said about the progress made since Second Reading. I am interested in what the Minister had to say about what she saw as possible ways forward. In the light of that, and because it was very encouraging, I shall keep my remarks brief.
The existing audit arrangements do not go far enough. I cite two reasons. First, they are limited in scope. A financial audit simply considers financial controls and states whether the accounts show a true and fair view, to use the jargon. That is a limited scope when considering public money. The second problem
968
is that the reporting is not public. Although the audit report is public, it is written in an especially technical way and is not subject to examination of the detail that lies behind it.
It is important when considering the accountability of public money—I am glad that we all agree that we are discussing public money—to consider the scope of examination and the possibility of public reporting. In the light of the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, which was for full and unfettered access to the BBC, how far does the Minister envisage the proposals that may emerge meeting or falling short of that? Full access to consider economy, efficiency and effectiveness on any grounds is important, as is the ability to report publicly on all that.
The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, explained how the PAC process was not threatening but fair and balanced. In my experience of working with the NAO and with Sir John Bourn in particular, that, too is a balanced and fair process. NAO reports give praise where praise is due and have a good track record of finding value in improvements to the organisations they examine—a value that far outweighs the cost of the audit process itself. Sir John Bourn and his National Audit Office have a good track record of sensitive handling of difficult areas. They know perfectly well how to avoid policy areas and many of the other difficulties that have been discussed.
As I said, I am very encouraged, but I should like more detail.
1.15 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: To be other than brief at this juncture would be self-indulgent. I have never got as far as the Scottish judge who said that the phrase, "A change for the better", was a contradiction in terms, but I have sympathy for the BBC, especially after so long in a different condition.
That said, I recall speaking in the previous Parliament in another place in support of Mr David Davis in his efforts to secure the right to have access to audit the Housing Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, laid out the issue of public money against the background of the article in the Guardian. I remember, during the passage of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, it being explained to me that when a punter goes into a newsagent and spends a pound buying a lottery ticket, by some process of alchemy and metaphysics, as the money crosses the counter, it becomes public money and is therefore subject to all the full constraints of the law. I am not sure that the punter thought of it in that way, but if that is so, patently, the licence fee falls into the same category.
I welcome what my noble friend Lady Buscombe said in her opening speech; I also welcome what the Minister said in reply. I further sense that if we can reach a genuine concordat with the BBC, that will be in the best traditions of the BBC's evolution.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I promise the Committee that I shall be extremely brief, but it is worth picking up in general terms one point that the

969
noble Lord, Lord Brooke, made about the Housing Corporation. In the same speech by Mr Gavyn Davies to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred in moving the amendment, he said later that, while accepting in principle the idea of further consideration of the audit of the BBC:
"The BBC is a creative, risk-taking institution … We must beware of fostering an excessively risk-averse culture, for fear of subsequent public castigation. This would be fatal to the central purpose of the BBC, which is to take creative risk".
So there is a difference between the Housing Corporation, for example, and the BBC in that respect.
Like other Members of the Committee, I am happy that there has been some breaking of the log-jam, if I may put it that way, through the exchange of correspondence between the honourable gentleman, Mr Leigh, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her early and positive response to that.
Lord McNally: I shall be very brief. Over my years in politics, I have decided that if going into deep water it is best to go with someone who can swim, which is why I asked my noble friend Lord Sharman to consider the issue. The dilemma that faces the House is best exemplified by the speeches of the two veterans of the Public Accounts Committee, both with enormous experience and commanding great respect in the House, who have come to different conclusions. That is why I asked my noble friend Lord Sharman to consider the matter.
I shall break the rule of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and remind the Committee of something I said on Second Reading. The genius of the BBC was that cordon sanitaire set up 80 years ago between the politicians and the working of the BBC by the governors. Any Parliament considering the BBC for the 21st century would be reckless to disturb that cordon sanitaire. However, the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, my noble friend Lord Maclennan and others must be taken to heart. Things have changed in the past 20 years.
I welcome the flexible approach taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in moving the amendment and the Minister's response. There is scope for a compromise here and I look forward to hearing the results of further consultation on Report.
Baroness Hogg: I declare an interest as a governor of the BBC. In that capacity, I wish to say how much I benefited from listening to the contributions to the brief debate on this issue, and how greatly I appreciate the sensitivity on all sides of the Committee to preserving the independence of the BBC. I know that that has been borne strongly in mind in discussions, although obviously I am not party to them. As a governor whose duty is to preserve the independence of the BBC, I appreciate the importance of the issue.
Lord Lipsey: At the risk of enraging the Minister, who wishes to get on, perhaps I may detain the
970
Committee for one more minute. It will save time later if I do. I welcome the words just uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg. To get where we are, there had to be tremendous flexibility on behalf of the BBC and, to be fair, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—let us not forget that they have their needs. If we achieve the deal as outlined by the noble Baroness, it will be an experiment, which means giving up quite heavily felt PAC doctrine. The committee is to be highly commended for its flexible approach.
For the agreement to crystallise, three points must be made clear. First, the compromise of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, which many will have seen, makes clear that the subjects to be investigated by the NAO on behalf of the BBC—the BBC may investigate others itself—should be done through dialogue with the BBC. I feel sure that that dialogue would be productive. The BBC could help by making very clear that it would not unreasonably withhold its consent to a subject proposed by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am sure that that would be true, because if it withheld consent unreasonably, there would be big trouble.
The second point is that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, makes clear that the report of the audit committee is made to Parliament. I take it as axiomatic that it is a matter for Parliament to decide which committee the report is made to. I also believe that the Public Accounts Committee would be chosen. I accept entirely that further reassurance of the BBC may be needed on the point about the accounting officer, which, as we agreed, is critical.
Lord McNally: That is a very important point. People would find it extraordinary if a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General went to the DCMS committee, which, as my noble friend indicated, has some special characteristics all of its own, notably those in the field of accountancy and public spending—
Lord Lipsey:—and not of friendship towards the BBC over the years, I might also say. I am most grateful for that intervention.
My final point is that an agreement should make clear that everything is subject to charter renewal. This is a brave experiment in trying to do something better. I hope that it will evolve so that by the time of charter renewal, special provisions and so on will not be felt necessary and we will be able to proceed. I would like an assurance that primary legislation will not be required at that time to change the agreement so that we can move ahead as seems best in the light of the experiment.
If we can nail down those three points, I believe that we shall have a deal that will satisfy everyone, and, most importantly, one that will satisfy the needs of this Parliament.
Baroness Blackstone: I have listened carefully to the contributions to this debate. I understand that some Members of the Committee, such as my noble friend

971
Lord Sheldon, wish to maintain the existing position, and that others, such as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, may still feel that full Audit Office access to the BBC is necessary. However, the Government see tremendous merit in the compromise proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. Our initial reaction is that it would provide the assurances on BBC efficiency, effectiveness and economy that the promoters of these amendments are anxious to see, while preserving the BBC's editorial independence and the primacy of its audit committee.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, at this stage I cannot add much to what the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, set out in his letter to Edward Leigh. I am sure that she has seen a copy of the letter, but, if any Members have not, I will make sure that the letter is placed in the Library, if it is not there already.
I can give my noble friend Lord Lipsey categorical reassurance that primary legislation would not be required. It is important to make clear that what is being proposed would not preclude consideration of the case for wider National Audit Office access to the BBC in the context of the charter review. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, is aware, the onus will be on the BBC to satisfy Parliament and licence fee payers that the proposed new arrangements have in practice ensured value-for-money and transparency in the BBC's management of its finances.
I conclude by reiterating the Government's willingness to take away the proposal, to study it, and to report back to noble Lords as quickly as possible. In the light of that, I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response to the amendments. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for his support of Amendment No. 151. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hogg, who has been extremely helpful to us in our attempt to develop—do not want to call it a compromise—what I think is best described as a way forward. It is clear that those who do not want change are now very much in the minority, certainly in another place. I think that I can be absolutely sure when I say that, if we did not move forward, our honourable friends in another place would not let the matter rest.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, was extraordinarily helpful. The noble Lord referred to a tax that continued to be made on the BBC. I agree with the noble Lord that that is one of the key differences between the situation now and the world of the BBC to which the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, refers, in 1982 and 1983, when we probably still had the home service. Much has changed, including the make-up and organisation of the BBC. That is no bad thing. But there is no question that there is a strong consensus in all parts of the Committee to support the BBC by trying to break down and deflect those attacks through proper scrutiny. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes, who also has
972
experience through her work with the National Audit Office, and has given us a practical perspective in assisting us in this somewhat delicate matter.
Members of the Committee may have noticed that I did not mention in my opening remarks the possible compromise suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman. The suggestion that the noble Lord has made thus far is certainly an important step in the right direction. But I must make clear here and now that, in our view, the proposal does not go far enough.
I do not wish to delay Members of the Committee by repeating the contents of the letter to which reference has been made. The Minister has helpfully said that she will make a copy of it available in the Library of the House for all to see. However, one of the concerns of Her Majesty's Opposition is the suggestion that in order to discharge the responsibility the audit committee should, on the basis of a dialogue with the Comptroller and Auditor General, contract with him, or another agency if more suited, to carry out a programme of reviews over a period of years. The contracting party would then report to the audit committee. We believe that that contracting party should be the National Audit Office. However, that is not to say that there need not be other value-for-money reviews that the BBC may wish to carry out concurrently.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, made it clear that consultation will take place. It would make sense, therefore, to have strong consultation between the BBC and the Comptroller and Auditor General as to the matters that should perhaps be reviewed. However, we believe—as, we believe, does the Comptroller and Auditor General—that the final veto as regards the subject for review should rest with the C&AG. That is fundamental; otherwise, the Comptroller and Auditor General would merely be acting as an extension of the executive management of the BBC. His position must be maintained as being entirely independent—an independent auditor.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, quite rightly followed on from the quote that I gave from Mr Gavyn Davies with regard to making it clear that the BBC is a creative, risk-taking organisation. I know that one of the concerns of the governors—one that I entirely accept—is that those who would be involved in auditing the BBC on behalf of the NAO should have the right kind of expertise: they should be the right people with the relevant experience to carry out such reviews; otherwise, it would make a nonsense of the job at hand. I believe that the Comptroller and Auditor General will accept that concern, given the fact that, as I understand it, he takes such considerations into account in terms of other reviews that are undertaken by the NAO.
It is worth noting that the NAO is charged with reviewing organisations responsible collectively for £ 400 billion of expenditure each year. Therefore, in practice, we are probably talking about one value-for money audit each year. There need he no involvement—nor, in our view, should there be—by or

973
with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. That is a matter for clarification between now and the Report stage.
The remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, with regard to the accounting officer were most helpful. I give way.
Lord Sheldon: I am obliged. The noble Baroness has mentioned "one value-for-money audit" a year. But there is hardly one government department, or any body, audited by the NAO that has to succumb to audits of that frequency.
Baroness Buscombe: I hear what the noble Lord says. Perhaps I exaggerate; perhaps it would be fewer than one review each year.
Lord Sheldon: I find that absurd.
Baroness Buscombe: It seems that the noble Lord has misunderstood why we are asking for this amendment. We are seeking to protect the interests of the BBC. Whether it is one review a year, or one every five years, a most important principle is at stake: we are talking about £ 2.5 billion of taxpayers' money. It would he a helpful exercise for all Members of the Committee to read in the Official Report the contribution made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord, Maclennan. in which he made that point most eloquently. That is why we are debating these amendments.
We are most grateful to the Minister for what we see as a move in the right direction with regard to our wishes, as set out in our amendments. We very much hope that we can reach an agreement between now and the Report stage. If we cannot do so, I am certain that my colleagues in another place will not let this matter rest. It would he a great achievement on the part of all noble Lords if we could achieve such an agreement in this Chamber. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151 to 153D not moved.]
Clause 196 agreed to.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 197 and 198 agreed to.
1.30 p.m.
Clause 199 [Borrowing limit for C4C]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendment No. 154:
Page 177, line 20, after "may" insert "by order".
The noble Lord said: The amendments now before the Committee are all drafting amendments. Clause 199 gives power to set a borrowing limit for the Channel 4 Corporation (C4C). Although the intention is fairly clear from the remainder of the clause, subsection (1) does not expressly state that the power
974
is exercisable by order. Amendment No. 155 simply puts the matter beyond doubt by adding the words "by order" to subsection (1) of the clause.
I should add at this point that C4C has been fully consulted in determining the limit of its borrowing, which will be £ 200 million. That limit is well above C4C's existing level of borrowing.
Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 relate to Clause 202, which gives the Welsh Authority powers to provide certain additional services including, among other things, television programme services. Any additional television programme services must be approved by the Secretary of State and must comply with the other conditions set out in the clause. These include the condition at subsection (4) that any new services must broaden the range of such,
"services available for reception by members of the public in Wales".
However, subsection (4) of Clause 202 twice inadvertently uses the expression "television broadcasting service", which is out of step with the reference to "television programme services" throughout the rest of the clause, and Clause 201. This mismatch could make the limitation less effective than we intend. The two amendments proposed would substitute the word "programme" for "broadcasting" in each place where it is used in subsection (4), thus aligning this subsection with the remaining provisions in Clauses 201 and 202. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I have not been able to attend the proceedings on this Bill as much as I should have liked. I have been engaged in the considerations on the Water Bill, and on other legislation. Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 refer specifically to Wales. I seek some clarification from the Minister on the following points. The effect of Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 is to provide a television programme service instead of a broadcasting service. How does the Minister define that? It seems to me that this is about broadening the range of television programmes.
I should point out to the Minister that there is a difference between programmes and broadcasting. Can he say whether there is any restriction on the Welsh channel, S4C, within the amendment that would prevent it from broadcasting on different channels—for example, digital—as compared to normal channels? Amendment No. 155 is about the provision of additional public services, for which S4C in Wales has some responsibility.
Amendment No. 156 would, again, insert the word "programme" instead of the word "broadcasting". It refers to availability for reception by members of the public in Wales. To me, that means the provision of additional public services. That is particularly difficult in Wales. We do not have uniform reception by the public in remote areas, and we must rely largely on satellite television, often supplied from a single source. Broadcasting ought to be a more comprehensive matter than the simple one of a programme service—terrestrial versus digital, perhaps. Regional

975
programmes could be slotted in, with a national Welsh programme, as far as S4C is concerned. I ask for clarification on those points.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My understanding is that the amendments will give greater flexibility to C4C, so that, rather than defining things to make life difficult for it, we are defining things in such a way as to enable it to do whatever it wishes to do in the programme and broadcasting range. That is my view, but I would like to talk to officials and write at length to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, explaining the detail of what I said.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I thank the Minister for that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 199, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 200 and 201 agreed to.
Clause 202 [Powers to provide other services]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guitingmoved Amendments Nos. 155 and 156:
Page 179, line 24, leave out "broadcasting" and insert "programme"
Page 179, line 26, leave out "broadcasting" and insert "programme"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 202, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 203 agreed to.
1.45 p.m.
Clause 204 [Welsh Authority finances]:
Lord Prys-Daviesmoved Amendment No. 156A:
Page 181, line 26, after -Authority)," insert—

"(a) for "may" there shall be substituted "shall"; and

(b) "

The noble Lord said: I shall take a few minutes of the Committee's time to move the amendment, which addresses the issue of the funding of the Welsh fourth channel, S4C. The setting up of S4C in 1982, after a long, difficult and controversial debate was an important landmark. It was a crucial political achievement. S4C has also been a fine broadcasting achievement, and we want it to continue to be a success.
I believe that the great majority of the people of Wales—Welsh-speaking or not—and Welsh people beyond Wales wish for a flourishing Welsh language television channel. I am satisfied that I can claim that the existence, strength and vitality of S4C are of overwhelming importance to the survival of the Welsh language, which is the living language closest to the old British tongue. A television service can be only as good as its structures, the creative talents available to it and its income. The three are necessary. The amendment is concerned with funding.
Basically, S4C relies for its income on statutory funding from DCMS. The funding formula is in Section 61 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, as inserted by Section 80 of the Broadcasting Act 1996. The formula
976
takes the grant-aid payment to S4C in 1997 as the starting point, to be updated annually thereafter in line with RPI. Under the present formula, the Secretary of State is empowered to increase the annual uplift over and above the RPI, if she is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so, having regard to the cost of running the S4C service. That power has never been exercised. There has been an annual problem since 1998, and it has been the cause of considerable concern for the S4C authority.
The S4C authority had grave anxieties about the formula when it was brought in by the 1996 Act. The authority was then faced with a need to develop a digital service, and the cost of providing that service was not fully provided for in the formula. During the passage of the 1996 Bill through your Lordships' House, the then Minister said:
"I cannot see why S4C should be given any extra funding to meet these other costs which other broadcasters, including the BBC, will need to meet from their existing sources of revenue".— [Official Report, 7/3/96; col. 438.]
It is my understanding that, in practice, the BBC was not so constrained. I understand that the BBC' and every other public broadcaster received extra funding, through various mechanisms or reliefs, to meet the considerable additional cost of providing a digital service. Yet, as I said, the S4C increase has always been capped at RN, The RPI has fallen far short of the increased staffing costs associated with digital transmission. S4C has done its best to generate revenue from commercial activities, hut, as the Welsh audience is small, its efforts are inevitably constrained.
I wish to emphasise briefly three other considerations. The first—we have heard a great deal about it—is that the debate is taking place in the environment of a fiercely competitive market with a huge range of English language programmes. There is no question that the viewers of Welsh language programmes expect just as much, if not more, from their single Welsh language channel as they do from the many tens of English language programmes available to them.
In the last annual report, Professor Elan Close Stephens, the chair of the S4C Authority warned that,
"The effect of tying S4C's funding to the retail price index has been to gradually erode our ability to compete in an increasingly competitive broadcasting environment".
It is a glimpse of the obvious to state that a second-class product simply cannot compete successfully against a first-class product.
The second consideration is that S4C has demonstrated that it can be trusted to handle its budget well. I understand that its administrative costs have been less than 10 per cent of its total expenditure. That compares favourably with that of the main public service broadcasters. It has also insisted on implementing efficiency gains on the part of its independent producers. I understand that S4C programmes cost, on average, one-third or BBC programmes.
Over and above those two broadcasting considerations, there is a third to be borne in mind. S4C spends more than 95 per cent of its programme

977
budget in Wales. It has been estimated by an independent body that S4C is responsible for some 2,000 jobs in Wales, many of them in Welsh-speaking areas where employment opportunities are limited. The Government would be wise to take note of this consideration.
S4C and I welcome Clause 204. It is an improvement on Section 61 as it requires the Secretary of State to take into account the costs of providing S4C services and S4C digital services. I believe—no doubt, my noble friend the Minister can confirm—that Clause 204 implements Recommendation 130 of the report of the Joint Committee. S4C appreciates the response of the Joint Committee to its difficulties and appreciates its understanding of the problem.
However, the clause, as drafted, does not place a duty on the Secretary of State to uplift the grant aid over and above the RPI even when she considers it appropriate. Therefore, the position is that the Secretary of State exercises two discretions. She determines whether it is appropriate to increase the award over and above the RPI—that is her discretion. Secondly, at her complete discretion, she decides whether to exercise that power. Our amendment would remove the second discretion.
Finally, it should not be forgotten that the Bill offers no guidance as to the criteria which would influence the exercise of the power to uplift over and above the RPI. Neither is there an independent review mechanism to which S4C can appeal against the Secretary of State's decision not to uplift the award when satisfied that it would be appropriate to do so. Therefore, it appears that without an amendment along the lines of Amendment No. 156A, or in the absence of appropriate assurances by my noble friend on the Front Bench, S4C will remain unprotected against under-funding. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I strongly support this amendment. The critical situation with the Welsh language is that we have a television channel which is helping, in very large part with S4C, to sustain that language. I come from a family where all my grandparents were Welsh speaking, my parents were not, and we have ensured that the next generation is. There are many families like that in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has very ably moved this amendment. I do not wish to repeat what he said, except to say that he has made an extremely strong case, particularly on the crucial issue of funding and the 1997 formula. I would point out to Members of the Committee that broadcasting is not a devolved function to the National Assembly for Wales. Many of us have views about that, but none the less that is a fact. That is why we are discussing this amendment.
The fact that the amendment proposes that we shall have a duty to ensure that S4C is properly funded over and above the RPI is absolutely crucial. I should like to draw attention to the fact that in survey work there are 450,000 Welsh speakers in England alone and 500,000 in Wales. Therefore, we are discussing an
978
important issue. Indeed, if this amendment is agreed, it will ensure that it will continue to thrive in a modern media environment. I am very happy to support this amendment.
2 p.m.
Lord Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for the second time within about 10 days. I, too, support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I am very grateful, as are other noble Lords, for him putting this down because it gives us the opportunity to have a short but very relevant debate in Welsh terms. Indeed, it is for that reason I added my name to support my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies who moved this amendment in a very able and dignified way.
Some Members of the Committee may be looking at me and wondering what Lord Temple-Morris is doing speaking to essentially a Welsh amendment. Those noble Lords who have known me for some years will know that I have a considerable Welsh background. Some do not realise this because I spent so many years in another place—27 years to be exact—as a Member of Parliament for an English constituency.
I come from a Cardiff family. I have a long background in that city and that county. I am very proud of that background. Indeed, it is fair to say that my father always taught me to be proud of the Welsh side of my ancestry. I was never left in any doubt whatever about who I should support on the rugby field. I have carried that out throughout my life. I only wish now that they played as well as they did in the days of my youth. Anyone else of Welsh ancestry here will know how heartfelt is that plea.
I want to say a few words, coming from where I am—not, incidentally, as a Welsh speaker. I say that quite deliberately: I am not a Welsh speaker and I was, indeed, educated in England. That is where I am coming from with the Welsh background. I think that it helps my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that not being a Welsh speaker I shall speak about the Welsh language and my Welshness in the way that I am. I think that it strengthens the case. I am talking now about the atmosphere when I grew up in Cardiff in the 1950s and there has been a remarkable change. People tended then to stress their Englishness rather than their Welsh side. Some stressed it, I think, far too much and far too obviously in a false way. There was not even a Welsh Office, let alone a National Assembly.
Not much Welsh, hardly any, was heard by me and others in the Cardiff of that time. I was a young barrister in court on a number of occasions, and even in the Court of Appeal, when the Welsh Language Society and its members faced prosecution for refusing official requests written in the English language on officially communicated documents. Now it is the norm in Wales for everything to be produced in bilingual form. That marks part of the progress which has been made.
The problem was compounded by the fact that Welsh was not always taught well in schools. Sometimes its very presence was criticised. I well

979
remember the then Lord Lieutenant of Monmouthshire saying some very cryptic things about it in the late 1950s.
I shall end this section of what I have to say by looking back to the 19th century. It explains not only where one is coming from today, in 2003, but also the incredible extent of the progress which has been made. Back in 1847, regional reports called the Blue Books were made for the government. I shall quote what was said in one of those reports about the Welsh language. It highlights the neo-colonial nature of the time:
"The Welsh language is a vast drawback to Wales and a manifold barrier to the moral progress and commercial prosperity of the people. Because of their language, the mass of the Welsh people are inferior to the English in every branch of practical knowledge and skill".
Noble Lords will appreciate its significance when I say: how times have changed. Today, Cardiff is a prosperous capital city. Not only is it an administrative centre both for itself and the county, but also in a national sense. Welsh institutions have been created and expanded: the National Assembly, the Welsh Office, BBC Wales, the Welsh Development Agency—which has done outstanding work over the years—the National Library of Wales, a flourishing university and, at the heart of it, Channel S4C. The television channel is at the heart of this because of the Welsh language.
I shall comment briefly on the importance of the Welsh language because it is absolutely central to the national culture as well as being absolutely central to the national confidence, which was not always high in the 1950s. Now it is socially acceptable to choose to speak Welsh. I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, about his family being educated in Welsh in this context. The language is now spoken with confidence, which in itself promotes confidence. At the centre of this aspect, as well as generally, is Channel S4C, which has been central in bringing the Welsh language into the mainstream.
The contrast today is very considerable. Welsh is heard frequently in Cardiff. Young people are bilingual. I mention that because it is particularly significant when making a case for S4C. People often choose to speak Welsh. Outstanding Welsh-medium schools have developed which can match anywhere else across the entire United Kingdom. Furthermore, people choose to watch Welsh language programmes.
That brings me to the vital role played by S4C and the need to preserve it. The channel is in the business not only of providing Welsh television programmes, but of providing quality programmes. It must maintain that level of quality or its bilingual audience will switch over to English language programmes. That is an important point. Everyone who chooses to watch S4C does so in the overwhelming majority in order to watch that channel. Perhaps the viewers enjoy the Welsh language and want to participate in it. At the same time, however, if the programmes are not of the necessary quality, viewers are able to choose anything else from an increasingly vast menu. S4C has to be fairly and adequately funded.
980
I do not wish to repeat the points made by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies, but they should be considered in the light of the expense of the shift to digital and the fact of much greater competition from the increased number of channels, along with the central and all-important social and cultural roles played by S4C in the Welsh nation. The financial case was very well put by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and I do not intend to repeat it. He mentioned the large number of jobs generated and money spent in Wales entailed by running the channel.
I shall be brief because I do not want to repeat anything that has been said. However, I want to reinforce one aspect of the remarks made by my noble friend in proposing the amendment. To that end, I shall quote from the departmental Explanatory Notes on the Bill. The notes explain what is at the centre of the amendment, which seeks to delete the word -may" and insert the word "shall":
"Subsection (7) amends section 61 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 so that the Secretary of State may increase the annual grant paid to the Welsh Authority if she is satisfied that additional funding is appropriate in light of the costs they incur in providing their public services and broadcasting or distributing such services".
In welcoming that as it stands—we have already made that clear—the amendment makes the reasonable case that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that additional funding would be appropriate, it seems awfully mean if the Secretary of State does not then go ahead and give that extra funding to Channel S4C. She would have the discretion to be satisfied or not to be satisfied, but if she is satisfied, we ask that the additional amount "shall" be given, bearing in mind that the amount of additional funding is at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
S4C is uniquely important to Wales. It is essential to the development, expansion and enjoyment of the Welsh language, which itself is at the centre of the remarkable changes that have taken place over recent years. It respects the pride and culture of the country and as such it should be preserved and encouraged.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: It would he very remiss of me not to lend my support to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, but I am conscious of the fact that I was not in my place to hear his opening words. One of the disadvantages of the long stretch of a Committee day is that one must eat at some time. Obviously I chose the wrong moment because I wanted to be in the Chamber to hear the noble Lord's opening remarks. However, that does not prevent my expressing support for his amendment.
A Conservative government established Channel S4C in the early 1980s and it has been an astonishing success. As many noble Lords know, it means a great deal to those of us who live in Wales. The channel faces considerable competition, although that has always been the case in terms of Welsh language programmes. But S4C has also been something of a pioneer in relation to digital television. As we all know, that is an expensive business. Nevertheless, the channel has devoted considerable resources to developing the S4C

981
digital channel. Because of the expenses involved in developing that channel, while keeping the terrestrial analogue channel going at the same time, the amendment is quite proper in seeking to ensure that such additional resources as are required "shall" be devoted to the authority.
Judging by the past 20 years or so that the channel has been operating and considering the excellent use made of the resources available to the authority, if the Government do devote additional resources to S4C, they will be well rewarded. The authority will ensure that the Government get good value for their money.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be as brief as I was on Amendment No. 150, which we discussed around half an hour ago. I can assure my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy that he did admirably on behalf of these Benches from his own Welsh-speaking base. In my case, the land of my fathers is the land of my mother's fathers. My late noble relative sat in your Lordships' House with a relatively unpronounceable Welsh title and her father had played scrum-half for Wales in the first decade of international rugby. During the earlier period to which the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, referred, my late noble kinsman sat as the Minister for Welsh Affairs, as well as being Minister for Housing and Local Government. He did so for four years.
When the late great Sir Keith Joseph became Minister for Welsh Affairs, he approached my late noble kinsman and asked him whether he had any advice. My late noble kinsman said that the only advice he had for him was that he should learn the words of the Welsh national anthem and he would sometimes find on platforms in south Wales that he was the only person singing the correct words. It is somewhat unfortunate that my colleague in another place, Mr Redwood, did not receive similar advice before taking up office.
One of my favourite stories about my late noble friend Lord Whitelaw relates to a man offering him confidential advice—so confidential that he was obliged to speak in French. The late Lord Whitelaw said afterwards that the man had been more confidential than he imagined because he spoke not a word of French himself. It is to his additional credit that someone so monolingual as the late Lord Whitelaw should have played a seminal role in setting up S4C. I am proud of what S4C has achieved, is achieving and will, under this group of amendments—some of which we passed over undebated—continue to achieve.
I support the amendment. I shall not add to what has been said by the noble Lords who brought it forward. There was a famous occasion in the 18th century when, after Edmund Burke had concluded a speech, the Member who spoke next simply said "Ditto" to Mr Burke. I stand by the arguments that they have advanced.
2.15 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies has spoken eloquently in support of the amendment and more generally on the subject of funding for the Welsh Authority. I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Livsey, Lord Brooke and Lord Roberts, and, in particular, for the contribution of my noble friend Lord Temple-Morris, who gave the Committee a fragment of his autobiography and paid great tribute to the Welsh, Wales and the Welsh language, as did other noble Lords. I heartily concur. Time does not allow me to share with the Committee my Welsh background. Two weeks ago I visited the Assembly in Cardiff, which is now an extraordinarily different place from the one I visited some 15 or 20 years ago.
The authority currently receives £ 83.6 million a year in government grant. As we have been told. this figure is uprated annually as measured by the RPI. The Secretary of State has discretion to increase the prescribed amount if she considers it appropriate to do so having regard to the costs to the authority of transmitting S4C and S4C Digital.
In its report on the draft Bill, the pre-legislative scrutiny committee noted the Welsh Authority's representations about the particular importance of developing digital television services in Wales to enable the provision of full Channel 4 and S4C services throughout the country and the cost implications of providing digital services. The committee recommended that the Bill should amend Section 61(4) of the 1990 Act to enable additional payments to be made to the authority to support the development of digital services.
The Government agreed that, in considering the case for an increase in the Welsh Authority's grant, the Secretary of State should be able to take into account factors broader than simply transmission costs, as she has in the past. It was noted, however, that a specific reference to the cost of digital services would restrict the considerations that could be taken into account. Clause 204(7) therefore amends Section 61(4) of the 1990 Act in such a way as to enable the Secretary of State to have regard to the cost to the authority of providing its full range of public services as defined in subsection (9) and of broadcasting or transmitting those services. These include not only S4C and S4C Digital but any new public services approved by the Secretary of State under Clause 202 of the Bill.
The Government are fully committed to the authority's role of providing high quality Welsh language television services. We acknowledge not only the authority's linguistic and cultural contribution but the important role it plays in supporting creative industries in Wales. A similar point was raised earlier in relation to England. Such industries are doing tremendously well and are, in many ways, making the Welsh economy much stronger than that of its neighbours. We also appreciate the authority's commitment to digital broadcasting and its achievements in increasing the hours of Welsh language programming and widening the availability of its services.

983
We understand the concerns of noble Lords and the authority about the additional financial pressures that digital broadcasting has placed on the authority. The Secretary of State will of course consider on its merits any case that may be made for an increase in the Welsh Authority's grant. However, she must also, inevitably, take into account the finances of her department. That is a fact of life that goes with the considerable advantages of direct government funding, which offers security and protection from fluctuations in the economy.
At nearly £ 84 million a year, the Welsh Authority's grant is a substantial amount of money. As Section 61(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 provides for an increase in the prescribed amount based on the annual RPI uprating, any such increase will continue into the future. It would not be right, therefore, for the Secretary of State's discretion to be circumscribed in the way proposed by the amendment. The practical effect of the amendment is difficult to judge given that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that any increase in the grant is appropriate before she is placed under a duty to take any action. Nevertheless, it is right and proper that the Secretary of State should keep the current discretion of whether or not to increase the grant having concluded any review of the authority's funding needs.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies rather suggested that the BBC had got a better deal. In fact, the BBC's television licence settlement was not only based on the cost of digital broadcasting. The BBC was required to raise more than £ 1 billion over the period of the settlement through efficiency savings, reduced bureaucracy and extra income through public-private partnerships and joint ventures.
We have raised wit h the authority—I hope this will be an encouragement to the Committee—the possibility of a formal review of its funding requirements. This would look at efficiency and effectiveness and other sources of funding, and might extend to a wider consideration of its operations. The authority has expressed enthusiasm for such a review and we are currently awaiting more detailed proposals from it. Whatever the outcome of such a review, any increase in the authority's grant will still depend on other spending pressures and considerations in the department.
The question of the Secretary of State's discretion to uplift moneys should she wish to do so was also raised. Exercise of the power is subject to judicial review. For example, if it were to be exercised unreasonably or irrationally, that could be held by the courts to be unlawful.
I hope that I have answered the points raised. In the light of my explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Temple-Morris, will join me in thanking noble Lords from all parts of the Committee who have spoken in support of the amendment. I also very much appreciate the tenor of the Minister's speech.
984
It is clear that the funding formula is of crucial significance to the Welsh Authority. I am pleased to hear the Minister confirm that the department, with the authority, is considering the possibility of mounting a review of the current formulae. That would be a positive step forward.
Finally, the Minister will know that the department has submitted a claim for increased funding. I very much hope that it will approach the request positively, in the spirit of the Minister's speech. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 204 agreed to.
Clause 205 [The Gaelic Media Service]:
Baroness Michie of Gallanachmoved Amendment No. 157:
Page 182, line 20, leave out "may finance, or" and insert "must finance, and"
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this group of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is to seek clarification on a number of points with regard to Gaelic broadcasting and to make suggestions for improvement.
It was very good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, talk about how important Welsh is and how necessary it is to fund S4C properly. Indeed, other noble Lords who spoke spelt out that the Welsh language is important not just to Wales and the United Kingdom but to the whole world.
I should like to establish my rugby credentials. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has left his place, but my father played 37 consecutive times for Scotland and held the record until 1964. So the noble Lord and I have a great deal in common in terms of rugby playing and language.
I do not intend to repeat what I said on Second Reading. I made it clear how important the Gaelic language is to the people of Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom, as well as beyond.
Amendment No. 157 deals with finance—always a thorny problem. We heard about it in the previous debate. When the Gaelic Television Fund was set up in Scotland in 1991, it was given £9.5 million a year. I pay tribute again to the Conservative Party, because it was the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who set it up. But it was not index-linked and has since fallen by 33 per cent in real terms. As a consequence. television hours have had to be reduced from 195 in 1991 to 150 today.
I believe the proper funding should be restored and protected and, indeed, increased to a realistic sum in order to make use of the new technology. Hence the replacement of the word "may" in the amendment by the word "must". To say the service,
"may finance, or engage in"
is really very tentative and weak, expressing only a possibility. Surely the wording should be more specific than that in the Bill which, it could be argued, gives an option to the Gaelic Media Service to do little or nothing.

985
I did not understand the response of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the Second Reading debate. He said of Gaelic broadcasting,
"that is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament".—[Official Report, 25/3/03; col. 788.]
Section K1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 makes it clear that broadcasting is a UK matter—a reserved matter for this Westminster Parliament and for this Government, who ratified the Council of Europe charter for regional and minority languages. Initially, funding was provided by Westminster, specifically for Gaelic broadcasting, but it was not ring-fenced. Nor was it index-linked. On two occasions during its short 10-year history, substantial sums have been diverted from the fund for other purposes. The Bill gives the Gaelic Media Service additional responsibility but no additional funding.
I looked at the Broadcasting Act 1990 again. Section 183 deals with the financing of programmes in Gaelic out of the Gaelic Television Fund. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State:

"(a) may, for the financial year beginning with 1st April 1991, and

"(b) shall, for each subsequent financial year,

"pay to the Commission"—
that is what is was called then—
"such amount as he may"—
or she may, obviously—
"with the approval of the Treasury, determine to be appropriate for the purposes of this section".
That was all changed. I believe that the Government are failing in their duty if they seek to dump the financial costs on to the Scottish Parliament. In other words, they are saying, "We retain the power here but you pay for it up there".
I wanted to know when this changed, when it was agreed, why and by whom. Was it contained in one of the many concordats that came after the devolution Act? Perhaps the Minister will be pleased if I tell him that I had a fax message just before we started this debate which told me when it had all changed:
"Section 183 of the Broadcasting Act (1990)—the power to make payments to the Gaelic Television Fund—was transferred to Scottish Ministers by
"The Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999
"Statutory Instrument 1999 no. 1750)".
We are still trying to find out where this statutory instrument was debated and who decided that this should happen. It really is making life extremely difficult when it comes to the resources needed for Gaelic television. People are finding it difficult to continue to produce the programmes. The issue of resources has not been addressed in the Bill and that, I believe, is a grave deficiency
On Amendment No. 158, Clause 205 establishes the Gaelic Media Service, which is welcome. I hope that it opens the way for a dedicated Gaelic language digital channel to provide for the first time on television a
986
comprehensive and integrated service which can be scheduled to meet audience needs, which does not happen at present. We are all aware of the achievements and successes of the Welsh Broadcasting Service. While Gaelic language broadcasting has also been successful in attracting larger audiences, especially of non-Gaelic speakers, learners and those who are interested in the culture, it occurs in a different context from that of Wales and on a much smaller and more sporadic scale—in fact, erratic to say the least. There is no Gaelic TV channel, so Scotland has no counterpart to S4C, which has average audiences of 700,000. Gaelic language programmes average audiences of more than 300,000, which is three times greater than the pool of Gaelic speakers in Scotland. That demonstrates that the interest is there. The channel in Wales has played a significant role in the increase in the number of Welsh speakers, as shown in the recent census.
The wording of Clause 205 does not make it explicit that such a channel can be established. New subsection (4B) describes at some length what the service cannot do, but is less explicit on what it is allowed to do. For example, does it mean that a dedicated channel is prevented from transmitting radio broadcasts and certain graphic-only programmes?
Members of the Committee will note that the amendment includes the words "and elsewhere". With all the new technology, it should be possible for the delivery of programmes elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I referred in my remarks at Second Reading to the many Gaelic speakers furth of Scotland. For example, there are thousands here in London who would welcome access to such a digital channel. We need to reach as many of the Gaelic-speaking population as possible. I hope. too, that this new channel and new service will be able to distribute Gaelic programmes via the Internet, so that we can communicate with the Scottish diaspora across the world, especially the Gaelic speakers in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We believe that the word "elsewhere" is more embracing than the reference to "and to others" on page 183, line 16. In fact, I should be grateful if the Minister would explain who the others are.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 159 to 168. New subsection (5) in Clause 206 makes it mandatory for membership of the Gaelic Media Service to include nominees of the BBC, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Bord Gaidhlig na h-Alba—the Gaelic
Development Agency. New subsection (7) places the responsibility on Ofcom to ensure that the interests of regional Channel 3 services in Scotland and those of the independent television and radio production industries are adequately represented.
The BBC competes with the Scottish Media Group—SMG—and with the independent sector for grants from the Gaelic broadcasting fund. Hence, there is a public perception of a danger that members nominated by the BBC and any chosen to represent the interests of the independent production sector and SMG would face serious conflict of interest. That would hamper decision-making in the Gaelic Media

987
Service, both in policy formulation and in the implementation in relation to allocation of funding. The potential for conflict of interest could reduce the effectiveness of the involvement in the Gaelic Media Service of members who are nominees or who are appointed to represent sectoral interests. It could also affect public confidence in the impartiality of the Gaelic Media Service.
The mechanism of creating a consultation group encompassing those interests to advise the service is designed to negate conflict of interest and to ensure that the Gaelic Media Service appointments are on individual merit, based on skills and experience rather than on a representational basis. It has been suggested in another place that the composition of the Gaelic Media Service board, as proposed in the Bill, is designed to ensure that it has access to expert advice from the industry. The structure proposed in our amendments deals with that but seeks to prevent the conflict of interests inherent in a structure in which all recipients of Gaelic Media Service funding are represented on the board of the Gaelic Media Service.
It could be argued that the two-tier structure proposed in the amendments is an over-bureaucratic response to the issue. However, Ofcom, under the amendments, could resolve that problem. Ofcom could choose to appoint no more than six members to the hoard of the Gaelic Media Service and no more than six members in the consultation group. Thus the two-tier structure proposed would have the dual merits of dealing with conflict of interest but would have no more individual members than are currently envisaged to be involved in the board of the Gaelic Media Service under the provisions of the Bill.
There is, incidentally, a precedent for a consultation group. The old Highlands and Islands Development Board benefited from the advice and expertise of such a body, although it met only about four times a year. It was not a very expensive exercise, but it gave tremendous advice to the HIDB. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox: New subsection (5) in Clause 206 makes it mandatory for the Gaelic Media Service to include nominees from the BBC, Highlands and Islands Enterprise Board and the Gaelic Development Agency. I apologise for not being able to pronounce the Gaelic name.
New subsection (7) places a responsibility on Ofcom to secure that the interests of regional Channel 3 services in Scotland and those of the independent television and radio production industries are adequately represented. The BBC competes with SMG and with the independent sector for grants from the Gaelic broadcasting fund. Hence, there is a public perception of a danger that members nominated by the BBC, and any chosen to represent the interests of the independent production sector and SMG, would face serious conflict of interests which would hamper decision-making in the Gaelic Media Service both in policy formulation and in its implementation, especially in relation to allocation of funding. The potential for conflict of interests could reduce the effectiveness of the involvement in the Gaelic Media
988
Service of members who are nominees, or who are appointed to represent sectoral interests. It could also affect public confidence in the impartiality of the Gaelic Media Service.
The mechanism of creating a consultation group encompassing those interests to advise the Gaelic Media Service is designed to negate those conflicts of interest and to ensure that Gaelic Media Service appointments are on individual merit, based on skills and experience rather than on a representational basis. It has been suggested in another place that the composition of the Gaelic Media Service board as proposed in this Bill is designed to ensure that the Gaelic Media Service has access to expert advice from the industry. The structure proposed in these amendments encompasses that intent but seeks to negate the conflict of interest inherent in the structure where all the recipients of the Gaelic Media Service funding are represented on the board of the Gaelic Media Service.
It could be argued that the two-tier structure proposed in these amendments is an over-bureaucratic response to these issues. However, that could be resolved by Ofcom under the amendments. It could choose to appoint no more than six members to the board of the Gaelic Media Service—although it could choose, at its discretion, up to 12—and no more than six members to a consultation group. Thus the two-tier structure proposed would have the dual merit of negating the potential for conflict of interest but would have no more individual members than are currently envisaged to be involved on the board of the Gaelic Media Service under the provisions of the Bill.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Gutting: Before responding to the amendments I should like to clarify the posit ion of Gaelic broadcasting in relation to the devolution settlement as a misunderstanding has been carried through from Second Reading.
I can confirm that the matters addressed in the current Bill as regards Gaelic broadcasting are wholly within the reserved policy area. As the Committee will appreciate, we are seeking in Clauses 205 to 207 to amend legal provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990. Such broadcasting matters are reserved to the UK Parliament. However, it is true to say that the funding of Gaelic-medium programmes through the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee is being provided by the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive funding is channelled to the Independent Television Commission for distribution to the CCG. That arrangement will continue via Ofcom once the current legislation is enacted. The executive is not responsible, however, for programmes supported by the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee.
For completeness, I can also confirm that responsibility for promoting Gaelic language and culture lies entirely with the Scottish Executive. Policy and financial responsibility for the newly established Bòrd Gàidhlig, mentioned in Clause 206, together with

989
funding for education including teacher training in Gaelic medium are all matters within the devolved competence of Scottish Ministers.
Clearly there is, and there should be, a synergy between language promotion and development and the benefits of Gaelic-medium broadcasting. That is why we are keen to see by means of this legislation closer co-operation between broadcasters and Gaelic language and culture interests together with those representing the wider community through membership of the Gaelic Media Service Board. I hope that those remarks will reassure the noble Baroness that the clauses on the Gaelic Media Service accurately reflect the legal and policy issues in relation to Gaelic broadcasting.
Amendment No.157 to Clause 205 seeks to place a duty on the Gaelic Media Service to finance and engage in the making of programmes, the provision of training and the carrying out of research in discharging its functions. However, the intent behind the amendment is not clear. As matters stand, Clause 205 already empowers the service to finance or engage in these activities as part of its new responsibilities for Gaelic broadcasting. Currently, the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee merely has the power to finance others for those purposes. The Bill will, in addition to the above powers, allow the new service to commission programmes, hold a licence and receive income from sources other than the Gaelic broadcasting fund. The Government feel that the enhanced powers being proposed for the new service are consistent with our vision of strengthening regional broadcasting and should perhaps be welcomed.
We are confident that, once the circumstances are right, the service will be in a position to take advantage of the new powers in Clause 205. That may take both time and careful forward planning. We do not see any merit in making that mandatory at this stage. If Members of the Committee were seeking to provide for the Gaelic Media Service a stronger lever to elicit extra investment, I do not think that the word-change suggested would achieve it. The whole issue of resources has been discussed in another place. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Scotland Office made it clear that this matter could be revisited only at the next spending review, in 2004. It is a matter primarily for the Scottish Executive to determine.
Amendment No. 158, when read with Amendment No. 157, seeks to add a new subsection to Clause 205 to the effect that the Gaelic Media Service must hold a licence from Ofcom to provide a service of Gaelic television and sound programmes so as to be available to persons in Scotland and elsewhere. That is not compatible with Ofcom's responsibilities for the award of licences.
We believe that it is right for the Gaelic Media Service to be able to broadcast a dedicated television channel, and, under the current provisions, the service will be eligible to hold the relevant licences from Ofcom in order to do so. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, will be pleased to have that
990
reassurance. The Gaelic Media Service may hold any Ofcom licence, except those specified in subsection (4B) which Clause 205(3) inserts into Section 183 of the 1990 Act, the holding of which would be beyond the service's powers. Therefore, with that reassurance, I hope that the Committee will accept that there is no need to include specific provision.
There is also no need specifically to extend the service beyond audiences in Scotland. Clause 205(4) makes clear by amending Section 183 of the 1990 Act that in Sections 183 and 183A of and Schedule 19 to the 1990 Act a reference to being available to persons in Scotland includes being available both to persons in Scotland and elsewhere. Those are the others about whom the noble Baroness was so worried. They are people living outside Scotland.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 159 to 163 and 164 to 167. These are concerned with the membership of the Gaelic Media Service Board and the creation of a new consultation group—defined as an "expert advisory body"—with members appointed by Ofcom and approved by the Secretary of State. I am afraid that I must be blunt. We cannot accept any of these amendments as they would negate one of the Government's key aims in reforming the arrangements for Gaelic broadcasting—that of increasing the representative base, including the broadcasting expertise, of the Gaelic Media Service Board.
In essence, these amendments would remove from the face of the Bill any obligation on the part of Ofcom to include representation on the board of the Gaelic Media Service from critical key players—namely, the BBC, the Gaelic Development Agency and Highland and Islands Enterprise. They would also remove its obligation to secure as far as practicable that, among others, Channel 3 licence holders in Scotland and independent television and radio production industries have their interests adequately represented on the board. As a consequence of these amendments, the Gaelic Media Service would be reduced from not more than 12 to not more than nine members.
We believe that it is right for organisations such as those mentioned, which these amendments seek to relegate to the proposed consultation group, to be involved at board level. They have a wealth of expertise and knowledge to bring to the table. Our view is that their contribution will have the maximum impact, and hence add most value, by participation at board level.
However, we recognise that there are concerns in certain quarters about the risk of serious and sustained conflicts of interests, particularly among members nominated by external agencies. We have addressed that in two ways. First, as provided by new Section 183A, Schedule 19 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 will apply to the service. That sets out the processes and procedures for handling actual or potential conflicts of interest. Secondly, the statutory guidance on appointments to be issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland to Ofcom under new Section 183A will play its part in managing the risk of nominated members facing conflicts of interest that might impact adversely

991
on the smooth running of the Gaelic Media Service Board. I can give an assurance that we shall keep the appointment arrangements under review to ensure that no difficulties of that kind arise.
I refer to my own personal experience as a governor of the British Film Institute for 17 years. That body had on its hoard representatives of many of the bodies that received funds from it. There was never any question of impropriety as mechanisms were in place—so far as I know, they are still in place—to ensure that that did not occur.
These amendments also seek to remove the requirement on Ofcom to appoint one of the members of the service as board chairman. The intention seems to he to ensure that the chairman of the new service is in place before the other board members are selected. We are already in discussion with ITC and Ofcom with a view to advertising the three current vacancies on the board and appointing one of the successful candidates as chairman designate of the new service.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 168. Again, our view is that this amendment would run counter to the Government's stated aim of increasing the broadcasting expertise on the Gaelic Media Service Board. In excluding anyone employed by any of the bodies in receipt of funding from the Gaelic Media Service from membership of the board, it would effectively rule out representation for the BBC, the Channel 3 companies in Scotland and the independent production sector. We believe that that would not be in the best interests of the service.
However, our clear view is that that can be overcome by Ofcom ensuring that any nominee from a body which is, or has the potential to be, in receipt of funding from the service is not directly involved in the provision of Gaelic programming. We shall ensure that that point is addressed in the statutory guidance to be drawn up by the Secretary of State under new Section 183A.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: I thank the Minister for his response to the various amendments. I warmly congratulate him on his correct pronunciation of the word "Gaelic". He pronounced it in the Scots not the Irish way. On a personal note I congratulate the Minister on pronouncing my name correctly. I am grateful for that. Incidentally, I wonder whether the Minister has noticed, or whether those who drafted the Bill are aware, that the Gaelic Media Service will be shortened to GMS and that the Gaelic title, Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig, will be shortened to SMG. There will he confusion throughout Scotland as those are the initials of the Scottish Media Group. I thought that I should draw that to the Minister's attention.
I hope that Ofcom will listen to what the Minister had to say on the question of conflict of interest. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her support for the amendments. I am glad to hear that there are appropriate procedures in place. Ofcom will no doubt read what has been said today.
992
I also very much welcome the Minister's assurance that there is scope for a dedicated channel in Scotland. That will make a difference to our fostering and developing the Gaelic language. I was glad to hear that the words "broadcast to others" mean broadcast elsewhere. That is very welcome.
However, I still remain greatly concerned about the funding. In the great scheme of things what is required is only a paltry amount—peanuts, in fact. But Gaelic broadcasting, given a secure basis, could make all the difference to the language beginning to flourish again. I remain unconvinced about the financial aspect in particular and hope to return to the matter at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 158 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 158A and 158B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 205 agreed to.
Clause 206 [Membership of the Service]:
[Amendments Nos. 159 to 166 not moved.]
Clause 206 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Clause 207 [Supplementary provisions about the Service]:
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 168A and 168B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 207 agreed to.
Clauses 208 to 210 agreed to.
Clause 211 [Digital Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences]:
Baroness Wilcoxmoved Amendment No. 168C:
Page 186, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this section, "ancillary service" does not include any service which is not a broadcast service."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 168C, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 169ZA, 195CA and 195CE. The purpose of these amendments is to seek some clarification from the Government on the services for which public service broadcasters are allowed to make a charge. Some key clauses of the Bill could be interpreted as preventing public service broadcasters from charging for some ancillary services which, up to now, they have been permitted to charge for.
Public service broadcasters have in the past been permitted to charge viewers for certain "opt-in" two-way ancillary services on digital television such as voting, for example, for their favourite contestant in Channel 4's "Big Brother", or entering a quiz to win a prize or entering a draw. This has always been permitted when, for example, viewers use their traditional landline or mobile telephone to call premium rate telephone numbers to enter a broadcaster's competition or to enter their vote, and

993
has also been permitted when these services are made available to viewers through a telephone line connection to set-top boxes.
At the moment, however, Clause 211(8) (relating to digital C3 and C5 licences) and Clause 228(9) (relating to the replacement of the C4 licence) would appear to prevent ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 from charging for the reception of any ancillary service. Clearly, this would be wrong and would impose far greater restrictions on the public service broadcasters than exist at present.
The same problem arises in relation to Clauses 268 and 269, which set out the must-offer obligations for public service broadcasters. As presently drafted, the clauses allow Ofcom to determine which ancillary services also fall within the definition of a must-offer service, which are then subject to the provision that no charge be made for an entitlement to receive those services. Thus, Ofcom could decide that some previously charged for ancillary services should form part of the must-offer service, which would then mean that these could not be charged for.
My amendments seek to address those concerns. The solution is a simple one. They provide a distinction between ancillary services which are broadcast by a public service broadcaster, and therefore may not be charged for—for example, a choice of different camera angles on a sports programme broadcast, or additional statistical information which may form part of the core public service offering—and ancillary services which are not broadcast (that is, are made available along a telephone line) which may be charged for.
I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept these amendments today. If he is not, it would still be extremely helpful if he could at least confirm that it is not the Government's intention to prevent public service broadcasters from charging for certain interactive services offered along telephone lines. Can the Minister reassure us that the Bill, as drafted, will not prevent that? I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, seeks clarification with the amendment, and I hope that I will be able to give it to her. One essential feature of public service television is that it has to be free to view. Once someone has acquired the right equipment and paid the television licence fee, they should be able to receive the public service channels free of any further charge, and we want to ensure that that continues to be the case in future, after the switchover to digital television. Therefore, the Bill provides for a specific prohibition against charging viewers for reception of those services. That is not a new policy as similar provisions are already contained in, for instance, the licences for Channels 3 and 5.
For clarification, that is not to preclude any applicable commercial charges between broadcasters and those who buy the right to carry or otherwise retail their services—for example, on satellite. Nor is it to
994
preclude any public service broadcaster from selling programmes to other broadcasters in the UK or abroad. Similarly, we do not wish to prevent a public service broadcaster from charging, even at a premium rate, for the phone call made by a viewer to vote—the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, gave the example—a character in or out of a programme or to enter a competition. The Bill does not prevent broadcasters from charging for such specific requests, so long as everyone can receive for free the programme on which the vote is made.
It is not prohibited to charge those who want to vote or gamble on some features of the service using their phone line as a return path. If the purpose of the amendments is to make that clear, we believe that they are superfluous. However, if they propose to create a distinction between ancillary services that are broadcasts and those that are not, that would not only fail to add clarity but might be flawed. I am not sure that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is proposing.
The prohibition to charge the viewer for the reception of a public service channel applies not only to the main services, but to any ancillary services within the meaning of Section 24(2) of the 1996 Act, as amended by Schedule 15, such as subtitling and other forms of assistance to the disabled. I am sure that we all agree that such services must be free. However, some other services might be included in the public service channels that we want viewers to receive free of charge, such as some interactive services.
The distinction that the amendments would introduce between ancillary broadcast services, which have to be free, and ancillary services that are not broadcast services, which would be charged. fails to add clarity and might well be flawed. Today's technology means that some services are not technically broadcast, but delivered in response to requests made by the individual users, although they are and have to be regulated as broadcast services. All cable providers may well soon stop providing the signals carrying normal broadcast television directly to homes, and instead receive and store all programming on local servers that serve perhaps 500 homes. It would not be fair that a cable viewer could be charged for the reception of those programmes, while a viewer receiving the same programmes via a true broadcast was not.
I hope that, in the light of those explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister very much for his explanation of what the Government propose. I shall read what he said in Hansard carefully to see whether it suffices. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 211 agreed to.
Clauses 212 to 214 agreed to.
Clause 215 [Duty to secure the provision of a public teletext service]:
Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 169:
Page 191, line 18, after "form" insert "or for so long as the digital teletext service remains inaccessible to visually impaired and deafblind people"
The noble Lord said: The aim of the amendment is incredibly straightforward. It is basically to ensure that the visually impaired and, more importantly at this level, the deafblind still have access to teletext. The reason why that is felt to be necessary is simply technical, as the techies would say, to use the original description given by my noble friend Lord McNally. Apparently on analogue only at the moment do we have the technical ability to transform teletext into other forms that are more readable, such as Braille.
Normally when we have talked about the issues in terms of disability, I have structured my points in relation to technology having enabled us to answer most of the problems. Here is an example where technology has not caught up. The current types of technology do not allow the reading of the digital signal. In a society rich—indeed saturated—with news and information, if we want two groups who are in danger of being cut off from the outside world to become a full part of that society we must allow them to continue to have the service.
I will break my usual practice by reading a letter from one Michael Gerwat, who is deafblind. He writes:
"I am deafblind and the only way I can access the news from the outside world is by Teletext connected to a Braille computer. Now, when things go digital there is no provision for that teletext service to remain. It will just be axed and as yet there is nothing to take its place. Now I feel that OFCOM should have the power to say you must create something to replace that and make that accessible before we take the old one away. I know it is to do with manufacturers, I know it is to do with commercial demand and all that. but have you ever been deafblind yourself? Have you lived in a world where there is not a single sound at all and I mean silence, and the only access you've got to every day news is through the Teletext system. Please don't take it from us until you've found something to replace it".
The closest I can come to imagining what it is like to be deafblind is being placed in a padded cell with your eyes and ears permanently covered. You cannot access what is going on around you. You are trapped in there. I should have thought that this, or a similar provision, was essential for this group of people. I beg to move.
Baroness Wilcox: I support this amendment ensuring the continuation of the analogue teletext service for so long as the digital equivalent is inaccessible to visually impaired and deafblind consumers.
Teletext is a lifeline for many disabled people. It provides an invaluable link into the world of television, from which they can otherwise be excluded. We are all familiar with page 888 giving subtitles. The service brings to life a huge range of programmes, from news to entertainment, for those who are deaf or hard of hearing. In a similar way, teletext services bring benefits to the partially sighted, delivering up-to-date information in a clear format which can be enlarged and read by those with minor visual impairments too.
996
Furthermore, as we have heard, analogue teletext can be interpreted by talking teletext equipment or devices that turn it into Braille. Unfortunately, that is so far not the case for digital services, which cannot be read or interpreted by machines. It would be a real shame if this example of best practice in including disabled consumers were to be phased out for the sake of change.
The amendment does not require an analogue teletext service to go on for ever, but only so long as the digital version remains inaccessible. This would cease to be relevant once the technology became available to allow the visually impaired to use digital teletext in the way in which they can currently take advantage of analogue teletext.
In a similar vein, we welcome Clause 298 under which Ofcom is required to publish a code providing guidance to services on the promotion of subtitling, audio-description and sign language and which gives a time-frame for meeting targets. Amendment No. 246 extends this to include services which are primarily broadcast abroad, which seems a sensible suggestion.
After all, under this Bill cable and satellite broadcasters will, for the first time, have to meet targets on services that benefit disabled consumers. If the principle of access for all consumers applies to audiences within the UK, surely there is no reason why that should not be relevant to audiences further afield.
Baroness Wilkins: I support the amendment. I spoke about the future problems that would be raised in regard to digital teletext for blind and deafblind people at Second Reading. It is such a serious matter for this group of people that I feel sure that the Government will respond favourably to the amendment.
The potential isolation caused by being deafblind, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, so graphically set out, is hard to contemplate. Surely we must do everything we can to alleviate it. Teletext has become a vital source of information, news and education for many thousands of blind and deafblind people and has played a major part in putting them in touch with the world around them. To remove that vital resource just because technology has moved on is surely too cruel. I hope that the Minister will respond favourably to the amendment.
Lord Lipsey: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 246 standing in my name. Members of the Committee could be excused some slight confusion. First, the amendment has nothing to do with the very important subject of teletext services for deafblind people. I wholly endorse every word that has been said on that subject. Secondly, it seems to me that I have made a mess of the drafting of the amendment so that it does not even do what I want it to do.
My concern relates to people making television programmes in this country for broadcast to other countries. Under the Bill as drafted it seems possible—this is probably unintentional—that they would have to observe for those television services that will only be shown abroad the same standards as will rightly be

997
applied by Ofcom to programmes to be shown in this country. That seems a rather inappropriate and heavy-handed use of resources. The standards that should apply to such programmes, in terms of subtitling and so on, should be those of the country in which they will be shown and the markets into which they will be sold, not those of this country. That is what sovereignty is about—each country determining such matters for itself.
It is true that Ofcom can get round this under Clause 298 by ruling as to exactly what should be done for each service. But that seems a huge burden on Ofcom. It would seem more sensible to provide for this automatically by alleviating all those channels for which programmes are made in and broadcast from the United Kingdom but not shown here. There is also a commercial motive in this regard. If we do not do that and impose the obligations, the channels can easily be moved and broadcast from another country. We should simply lose that benefit to the industry. I hope that my noble friend will consider the amendment carefully.
Lord Bragg: I rise briefly to support the powerful case made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I work with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and know what a vital facility the service is. I cannot support the noble Lord strongly enough.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I would like to support the amendment equally briefly but equally firmly. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others made a very good case for it. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic but I implore her, if she cannot give us a good answer now, to think more firmly about it and perhaps come back with an answer or meet with us in between the Bill's stages.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I share the views expressed around the Chamber about the importance of allowing the visually impaired and the deafblind in particular to have access to those services. I want to give a sympathetic response but I am afraid that there is a technology issue in this regard. It will not be possible for the public teletext licensee to continue to provide an analogue text service after the switchover to digital as the spare capacity on which the service is broadcast will no longer be available. Nor can the equivalent of the analogue service be provided on digital terrestrial television because of capacity restraints.
I fully appreciate the value that visually impaired and deafblind people place on access to digital teletext services, but I do not believe that putting requirements in the Bill on the public teletext service licensee or on Ofcom is the most effective and practical way in which to find a solution to the problem.
However, I believe that there is a solution. My officials understand from the Independent Television Commission technology group that it believes that it will be possible to design a digital version of the talking teletext equipment that would work with digital
998
teletext instead. It suggests that the equipment manufacturer works with broadcasters and set-top-box manufacturers. I will ensure that that is taken forward within the work of the technology and equipment group of the digital action plan. One of its tasks is to consider the specific equipment needs of disabled people. The commercial solution, which will be available, would not need to be reflected in provisions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 246 would mean that the code would not apply to any television licensable content service with an intended audience most of whom lived outside the United Kingdom. However, Clause 298(6) provides that, in considering exclusions from the subtitling, signing and audio description targets, Ofcom must have regard to the factors that are set out in Clause 298(6)(a) to (f). They already include, in Clause 298(6)(d), the extent to which members of the intended audience for the programmes are resident in places outside the United Kingdom.
I believe that that amendment is unnecessary as there is already a provision in the Bill to allow Ofcom to consider the extent to which the intended audience is outside the United Kingdom. Furthermore, there may actually be some occasions on which it is appropriate for services with a primarily non-UK audience to provide assistance for the disabled. Were we to accept this amendment, however, we would leave Ofcom powerless to ensure that suitable—
Lord Lipsey: I am grateful to my noble friend. Before she moves on, could she explain what services she has in mind in that regard? I should find that enormously helpful.
Baroness Blackstone: I could not quite hear the question.
Lord Lipsey: I beg my noble friend's pardon. She said that there were some services shown outside the UK for which the requirement would be appropriate, but she did not list any. Could she give me some examples of what she has in mind?
Baroness Blackstone: There may be some occasions, as I was saying, on which it is appropriate for services with a primary non-UK audience to provide assistance for the disabled. There could be a whole variety of different services, to which the disabled want access. I cannot particularly specify any one kind of service. News services—
Lord Lipsey: I just want an example.
Baroness Blackstone: If I could finish. Let us take Europe-wide news services as an example. There may be many others, such as pan-European sport. Such services are provided across the Continent of Europe and are not primarily for a domestic audience.
In conclusion, if we agreed to the amendment, it would mean that Ofcom could not ensure that suitable provision was made in those circumstances. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Addington: I thank the Minister for her response. The gist of it was, "Yes, you have identified a problem but, don't worry, the problem will disappear shortly". Answers like that remind me of the fact that although audio description is being produced, we cannot get a box. Thousands of hours of television are bring produced but cannot be accessed.
Is the Minister at this point prepared at least to guarantee the best efforts of the Government to ensure that not only is the work carried out, if it can technically be done, but that the service will be in an accessible format and the Government will give assistance to those who need it?
Baroness Blackstone: I am surprised by the noble Lord's question. I thought that I had made it absolutely clear that the Government would do all they can to encourage the technology group which is looking at these issues to ensure that the service is available. Therefore, I am not sure why he is asking me the question again.
Lord Addington: For the simple reason that it was technically available in the case of audio description but as no one was producing the box no one could get at it. We therefore want to ensure that not only is it possible technically to provide the service but that it is available. That is the real cruncher. It does not matter that it is possible technically to provide the service if it is not readily available.
Will the Government do their best to ensure that the situation is not repeated here? It is probably more important in this case. Will they give an undertaking at least to do everything they can within the current structures to enable that to happen?
Baroness Blackstone: I have already said that the Government are committed to ensuring that this particular group—the visually impaired and the deafblind—have as much access as is technically possible to the kind of services they may want to watch.
I cannot go beyond that. I cannot anticipate exactly how the technology will turn out. I understand the point the noble Lord makes about gaining access to the technology, but I can only say that what I said earlier will stand.
Lord Addington: I thank the Minister. At least we know where we are. In moving the amendment, I have received advice and speak for a coalition of interests. I would like to take the Minister's answer away and to allow those who have more technical knowledge to have a look at it. I believe that the Minister is trying to give me as good an answer as she is able, but whether it addresses the point is something which experts will have to look at. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 215 agreed to.
Clause 216 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clauses 217 to 227 agreed to.
Clause 228 [Replacement of Channel 4 licence]:
[Amendment No. 169.ZA not moved.]
Clause 228 agreed to.
Clause 229 [Meaning of "television licensable content service"]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 169A:
Page 205, line 15, leave out "or sounds (or both)" and insert ", sounds or data (or any combination of the three)"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 169A, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 169B, C and D. During the first day of Report stage in another place, the Government brought forward a number of amendments to those clauses of the Bill relating to the television licensable content service—TLCS licence—in particular Clauses 229 and 230. Following discussions with various industry representatives, my Front Bench colleagues in another place had intended to put a number of important questions to the Minister concerning the workings of the clauses and the Government's amendments. Alas, these were not reached in the time available and were adopted without any debate.
I understand that my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale, then wrote to the Minister for Broadcasting setting out the questions which he had hoped to put to the Minister at Report stage, but he has yet to receive a response to the letter. I understand that responding to letters takes time, particularly those that deal with significant levels of detail. But we are anxious to get some answers to the questions raised in order that we can understand clearly the implications of the clauses to hand. I have tabled these essentially probing amendments to enable me to put the outstanding questions to the Minister in the hope that some clarity may be forthcoming.
Amendments Nos. 169C and 169D relate to the definition of "relevant ancillary service" in Clause 229(6). For those Members of the Committee unfamiliar with this part of the Bill, a "relevant ancillary service" falls under the same TLCS licence as the main service and does not require a separate licence. Clause 229(6) currently defines "relevant ancillary service" as,
"a service or facility provided or made available by the provider of the main service that consists of or gives access to… any other service…which is ancillary to one or more programmes so included and relates directly to their contents".
Following government amendments moved in another place on Report, the definition now includes "a facility" as well as "a service". I understand that this term is intended to catch menus—for example, the interactive service menus that are accessed by pressing the red button on Sky's channels—and similar linking or jumping technologies that may not easily be seen as a service in their own right. There are concerns, however, that the inclusion of the term "facility" could unintentionally widen the scope of the licensing provisions so that it would potentially catch hardware; for example, set-top boxes or viewing cards and even

1001
other software and middleware contained in the set-top box as that might be said to be provided to give access to any other service.
Clearly, such facilities should not be licensed as a form of television services. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the addition of "facility" in this definition is not intended to widen the scope of a TLCS beyond the form of menus or other linking technologies, to which I have referred; and that a "facility"—as proposed by my amendment—is intended only to relate to on-screen navigation facilities or facilities made available for reception by members of the public. If the facility is broadcast "for reception", it would seem to preclude it from covering hardware or any software integral to that hardware.
Government amendments moved on Report in another place also amended the definition of "relevant ancillary service" by changing "relates" to "relates directly", implying a stricter interpretation of what ancillary services may be included within the same licence as the main service. That change could result in significant practical implications for broadcasters. Yet, given the lack of parliamentary debate in another place, the Government have not stated why they believe that there is the need for a higher threshold and therefore why the term "relates" is insufficient.
It would be helpful to know the extent to which the Government have considered the consequences of that change. For example, the need for services to be directly related could lead to an onerous process requiring separate additional licences to be obtained regularly for one-off programming where the material is only deemed to be related. At the very best, regular discussion will need to be held with Ofcom on whether a separate licence is required every time the main service provider is considering broadcasting additional content, in order to ensure that licences are required for all the correct services and facilities.
The stricter definition of "directly related- might be interpreted to require broadcasters to acquire a separate licence for content that it makes accessible through a multi-screen application, such as Sky's "Sky News Active". It is unclear when that might be required. The BBC has, for example, shown horseracing behind international rugby programming. Could that be said to he directly related? Channel 4 has shown -Big Brother- programming behind programmes such as "ER" and "Friends". Could that be said to be directly related?
Furthermore, would the test be applied across the range of programming on the channel, so that a general entertainment channel would enjoy greater flexibility in that regard than a dedicated sports or documentary channel, or would the direct relationship have to be with the programming being shown at the particular time? I suggest that the inclusion of the word "directly" has added another level of uncertainty for broadcasters without any commensurate policy gain.
Ultimately. a far more sensible approach would be to allow all services ancillary to the main service to come under a single licence. The system should be
1002
sufficiently flexible to permit third-party content providers to acquire a separate licence if they want to or, if they already possess a separate licence, for that licence to cover all the content they are providing. Such a position would still ensure that all relevant services were caught by the licensing regime while removing much of the complexity and subjectivity of the regime currently proposed.
My probing amendments, Amendments Nos. 169A and 169B, propose the inclusion of the word "data" in the text of Clause 229(5), in addition to the words "visual images" and "sounds". There is concern that the absence of that word unintentionally implies that certain services that are not currently licensed by the ITC may fall to be licensed as part of a TLCS. For example, the voting application on Sky News or "Big Brother" involves the transmission of data from set-top box to voting servers. That is not at present a licensed activity, as is such activity on-line, but may be caught by the currently proposed TLCS regime, as it would not be excluded as a two-way service.
I understand that the Government have resisted the inclusion of the word "data" so far on the basis that it may take certain services, such as those provided by Kingston Communications, outside the scope of the TLCS regime where data is transmitted one way to call up channels from the server and video images are sent back. If the Government feel unable to accept the amendment for that reason, it would in any case be helpful to have the Minister's assurance that all on-line interactive services, including those that involve the sending of data, such as voting applications, are intended to be excluded from the scope of TLCS. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The Explanatory Notes state that two-way services, as defined in subsection (5), encompasses video conferencing, but they do not state what other services may be included. Presumably, the intention of the draftsman was to make the exclusion as broad as possible so that TLCS is not applied to activities such as Internet shopping. I recall that concern was expressed in the Joint Committee by the Internet Service Providers' Association that the definitions in the clause would inadvertently secure that Internet content would be caught by the licensing requirement.
I have not had time to ask the Internet Service Providers' Association whether it is satisfied that the concerns expressed in that memorandum have since been met. As I did not receive the answer immediately, I assume that something remains to be dealt with and that the conversations between the ISPA and the Government continue.
On Amendment No. 169C, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that the wording of the clause is ambiguous. Again, I turn, as I normally do if I am not entirely au fait with what a clause is intended to do, to the Explanatory Notes. I must congratulate the Government on providing such extensive Explanatory Notes. In this case, a long paragraph

1003
deals with what are ancillary services, giving a number of helpful examples, but the effect is spoiled when one reaches the end of the paragraph where one reads that,
"everything would depend on the exact nature of the services and facilities offered and the circumstances in which they were offered".
So the question asked by the noble Baroness is legitimate: could the current phraseology include hardware, or is it, as she requests, confined only to onscreen interactive services of the kind described?
Amendment No.169D would delete the word "directly". We need a definition, and I am glad that the noble Baroness said that it was a probing amendment on which we require further elucidation.
Baroness Blackstone: I accept that these are probing amendments. However, if accepted, they would only confuse the internal logic of Clauses 229 to 231. 1 freely admit that the clauses relating to satellite and cable services are very complex and perhaps aim at a final perfection of legal certainty that is not easy to achieve. However, we are clear that the drafting makes real, intelligible distinctions between which are licensable content services and which are not.
The first two amendments are, in our view, unnecessary, because data transmission services are outside the scope of licensing. I shall say more about that in a moment. The noble Baroness referred to a letter sent to the department by her honourable friend John Whittingdale including all the questions that she listed. The department has not received the letter. By far the best approach would be for the department to answer all the noble Baroness's questions in writing, as it is a complex area. I will copy my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
I wonder whether I need respond further to these amendments, given that they are probing, other than to answer the question put by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about whether the facility includes hardware. It does not; it relates only to onscreen facilities and software. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. We shall write as soon as possible.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her response. I apologise; I have no idea what has happened to the letter, and as soon as I leave the Committee I shall try to find out. We are certain that it was sent. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for offering to respond in writing to the rather complex questions that I have raised this afternoon, and also to write to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The last thing that I want to do is to confuse the internal logic, to use the Minister's words. However, I am grateful for her assurance that hardware is not included. In the hope and expectation that we shall receive replies to the questions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 169B to 169D not moved.]
Clause 229 agreed to.
Clauses 230 to 232 agreed to.
Clause 233 [Direction to licensee to take remedial action]:
Baroness Wilcoxmoved Amendment No. 170:
Page 208, line 42, at end insert—
"(8A) OFCOM shall publish a statement setting out by what means complaints concerning a contravention of a licence condition may be made and how OFCOM will consider such a complaint.
(8B) A statement under subsection (8A) shall include—

(a) an account of arrangements for the publication of details of a complaint,

(b) information on the time available for making representations, and

(c) an account of the process of consideration between the making of complaints and the issuing of directions under this section."

The noble Baroness said: Clause 233 permits Ofcom to direct a licensee to take remedial action if it is satisfied that the licensee has contravened a condition of the licence. Clause 233 sets out clearly what Ofcom can do in those circumstances, but it lacks sufficient detail on how the process will work. If I understand it correctly, Ofcom decides whether there has been a contravention of the licence condition; it then gives the licensee the opportunity to make representations to Ofcom regarding the alleged contravention; and, if Ofcom remains satisfied that there has been a contravention, it can direct the licence holder to include a correction or a statement of findings in the licensed service. That is all fairly clear.
What is not clear is how Ofcom will deal with the process and what timescales will be involved. Clause 233 hinges on Ofcom's satisfaction that a contravention has taken place. That is how the clause begins. But how will Ofcom arrive at this position'? Amendment No. 170 attempts to clarify the process. It attempts to make the process more transparent for all concerned by its requirement that Ofcom should publish a statement laying out its proposed actions in detail. The time available for the licensee to make representations is particularly important. The clause would be much improved by clarifying the processes whereby Ofcom and the licensee interact on the issue of contravention, so that no party is in any doubt over what action may be taken. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: We support this amendment, and look forward to the clarification that doubtless the noble Baroness is about to give to the Committee.
Baroness Blackstone: Clause 233 has the simple purpose of updating the provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 to allow Ofcom to require a cable or satellite broadcaster which has breached a licence condition to broadcast a correction or Ofcom's statement of findings where Ofcom is satisfied that this would appropriately remedy the contravention. The provisions in respect of other broadcasters remain broadly unchanged from those in the 1990 Act, other than being updated by Clause 337 to refer to broadcasting the statement of Ofcom's findings rather than an apology.

1005
The new provisions in this clause are required for cable and satellite broadcasters simply because the Bill replaces the separate cable and satellite licences with a single licence for a television licensable content service. This amendment would introduce a requirement for a complaints procedure in respect of any breach of a licence condition. We do not believe that that would be appropriate. Requirements for complaints procedures to be put in place already exist for the areas that most directly affect viewers, particularly in respect of standards and fairness complaints. Those licence conditions that do not relate to content standards are neither of much direct relevance to members of the public, nor the kind of matter best addressed through a complaints procedure; for example, they cover payment of Ofcom fees, media ownership provisions, and statutory advertising limits established under a European directive. Therefore, they are very much of interest to the industry, but not to the public.
As for the standards code, the provisions about the complaints process in relation to all licensees are to be found at Clause 318 of the Bill. Those provisions already prescribe that Ofcom shall include a condition in every broadcasting Act licence that the licence holder must observe Ofcom's codes to safeguard standards and maintain procedures for dealing with complaints. Not only shall licensees have procedures for handling and resolving complaints, but Ofcom shall also establish such procedures.
In relation to fairness and privacy complaints, the detailed procedures set out in the Broadcasting Act 1996 remain in force and responsibility for their enforcement will transfer to Ofcom. All the procedures will need to be clear to all parties. Clause 321 requires the broadcasters to publicise complaints procedures for breaches of both standards and fairness codes.
I should mention in passing that we do not understand why this amendment targets the provisions governing television licensable content services alone. Be that as it may, we believe that it is unnecessary in any event given the provisions of the Bill to which I referred. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, takes that decision, perhaps I may ask one question. As the Minister referred to Clause 321 and the requirements that it places on Ofcom to publicise the means of making complaints, whether by broadcasts or otherwise, would it not be appropriate for details of the means for making complaints by members of the public to appear on Ofcom's Internet site?
Baroness Blackstone: That sounds like a perfectly sensible suggestion. I shall certainly take it away for consideration, and let the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, know whether, as it seems to me, the experts also find it sensible.
Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for her reply and the noble Viscount for his support from the
1006
Liberal Democrat Benches. It sounds as if I shall not get what I want but the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will get what he wants. I should just retire hurt. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 233 agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clauses 234 to 240 agreed to.
Clause 241 [Local digital television services]:
[Amendment No. 171 not moved.]
Viscount Falklandmoved Amendment No. 172:
Page 216, line 42, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 172, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 173.
Amendment No. 172 relates to local digital television services and to Clause 241(7), which provides powers for Ofcom to introduce restrictions on the inclusion of advertising and sponsorship. The amendment would delete the subsection in its entirety on the basis that it provides Ofcom with powers to introduce an unnecessary regulatory burden on future local digital television services.
Local and community television services, whether free-to-air, on cable or on other platforms, should he free to draw on various funding sources. Local commercial television will depend primarily on advertising and sponsorship, but for non-commercial community television services the principle of a mixed funding base is important to their viability and independence. Therefore, we consider the subsection to be unnecessary and even a threat to the future viability of local digital television.
The inclusion of subsection (7) implies the possibility that there will be regulation when, we maintain, none is required and there is no obvious social or economic benefit. To prohibit or restrict private funding sources would he to impose an onerous and unnecessary regulatory burden.
I shall now speak to Amendment No. 173. As a result of changes introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1996, there is a diverse and developing local and community television sector. There is a range of ownership and economic models, as well as a wide variety of approaches to programming. The present licensing arrangements are highly deregulatory. There is no recognition or incentive for public service content and few restrictions on the accumulation of broadcast licences and speculative licence trading.
The problems were highlighted by the acquisition, in 2000 and 2001, of a large number of restricted service television licences before the proposed services had even commenced broadcasting. Later, the company making those speculative acquisitions collapsed and hopes for a rapid roll-out of new local television services received a severe setback. In 2001, the Independent Television Commission reviewed the framework for restricted service television licensing and concluded that a more robust framework was

1007
required where services with a strong non-commercial public service remit could be ring-fenced and protected against take-over.
The proposals would establish at least two categories of local television. One category would be for local television services run for profit and open to acquisition and accumulation by companies with interests in investing in local commercial television. The second category would be community television services run mainly for social benefit and with no plans for or expectations of profit.
Such a distinction of category is of particular importance to the ability of commercial community television services to raise capital investment from public and private sources, as it would provide reassurance and some protection against take-over and conversion into a profit-making venture. This amendment would make explicit that the powers contained in Clause 241 would enable Ofcom to introduce a category distinction to protect and define not-for-profit community television services. We believe that the amendment would improve the Bill. We might face the possibility of these provisions being subject to future secondary legislation if the amendment was not on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand the thinking behind the amendment and one is always sympathetic to the cause of community. But the amendments do not recognise the virtues of the provisions in the Bill. Clause 241 provides a very flexible licensing regime for local television services.
We do not know yet, and we cannot know, what the right balance is or will be between different kinds of services. We might have enough spectrum to accommodate both non-commercial and commercial services. There are benefits of both. After all, if people have a choice of what they want to watch, some who have access to non-commercial services may choose to watch commercial services. That is their privilege. Some services provided for commercial reasons might bring a large number of benefits to a particular community. There is not always a contradiction between public interest and commercial interest.
If, when we come to make orders under Clause 241, we believe that there should be only "public interest" or "community" services, which is really what the amendments are proposing, the drafting of this clause will allow us to do that. If, on the other hand, we want and can afford to provide for a wider variety of services, Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 would hinder our ability to do that. The thinking seems to be that Amendment No. 173 would make subsection (7) superfluous and that is why it is removed by Amendment No. 172. That would be a mistake. Subsection (7) does something quite different from Amendment No. 173. It allows a more subtle control of the nature of services licensed under Clause 241 than would be possible by simply adopting Amendment No. 173.
1008
Where the amendment specifies in broad terms the general nature of the service to be licensed, subsection (7) provides one of the means by which it might he achieved. One might say—I rather think that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was saying it—that we should not have subsection (7) because we can rely on other provisions in the clause to prevent the services being too commercial in nature. But I believe that subsection (7) is necessary. Without it, our ability to shape the future of local digital television will be significantly impaired. With it, we will be able to act more flexibly on a case-by-case basis.
It may be that we want to provide for different types of services with different: types of business plans. Some might be able to receive grants from associations or even support from local authorities. But if that were the case, we would want to ensure that they did not enter into unfair competition for advertising income with commercial TV licensees. To do so would need a specific power of the type set out in subsection (7) rather than the alternative proposed by Amendment No. 173. Clearly, we are seeking the same end, but the rather complex and obscure drafting, I have to say, of Clause 241 achieves what the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, wants.
Lord McNally: Before the Minister sits down, I mentioned at an earlier stage our shared experience of mutuals and co-operatives as perhaps a third way of stopping one of the aims of these amendments. We have been here before in that the technology has provided for real local and community identity and ownership, but commercial forces have caused amalgamations and consolidations which have lost that. Since we are at another stage of technology where we really might be able to obtain local television and local radio, we should be exploring ways in which once they are set up they are protected from predators.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If there is room for everyone, the Bill allows for that. If there is not sufficient room for everyone or if there is a threat of a non-commercial interest being swamped by a commercial interest, the Bill allows for Ofcom to discriminate in favour of the non-commercial interest. I think that that is what is being sought by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It is in place.
Viscount Falkland: I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for what was by and large a sympathetic, detailed and thoughtful response. These are difficult problems and unforeseeable events will have to be dealt with in the future. I shall study carefully what he has said and, if necessary, return to the matter at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Clause 241 agreed to.
Clause 242 [Regulation of independent radio services]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 174:
Page 218, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) Where OFCOM receives notification that may give rise to a change of control in ownership of independent radio services, or that a relevant change of control takes place (whether or not that change has been previously notified to OFCOM), OFCOM shall carry out a review of the impact on music diversity and local character."
The noble Baroness said: We turn now to Clause 242 which concerns the regulation of independent radio services. In moving Amendment No. 174, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 251 and 252. Amendment No. 174 would ensure that Ofcom reviews the impact on music diversity and local character in the event of a proposed change in ownership of a radio licence.
While we believe it is important for the Bill to create a market environment which enables UK media companies to invest and compete on the global stage, we are concerned that this should not be achieved at the expense of one of our major creative and commercial successes; that is, the British music industry. The Government's proposals on local radio ownership could create a situation where in effect only three people, two in commercial radio and one at the BBC, will act as gatekeepers between music creators and their audiences.
We believe, therefore, that in the interests of creative growth and consumer choice, Ofcom should carry out an impact assessment on music diversity when a relevant change in ownership is proposed. Given the important interrelationship between radio and music, we are keen to see this measure specified on the face of the Bill rather than relying on the Government's proposal that reference will be made to music diversity in the accompanying guidelines. While other provisions in this legislation provide Ofcom with the ability to carry out impact assessments, it seems sensible for a review of musical diversity to be specified in this clause.
Important aspects of independent commercial radio stations are their programming formats. These are agreed when a licence is issued and account for the output a station provides when it applied for its licence. For example, they indicate how much output will be speech and/or music and what kind of music will be broadcast. In theory, a station currently may not deviate from its format without the consent of the Radio Authority. Station formats are intended to prevent a licensee from substantially changing the character of the service offered without the approval of the Radio Authority.
Already there exists a phenomenon known as "format creep". The Radio Authority itself acknowledges that a new owner already operating other radio stations might wish either to highlight or to underplay elements of a format in order to fit the station into its brand for the future. From a musical point of view, stations with supposedly different formats could then start to sound alike if their play-lists began to emphasise the more middle-ground elements of their format. Surely the institution charged
1010
with monitoring such franchise holders must be given the remit to assess the impact of any proposed changes in ownership, together with the power to employ clear sanctions when franchise conditions are broken.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 251 and 252. The first of the amendments seeks to broaden the scope in this clause from "programmes" to "programmes and music". This would serve to ensure that music is taken into account when Ofcom makes an assessment of an independent radio licensee's departure from the character of its service. The effect would be that Ofcom would be legally required to consider music in its deliberations rather than relying only on the apparent assumption that it will be considered in its deliberations.
Amendment No. 252 relates to taking into account that the existing range of programmes and music is calculated, appealing to a variety of tastes and interests. This would mean that the licence review would depend on meeting a requirement to broadcast music catering for a range of tastes and interests matching local audience requirements.
During a debate in another place, the Government stated in relation to this clause that they expect Ofcom to consider the implications for music. The Minister said:
"It would be impossible for Ofcom to consider the effect of a change in the range of programmes without also considering the range of music on offer… the two are virtually synonomous …However, I fully expect that, in considering these issues, Ofcom will consider the implications for music".—Official Report, Commons, 25/2/03; col. 159–60.
If the Government already accept that music should be taken into account, surely it should be a regulatory certainty by referring explicitly on the face of the Bill to music. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: I support this group of amendments. The noble Baroness has made clear the essential connection between radio and music. I doubt whether there is anyone who has ever had builders in their house who does not realise that music forms a crucial part of radio output.
We had earlier a brief discussion on the need to preserve the relics of local character in the music output of independent local radio. Even more important is the need to preserve a range of choice and a variety of musical output. Diversity is even more important than locality.
As the Bill now stands, there is a real danger that ILR may become more unified. Although there are safeguards against this, the connection between music output and independent local radio should be spelt out specifically on the face of the Bill. I am not denying that, under the Bill, Ofcom has the ability to consider the changes in musical output that may come about with a change of ownership, but the issue is so important that it should be spelt out on the face of the Bill.
The Committee may well think that the music output of commercial radio is not great anyway and that it does not very much matter if it becomes more

1011
uniform—that it will be uniformly horrible—but that would be a grave mistake. At the moment, there is a diversity of musical output on ILR. Anyone who has experienced local and commercial radio stations in the United States—owned by giants in the field such as Clear Channel—will recognise that the American model is very different from our own. We need genuine certainty written into the Bill that we will not go in that direction. It must surely be an explicit part of Ofcom's regulation of radio to ensure that we are not subjected to the kind of undifferentiated, blanket Muzak heard on American radio.
As we are dealing with commercial radio, profitability of course has to form a large part of our considerations. But profitability should be balanced by a concern for public service in its broadest sense as regards music. I take it that to preserve this balance is Ofcom's chief function and I hope, therefore, that somewhere on the face of the Bill this may be spelled out with regard to music.
Viscount Falkland: I speak to the amendments to which my noble friend Lord McNally has put his name. I freely confess, as this is clearly a probing amendment, that we on these Benches recognise the complexity behind the amendments in terms of predicting the future. After all, music is one of this country's major cultural exports. It accounts for about £5 billion worth of business, and the local commercial radio industry accounts for half a billion pounds a year.
I agree with the Commercial Radio Companies Association. To use the rather colourful phrasing in its brief:
"No sensible owner will cannibalise listeners to his existing services by creating services that replicate each other".
That is probably right. In this country, popular music in particular has a certain amount of sophistication in the way that it is marketed and exploited. However, one notices and takes seriously that, where deregulation has occurred, particularly in Australia, Scandinavia and New Zealand, there is evidence that the supposed diversity has in fact resulted in what one could interpret as just the opposite happening.
It is not a straightforward situation. Obviously, our main concern—and there is no difference between any of us on this—is to support the British industry and its diversity. Whether the Bill will prejudice that worries us all. We hope that whichever Minister replies to the amendment will put the weight of her, or his, opinion into the debate, but it is a difficult one.
We support the concerns expressed in the amendments. Whatever the Minister intends to do about them, we will look at this subject very carefully, because it is vital to get it right.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: While I have sympathy with the idea of preserving musical diversity, the sight of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his place reminds me of the difficulty of defining it. I was not in this House, but was clearly interested in its deliberations, when the
1012
provisions were going through about the creation of independent national radio. There was a very convoluted attempt to define what was not popular music. I recall the noble Earl's immortal words that as far as he was concerned, it was thump, thump, thump. That was much more graphic than the 14 or so lines used at the time to describe it.
Popular music is difficult to define. The danger of creep does not arise at the extremes. There is no danger of a station which has won its licence on a promise to provide classical music switching to pop, or jazz switching to classical. However, I concede that there is a danger of creep at the woolly centre—what, in America, they called, when they had format regulation, "adult contemporary". In America, the packaging is everything. They have soft adult contemporary, rock adult contemporary, almost mint-flavoured adult contemporary. The danger is that nobody can really define what it is. It covers a huge soft centre.
I want to cheat slightly in this amendment. The true way to preserve diversity of musical output is to allow greater freedom of ownership. The same owner will deliberately choose much more diverse music across a range of services. It is only when too many separate owners are permitted to compete in the one market that they all zero in, subconsciously or not, on the fluffy centre, which we are trying to prevent them from doing.
Lord Puttnam: I shall briefly speak in support of the amendment. Here again, we have deregulation threatening to lead to consolidation and consolidation inevitably to conformity. Like other Members of the Committee, I have been approached by an enormous range of people from the music industry, who are very concerned at the spectre of change in this sector and believe that it will be negative. It is an important industrial or economic sector, and they are not silly or irrelevant people. They do not believe that they have been listened to or that the Government have thus far fully taken account of their concerns. It would do them and the Government a great deal of good to listen to those concerns between now and Report stage.
This is a real issue, which will not go away—indeed, I suspect that it will rumble on. The Government have been generous in taking account of what is seen as the Clear Channel threat, and they are right to do so. However, there is a concern in the music industry, and I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has raised the matter.
Lord Colwyn: I also support the theory of this amendment. Speaking as a musician, I believe that it is important that there are safeguards for music creativity. Radio operators should not be able to walk away from their licence obligations relating to music programming.
The noble Lord, Lord Gordon, mentioned jazz and Jazz FM, of which I was a director. I parted company with that station on this very issue. However, speaking as a chairman of a company that is applying for a licence, I believe that all radio stations should and

1013
must abide by the format setting out the type of music that they must broadcast—a format that, in theory, cannot be changed without the regulator's consent.
This amendment would duplicate the powers that Ofcom already has in Clause 349, which, as I read it, covers the aims of the amendment but perhaps in more detail. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, referred to Clear Channel. I shall read one quotation from the chief executive of that company. In line with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, I give him the benefit of the doubt.
The chief executive said on 2nd March in Sunday Business,
"If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn't be someone from our company … We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers' products".
I would give the chief executive the benefit of doubt on that remark, having not seen the total context of the article in which he wrote it. I would assume that, if he was seeking to sell their customers' products, he would be as sensitive and sensible as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, suggested. However, the fact remains that one cannot be certain that that is so, and that it might not be so, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said a moment ago when he spoke of people's continuing anxiety.
For myself, I find a most agreeable interaction between the personality of the advertisers and the particular music with which they seek to sell their products—although I acknowledge that they do not choose the music themselves. When I was a postgraduate student at the Harvard Business School, my roommate and I built an entire world around the Boston classical music station, which advertised such things as hi-fis, oriental carpets and fine wines. We created a private world of our own from those particular advertisers.
There is the risk, as the number of providers decreases, that the choice and diversity will diminish. I would err at this juncture on the side of caution and, in that respect, I support my noble friend's amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As has been explained, Amendment No. 174 would require Ofcom to review the possible impact on,
"musical diversity and local character",
of changes in control of local radio licences.
We entirely understand and sympathise with the thinking behind the amendment. However, under Clause 348, Ofcom already has a duty to conduct a review when local licences change hands, and can make licence changes where it believes that there will
1014
be a deleterious effect in respect of the character of the station, the quality and range of programmes, or the localness of the station.
I entirely agree that it is important that Ofcom takes into account the effect of any changes on the range of music output of a station. I am not persuaded, however, that we need to add the words "musical diversity" to the Bill to achieve that. The vast majority of local radio stations' output is music. It is therefore very difficult to see how Ofcom could consider the effect of a change in the character of the station or the quality and range of programmes without considering the effect on diversity of music.
I would also suggest that the amendment does not fully take into account the central role of formats in protecting musical diversity. Formats are the first and most important defence of diversity of all kinds, particularly in music. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raises the spectre of format creep. We recognise that that is a problem and that formats are deliberately light touch. The purpose of the new "localness" duty in Clause 307 is designed to address that by allowing Ofcom to flesh-out the formats.
All local and regional radio stations have a format which is part of their licence and sets out clearly and concisely the sort of music that the station will play. The formats—such as that for Classic FM—are available for inspection on the Radio Authority's website. To take another example, the format for Plymouth Sound states in part that,
"music programming will be current chart hits, new releases or hits up to 10 years old. Up to 25 per cent may be hits over 10 years old".
The conditions are very specific. To take another example, Kiss FM—
Lord McNally: Hear, hear.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I am sure that, as regular listeners, all noble Lords will be familiar with Kiss FM's format which,
"comprises, and fully reflects, the musical styles known as House, Garage, Soul, Soul/Jazz. Rap, Reggae, Ragga and Swing together with any developments of these and other related forms of dance music".
Lord McNally: My comment was due to the fact that I have a 13-year-old son. My difficulty is finding a place in the house where I cannot hear Kiss FM.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The noble Lord should be generous and buy him a set of headphones. They do not cost much.
When a station changes hands, the format remains a part of it. In other words, when you buy the station, you buy the format, and the format will continue to ensure musical diversity regardless of who owns the licence. That is the real protection of diversity and the Bill has no plans for changing that basic approach. In short, I believe that the existing provisions on formats, and reviews under Clause 348, do everything required to protect musical diversity.

1015
Clause 306, which Amendments Nos. 251 and 252 seek to amend, sets out the circumstances in which Ofcom can agree to a request for a change in local radio licence conditions. The clause amends powers currently exercised by the Radio Authority under Section 106 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which Ofcom will inherit in its amended form. I should explain Section 106. It first provides that a licence shall contain conditions to secure that the character of the service is maintained. In practice, such conditions are reflected in the "formats" that I have just spoken about. Then, it allows the regulator to allow a station to depart from the "character" set out in the licence if, but only if, one or more specified criteria are met. One such criterion is that the change would not,
"narrow the range of programmes",
available in the area.
Amendments Nos. 251 and 252 would extend that to the range of programmes, "and music". Again, these amendments raise an important issue to which I am quite sure that Ofcom will be alive. However, let us look at the practical application of Ofcom's powers. Where the owner of a station seeks to make a substantial departure from the existing character of its service by changing the range of music played, that would trigger the controls under Section 106. Ofcom would then need to examine the proposed change and decide whether any of the criteria justifying a departure are met. If it could not avoid looking at the range of music played, and proposed, it is hard to see how a station could reduce substantially the range of music played without also narrowing the range of programmes available in the area.
I also assure the Committee that in practice the Radio Authority does consider changes in music when considering a request to agree to changes in the character of a station, and I believe that Ofcom will do the same. I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured that the protection for musical diversity that her amendments seek, and which the Government wholeheartedly share, is already present in the Bill as drafted, and that her amendments are unnecessary.
From a technical standpoint, the amendment does not seem fully to take into account the meaning of the term "programme" as set out in the 1990 Act. Section 202 states that,
"'programme' includes… in relation to any service… any item included in that service".
Obviously music is included in a service and therefore is already included in the definition of a programme. There is no need to add express references to music in this clause. Indeed, I am fearful that adding music here would just raise a groundless doubt as to whether we intended music to be regarded as part of radio programming where the word "programme" is used elsewhere in the legislation.
Lord Bragg: Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I hope that I may ask a short and simple question. My noble friend was as clear and as persuasive as he always is but I simply do not understand why this matter cannot be dealt with.
1016
There is serious anxiety about the matter within a broadly based community of very well informed people in a huge and profitable industry. We are told that it does not make any difference whether or not the words "musical diversity" are on the face of the Bill. Clearly, it would make a great deal of difference to the people I am discussing. It would be a public reassurance of intent that could be followed through. I am slightly puzzled that it is not possible to include the words on the face of the Bill.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I say to my noble friend Lord Bragg that I share his puzzlement. As the short debate developed it occurred to me that there appeared to be a huge gulf between what we as a government were saying and what Members of the Committee were saying. There may be a mismatch and someone has the position completely wrong. However, I undertake to read Hansard and to reread my speaking notes. If there is a discrepancy, I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response to this interesting and helpful debate. I join the Minister in advising the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to buy his son some headphones. I bought my three teenage children headphones a long time ago. They are worthwhile and make for a quiet life in more ways than one.
As I say, it is helpful to have this discussion. As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, just said, there is real concern in the industry about this important matter. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, also said, there is no harm in having the words "musical diversity" on the face of the Bill. We believe that they would do a lot of good.
As regards the concern that we are asking for more regulation, that is not the case. The measure would constitute good regulation. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, said: namely, that diversity is difficult to define. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, was concerned that consolidation in terms of ownership leads to conformity. My noble friend Lord Colwyn was concerned that we should seek to have the right safeguards with regard to musical creativity although he questioned the necessity to include the term that I am discussing on the face of the Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, for her support for the amendments and for what she said in relation to her concern with regard to the risk to musical diversity. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke for his contribution.
The matter is clearly of considerable concern in the industry, concern that we endorse and support. However, the Minister agreed to take the matter away. Perhaps the difference is that the Minister is used to reassuring words of comfort from officials when discussing such issues. However, those of us who seek to probe the Government in such matters are

1017
concerned to ensure that as little ambiguity as possible is left in the Bill when it passes through the House. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 242 agreed to.
Clauses 243 to 257 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
Clause 258 [Access radio]:
[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]
Clause 258 agreed to.
Clause 259 agreed to.
Clause 260 [OFCOM reports on the fulfilment of the public service remit]:
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarvemoved Amendment No. 178:
Page 230, line 17, leave out "five" and insert "two"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 178 tabled by my noble friend Lady Howe of Idlicote, who is unable to be present today, I shall speak also to her other amendments in the group. We are all aware of the importance of Clause 260, and of the terrible warning that public service broadcasting in the United States provides for us of the possibilities should we get the clause wrong. I am all too aware that there are many considerable experts on the issue in the Committee, but one must not be daunted by that thought.
Amendment No. 178 is intended as a probing amendment. Clause 260(2) of the Bill sets an upper limit of five years on the frequency with which Ofcom must review and report on broadcasters' contributions to their public service broadcasting remit. The White Paper proposed an interval of three years. The scrutiny committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, preferred a two-year interval. Amendment No. 179, tabled by the noble Lord and others, proposes three years. I look forward to hearing his reasons behind the shift from two years to three, and to hearing from the Minister the reasons for preferring up to five years.
Whereas Clause 351 proposes an annual review of the broadcasting market, Ofcom's reviews of the fulfilment of public service broadcasting requirements will be the indispensable means for Parliament, the Secretary of State and the public to judge whether broadcasters are living up to or falling short of those requirements. Those reviews will be central to decision-making on the performance of licensees, and surely they should be sufficiently frequent for performance to be assessed, made public and, if necessary, strengthened more frequently than every five years.
I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 180 and 181. The Bill proposes that public service broadcasters be judged on their performance taken together—that is to say, taken together to determine whether their programming meets the purposes of public service broadcasting. That is an easygoing approach to
1018
review, which would allow some broadcasters to coast—indeed to free-ride—on the others' fulfillment of those purposes.
Ofcom's approach should surely be to see that all licensees contribute widely, although diversely, to those purposes—indeed, in many cases, that they compete in providing major genres of programming, listed under Clause 260(6)—rather than to allow some to set aside many or all sorts of programming that contribute to public service broadcasting, in a cosy foreknowledge that others will provide. Hence Amendment No. 180 provides that Ofcom judge whether licensees meet the purposes of public service broadcasting, both individually and taken together; and Amendment No. 181 is consequential. Taken together, these two amendments would require Ofcom to take an overview of each licensee's annual policy statement of their individual commitments to public service broadcasting programmes and of their individual as well as their composite performance.
Amendment No. 183 focuses on ways of fulfilling the purposes of public service broadcasting. Clause 260(6)(e) sets a requirement for programmes on educational matters. I believe that this is too limited—indeed, I suspect that it is wrongly focused. A programme about your Lordships' House debating educational policy would be on educational matters. So would programmes about school life. Both might be fascinating—or perhaps not. But news items about educational issues are not the same as educational programming. The amendment seeks to ensure that educational programmes, through which broadcasters have contributed so much at every level, from preschool through to adult education, remain a central way of fulfilling the purposes of public service broadcasting. I hope that the Minister will agree that the phrase "programmes on educational matters" is inadequate and that the Government may be able to accept this amendment.
Amendment No. 185 proposes a further specification on children's programming to ensure that it includes programmes that provide children growing up in the UK with access to programmes that reflect and enrich their cultural heritages, whether of language, literature, music or history. Today's children will form tomorrow's electorate and need to get their bearings in the world that they actually inhabit. This amendment may be the more important if the Government's intention of permitting foreign ownership is realised. Children need some protection against the homogenisation and simplification that programmes made for international consumption too often inflict on historical and cultural content. I hope that the Government may feel able to accept this strengthening amendment.
Amendment No. 186 is similar in nature to Amendment No. 183. It adds to the purpose of Clause 260(6)(h), which is to provide,
"a sufficient quantity of programmes that reflect the lives and concerns of different communities and cultural interests and traditions within the United Kingdom, and locally",
a specific requirement to include,
"a sufficient quantity of programmes of a religious nature".

1019
This may seem redundant, since Clause 260(6)(f) allows programmes "dealing with religion" to fulfil the purposes of public service broadcasting. But I believe that this way of drafting, like the drafting of the clause on programmes on educational matters, is inadequate. It would allow programming which deals with religion only from a sociological or historical perspective to be substituted for religious broadcasting.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have tabled Amendments Nos. 182B and 183A, and my noble friend Lady Howe has put her name to the former. If these amendments were accepted, Amendment No. 186 to which I have just spoken would be redundant. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 179 and formally to commend Amendments Nos. 187 and 191.
Amendment No. 179 is an interesting amendment. To put it simply, the Joint Committee recommended a two-year reporting period. We were extremely impressed by the Government's statement on page 39 of their response. We felt that we had perhaps been over-zealous and backed off to three years—only to be slightly stunned by the fact that the Government then shifted their position to five years.
We regard a period of five years as wholly unacceptable for two reasons. First, as has been stated many times during this debate, the communications industry is fast moving. Changes seem to occur with amazing speed. Frankly, within five years the picture can change dramatically. We did not feel that a five-year period was legitimate. It must also be remembered that it means that within a nine-year period only one review will have been published—which is patently absurd. I urge the Government to accept the helpful compromise that we came up with—namely, three years—which should be more than acceptable to them.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 182B and 183A, which stand in my name. I am most grateful for the wide support of noble Lords who put their names to them.
I emphasise that the amendments are intended not only for Christians, but for all faiths and those of no faith who value the beauty of much religious worship and expression and who see the importance of spirituality and religion although they do not themselves believe.
Clause 260(6) provides the first mention—a very long way into the Bill—about religion in the context of defining a public space in broadcasting. The political philosopher John Gray has been cited in other debates and his comparison is apt in this regard. He said:
"Public service broadcasting is like the streets and parks of a well-ordered city with its public places for gathering and promenading, its byways for loitering and sauntering no less than for getting speedily from place to place".
1020
The provision of television services that explicitly reflect, support and stimulate cultural activity properly forms part of that public space in broadcasting. However, as the clause stands, we can fall into the trap of thinking that public service broadcasting is about promoting culture alone rather than also about reflecting all human experience. Within human experience, religion and spirituality have a unique and important place. In order to reflect that, there must be stronger acknowledgement in the clause of the place of religion and spirituality in public service broadcasting. That is what my amendments seek to address.
Reflecting, supporting and stimulating are key aspects of public service broadcasting but they go beyond cultural activity and include reflecting the life of our faith communities in their worship and in their serving of the wider community. That is not adequately provided for at present in the clause. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, for her comments on the inadequacy of dealing with religion from only a sociological or historical perspective.
Religion and spirituality are an important part of our national identity. Dunblane, September 11th and the Golden Jubilee are just a few of the many occasions in recent years at which public space—both in places of worship and through broadcasting—has provided vast numbers of our population with the opportunity to share the religious and spiritual dimensions of experiences of great joy and deep sorrow.
Similarly, in my former diocese of Wakefield, when eight members of one Muslim family were killed in an arson attack, the public space was provided by the local Church of England parish church, into 'which, later that same day, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and people of no faith at all packed together in a poignant mix for a moving community memorial service, which I helped to lead. It was also given space on regional and local broadcasting services, as was the subsequent funeral, which was attended by some 8,000 Muslims, at which I was invited to speak from a Christian perspective and was honoured to do so.
I mention those matters because this religious and spiritual use of public space helped to do something very important. It released emotion and contained anger to the benefit of the whole community. The public space provided by television for worship and reflecting on the tragedy in a moral context enhanced the capacity of religion and spirituality to be cohesive forces. That is one of the reasons for wanting to strengthen the place of religion and spirituality within the clause, as parts of our national life requiring reflection, support and stimulation by their representation in public service television.
The importance of religion and spirituality was, as noble Lords well know, illustrated by the national census, for which religion was deemed sufficiently important by the Government to have its own section. It was helpful to have the full details of that census made available to noble Lords in published form last week.

1021
I remind Members of the Committee that the census showed that 71 per cent of the population marked themselves as Christians; 3 per cent as Muslims; and 3 per cent as other faiths. In other words, nearly 80 per cent of the nation in the Government's census, and from the privacy of their own homes, deliberately chose to associate themselves with religion and spirituality. And as the newly published report shows, the largest age group responding to the religion question was aged 25 to 49. Niche times and niche broadcasting alone cannot provide for the appetite of this age group and that of the general population for spiritual content in broadcasting. The regulator must support broadcasters who are seeking peak time for high-quality religious and spiritual content.
Of course we know that only 12 per cent attend regularly a place of worship, but the 80 per cent who chose to see themselves as religious or spiritual are people who wander in and out of places of worship—shrines, grave yards—loitering and sauntering in the byways and who connect with religion from time to time. And that is the reality of our nation's life and experience. It must be reflected in the public space in broadcasting. The "Today" programme, in its albeit unscientific survey about who should be England's patron saint, hardly displayed a country indifferent to religion. Listeners voted for St Alban, our first Christian martyr.
I believe that the Government are sincere in their often expressed view that our faith communities have a significant part to play in promoting social inclusion and racial harmony. I very much hope they will also recognise the significant part that religion and spirituality have in this nation's life and that they will give religion and spirituality the prominence in this Bill they objectively and popularly deserve and which my amendments seek.
Baroness Whitaker: I declare an interest as the deputy chair of the Independent Television Commission. I should like to support Amendment No. 179 hut, speaking in a personal capacity, to address Amendment No. 184.
The amendment simply brings the Bill in line with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, to which the UK is, of course, a signatory. The Human Rights Act, incorporating Article 9 of the European Convention, deals with the right to freedom of religion or belief, and so does Article 18 of the international convention, in almost identical wording. The words "or belief" have been glossed by the authoritative United Nations Human Rights Committee as protecting,
"theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief".
Case law has confirmed this interpretation. In that spirit, the EU directive on religious discrimination in employment, which the UK had adopted, says "religion or belief" and the UK's own implementing regulations repeat it in their very title—the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.
1022
So perhaps it is an oversight which left out "or belief" among the subjects for programmes which Ofcom needs to check are included in the public service broadcasters' remit, along with religion, science, social issues and international specialist matters, all of which it seems to me to be proper to specify. If it is an oversight, it ought to be put right as it sends out the message that the only context for belief, moral principles or ethical systems is religion.
I am grateful to my noble friend for her letter to me of 16th April on the subject. I understand its view, no doubt close to that of the parliamentary draftsmen, that "religion" is understood to mean the whole range of belief; that is, including non-religious belief. But law is used by other than lawyers. It is read and used by all sorts of non-legal people. I cherish the high ambition that law should be understood by ordinary people, by whom "religion" will be construed as religion and not as non-religion. To make it clear to regulators. to broadcasters and to those who call them to account, that our society recognises that there are other bases for morality than revealed religion, the Bill needs those two extra words.
Unless "or belief" is explicit, Ofcom has little encouragement, and broadcasters even less, to respect the perspective of that 15 per cent of people—nearly 1 million—who said in the 2001 census that they had no religion; and even that is a much smaller figure than the British Social Attitudes' 39.5 per cent "with no religion", or than the much larger proportion of young people. So I fully understand the views of the right reverend Prelate. If we leave it out, there is no status given to the longstanding western agnostic tradition. I shall not weary noble Lords by giving the famous names, but they will know that from Democritus to David Hume to many of our most distinguished contemporary scientists and philosophers we have a culture which ought not to be ignored. It would be simple to put this right—two words.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: If the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is correct in her definition that agnosticism is not within the scope of the word "spirituality", then I accept entirely her amendment. It is certainly not the intention of those who have tabled the amendment—of whom I am one—for this to become some kind of evangelical Trojan horse, let alone an evangelical provision for Christians.
Clause 260, which deals with the public service remit of Ofcom and broadcasters, is not judgmental; nor is the amendment. Clause 260 deals with the world as it is. Perhaps I could draw the Committee's attention to Clause 260(4)(c) which describes the purposes of public service broadcasting as,
"meeting the needs and satisfying the interests of the available audiences".
That is a pragmatic and not an ideological test. It is no more relevant to look at the deeds and misdeeds of those who have acted in the name of religion with regard to this clause or the amendment than it would be vis-à-vis culture or science, which are the two other matters dealt with by the clause.

1023
Perhaps I may say, en passant, that it is more than a pity that the White Paper, which was a prelude to the Bill, referred to the potential of religion for stirring up hatred. The potential of politics is no less vitriolic. It is quite improper for that to be in the White Paper. I emphasise that it is not the intention of those who have tabled the amendment to ask for the Committee's views on whether Christianity is the true faith or something less.
As clarified by the right reverend Prelate, there is probably no single interest group in this country as large as those of spiritual and faith communities. I still find it astonishing that 80 per cent should in the latest census have described themselves thus. Therefore, if the Bill is indeed to reflect "needs and interests", in this subsection in particular, we believe that the amendment is necessary.
Some may think it understandable that 80 per cent of the population describe themselves as the right reverend Prelate stated, given the values and ideals at the heart of the great religions, which undoubtedly foster and project values that are common to our culture and are traditional to all faiths—the values of truth, generosity, public service, human dignity and love—and that the present age may be thought to be saturated if not dominated by commercialism and materialism. The Bill is a deeply commercial Bill. That is why it is important that in the hierarchy of significance of the clause, religion should have a place alongside culture. We have couched the amendment in the same sort of language used to describe Ofcom's duties in respect of culture.
On a matter of drafting, the amendment means that the reference to religion in the subsection would not be subject to the qualifying phrase that currently applies to it and several subsidiary subsections: "as appears to Ofcom". It places it a step higher in the hierarchy of the clause.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, Amendment No. 179. I realise that in doing so I am not following on from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I must say that the grouping owes more to the dexterity of the business managers than to the intellectual or policy coherence of its subject matter, but that is the sort of issue that one raises outside the Chamber.
Turning to the amendment tabled by my noble friend. I had hoped that the compromise, if one can call it that, at which his Joint Committee arrived, in proposing a three-year period for the reviews of public service broadcasting, would be attractive to the Government. Like many others, I felt that those periodic reviews were probably a good bulwark against the possible encroachment of programming inconsistent with public service values if ownership of particular channels changed hands. I am specifically thinking of our later debates about the ownership of Channel 5.
1024
There was comfort for those of us who understood from various speeches and publications by members of the Government that the possibility of revising the public service commitment of any channel was one of the shots that remained in the locker for those concerned about any change of ownership. Realistically, that can happen only if the review takes place regularly and influence is maintained consistently, so that people can regularly dip into the public service commitment and remit of individual channels.
Three years seems almost too long, but having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, I understand that she proposed two years but my noble friend Lord Puttnam felt that some kind of agreement had been reached following the Joint Committee's report. I support Amendment No. 179 in that spirit. I also understand that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in evidence to the Joint Committee that there needed to be a clear distlnction between the overall periodic reviews by Ofcom of public service in general and the reviews of specific programming in the public service remit of individual channels in the commercial television sector. If the Government understand that there will be that disparity and that individual programme reviews for individual channels will occur much more regularly than every five years, many of my concerns will be assuaged.
In the meantime, the points made by my noble friend in speaking to Amendment No. 179 have yet to be properly answered.
Lord Bragg: I support the notion of a three-year review proposed by my noble friend Lord Puttnam. It is exactly the right period. I know from reviews that we have had in the television industry that a two-year review gives you enough time only to get the system going before you must start to fuss about whether it will stay in place, whether you should reclaim ground or keep claiming it. Three years allows you to set up a system, to see how it works and to spend the next year having it properly examined. It is precisely the right number of years; we have that right.
There is an immense amount to say following the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, but I will not try to express it all at present. I wholly support what the right reverend Prelate said. It is of immense importance that the Bill is strengthened in this way. I take into account the remarks of my noble friend Lady Whitaker also. Good public service broadcasting should be something to aspire to. It is extremely difficult to make such programmes. In my experience in ITV, with the best backing that one could imagine in a current terrestrial system in this country, we still find it extremely difficult to make programmes that encompass the values mentioned, to demonstrate them on screen and to bring in the audiences that we know are out there to receive them, as noble Lords have proved. But, unless the Bill reinforces that aspiration, people trying to make those types of programmes will have less of a

1025
chance to do so. I endorse what has been said and hope that noble Lords are successful in pressing the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 182B and 183A, which were tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, and to which I have added my name. I shall give an example that Members of the Committee may think extreme, but it is one with which I am particularly familiar. I refer in the first instance to Northern Ireland, which, I acknowledge, is not typical of the Kingdom as a whole. The distinctions between the two sides of the community in Northern Ireland were not religious; they were tribal, cultural and political. Religion was simply a mantle draped over those tribal, cultural and political differences. That mantle was sufficiently important that church-going in Northern Ireland is on a scale much closer to America than to Great Britain.
The next example that I shall give is, I acknowledge, also extreme. When institutions and communities break down, as some did in Northern Ireland during the troubles over the past 30 years, the Government look not to cultural or sporting bodies but to the Churches as the one set of institutions with whom they can interact. I can conceive of exactly the same example occurring in cities in the northern part of Great Britain where there are large Muslim communities in similar circumstances.
The medieval tradition of church towers and steeples was intended to emphasise profile. Churchill wrote a pessimistic passage in the years after the First World War, when the Troubles in Ireland, to which the Black and Tans were the response, and then the civil war were tearing the island apart. He referred to,
"the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again".
If I may coin a phrase, we should thank God that they—and the distinctive architecture of other faiths—retain a centrality in our own society.
I wish to make a personal observation. One of the passages that made the deepest impression on me when I was an adolescent was from the novel The Tiger in the Smoke by Margery Allingham. The villain finds his way into a darkened church where a defenceless vicar is standing in the pulpit. There is a dialogue of seminal importance between them similar to that between Warwick the Kingmaker and the Bishop of Beauvais in St Joan. That sense of drama conferred by the church—and indeed by the priest in the pulpit—made a deep impression on me as a young man.
5 p.m.
Lord McNally: I shall speak briefly on the two amendments in this group to which I have attached my name. Amendment No. 182 is simply an attempt to take out of the Bill what we consider to be slightly weasel words; namely,
"taking them all together over the period as a whole".
1026
We believe that Ofcom should be enabled in its periodic reports to judge the relative contributions of the whole spectrum and, perhaps, each channel. There is a danger of ghettoising public service commitments. Nothing in the Bill should encourage that tendency.
Amendment No. 188 takes us back to radio. We have discussed radio, but the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that the public service broadcaster—the Plus 1 at the local level—actually provides a safeguard in the provision of musical diversity.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall speak briefly to some of the amendments in this group. I support Amendment No. 179 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I do not understand Amendment No. 185, which is tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. Looking at the Bill and the wording of the amendment, I simply do not understand the intention behind the words,
"a significant proportion [of programmes] should be intended for audiences in the United Kingdom".
I appreciate that the noble Baroness is not in her place today, but is she saying that foreign-made films for our children are somehow inferior to those made in this country for our young people? If that is so, I entirely disagree with the noble Baroness. Many films made in other countries that were originally intended, if one can put it that way, for children and young people are excellent. When I was young, I sincerely enjoyed watching a number of foreign films that originated from Australia and America—for example, "Lassie" and "Tin Tin", though the latter originated in France. Indeed, there are many more.
I have to say that my young teenage children now watch very few programmes that are made in this country for children and young people. That echoes the experiences of all their friends and of the young people to whom I speak frequently. They are not watching many English-made programmes; they enjoy programmes with a global outlook that happen to be made in other countries—
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: The amendment is not about where programmes are made; it is about the audience for whom they are intended. I believe that my noble friend Lady Howe is concerned about the cultural specificity of programmes. She seeks simply to ensure that at least some programming for children is intended for them, not for a lowest common denominator indeterminate audience.
Baroness Buscombe: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, for her explanation of the amendment. However, given the kind of content of many programmes made for children and young people at present, I question whether that would be an enormous hill to climb. That is why so many children are not watching programmes originally intended for young UK audiences. In the view of young people, such programmes are not up to scratch.

1027
I support Amendments Nos. 182B and 183A tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. However, I am concerned about the wording of Amendment No. 187. I believe that the word "contribution" is confusing. The word usually refers to a financial contribution. If the intention is the use the word in the sense proposed, I should point out that Ofcom is already under a duty to consider any financial contribution made by broadcasters other than public service broadcasters. Subsection (7)(b) directs Ofcom to consider,
"the sources of income available to"
public service television broadcasters for meeting the costs of fulfilling the purposes of public service television broadcasting.
Therefore, I suspect that the word "contribution" refers to a contribution other than a financial one. If that is correct, the amendment could be re-worded so as to refer to the television services provided by broadcasters other than public service broadcasters that fulfil the purposes of public service television broadcasting. That would make it clear that Ofcom had to have regard to other television services, rather than the contribution made by broadcasters other than public service broadcasters.
Amendment No. 191 will remove subsection (2) from Clause 263, which deals with statements of programme policy that contain proposals for significant change. Subsection (2) requires the provider to,
"consult Ofcom before preparing the statement; and to take account …of any opinions expressed…by OFCOM".
The amendment will remove that requirement and, instead, merely require the provider of the channel to have regard to the annual report of Ofcom, prepared pursuant to new subsection (3). As the provider must merely have regard to that report, the provider is entitled to give little weight to what is in it. That would give the provider greater freedom from Ofcom. We need convincing that that is appropriate.
The amendment is, to a certain extent, otiose. Under Clause 262, the provider of the channel, in preparing a statement of programme policy must have regard to guidance given by Ofcom, take account of reports published by Ofcom and must take special account of the most recent such reports. It is difficult to see what the amendment adds to that requirement.
Baroness Blackstone: The amendments relate to the third tier of the new broadcasting regulatory regime. The Government's basic objective here has been to establish a clear framework of self-regulation throughout the whole public service broadcasting sector, while providing for speedy and effective Ofcom intervention against the licensed broadcasters in the event of a decline in the quality of their output. In framing the legislation, we tried hard to strike the right balance between those two considerations, and my main concern about the amendments is that they risk upsetting that balance.
1028
I shall start with Amendments Nos. 178 and 179, although I am afraid that I shall disappoint several of my noble friends. We are not persuaded of the case for modifying the timescale of Ofcom's reporting cycle on the lines suggested by either of the amendments.
Lord Puttnam: What was the purpose of stipulating three years in the original White Paper? I presume that, at that point, three years was regarded as an adequate and correct timescale. We are returning to the Government's original suggestion.
Baroness Blackstone: It would be helpful if I could explain why we reject the amendments before I am interrupted. The reasons may become clear to my noble friend.
I understand the concerns that Ofcom should be able to keep abreast of any problems or emerging challenges for the public service broadcasters. The Government's original view, as reflected in the draft Bill, was that three years was the right interval between Ofcom's reviews of the public service sector. However, the pre-legislative scrutiny committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Puttnam recommended more frequent reviews, and that prompted us to reconsider the matter.
In the light of that reconsideration, the Bill as it now stands provides for two separate Ofcom review cycles: first, a factual and statistical review of the entire radio and television sector in the UK, to be carried out annually; and, secondly, a review of public service broadcasting, to be undertaken at least once every five years. That dual approach will ensure that the general state of the broadcasting industry as a whole can be monitored regularly, leaving Ofcom to undertake its heavyweight, in-depth reviews of the public service sector alone at the more extended interval of five years.
Of course, there will be absolutely nothing to prevent Ofcom undertaking its public service reviews at less than five-year intervals if it seems right to do so. Ofcom will be able to initiate enforcement action at any time should any licensed broadcaster fail to fulfil its individual public service remit or make an adequate contribution to the overall remit.
As I made clear at the outset, the third tier provisions are intended to constitute an essentially self-regulatory framework, under which Ofcom will exercise a distinctly lighter touch than in the case of the first and second tier requirements. Given this core principle we took the view that Ofcom's review and reporting functions would be best framed in terms of the public service broadcasting sector as a whole, rather than the contribution of each broadcaster individually.
In that way, we make clear that Ofcom's primary role in this context is a strategic one which requires it to look across the whole range of public service broadcasting rather than, as Amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 182 would have it, sitting in close judgment on the broadcasters individually and second-guessing all their decisions. Our approach also underlines the fact that the contribution of each broadcaster to the

1029
fulfilment of the overall remit will not be uniform but will properly reflect the spectrum of obligations across the public service sector, ranging from the BBC at one end to Channel 5 at the other.
None the less, Ofcom will, as I have said already, have a clear enforcement role in relation to the individual licensed broadcasters. We will be able to take firm action in the event of self-regulation being seen not to work.
Most of the other amendments in this group are all in their different ways concerned with the specified requirements of public service broadcasting—in other words, the various programme types—which are listed in Clause 260 and which underpin Ofcom's review and reporting function. Under Clause 260, as drafted, one of the specified requirements is the provision of what Ofcom considers to be,
"a suitable quantity and range of programmes on educational matters".
Amendment No. 183 would extend that to include programmes,
"of an educational nature and educative value".
The underlying concern appears to be that the current wording may result only in programmes which deal with issues related to education, rather than programmes which are in themselves of educational value to the audience.
An educative function is at the very heart of public service broadcasting and it is important that the programming requirements set out in Clause 260 should properly reflect that. We have taken the view that the phrase "educational matters" is a broad term which broadcasters will understand to cover the full range of programmes of educational value. Nor, of course, is this the only item on the list of requirements which relates to the educational dimension. The first entry on the list in Clause 260(6) includes specific reference to "the provision of education". That said, I have registered the concern that the educational role of public service broadcasting may not perhaps be adequately captured by the term "educational matters". I am therefore willing to take this issue away and to look at it again.
A further item in the list of requirements is the provision of what Ofcom considers to be a suitable quantity of high quality and original programmes for children and young people. Amendment No. 185 would specify that a significant proportion of such programming should be intended for audiences in the UK. Such a requirement seems quite unnecessary. In our view, the requirement that programmes for children and young people must be of high quality and original will in itself be sufficient to ensure that such programmes appeal to the tastes and interests of relevant audiences within the UK. In that sense, I accept some of what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was saying.
I should point out that Channel 4 is unusual in this regard. The Bill sets obligations for Channel 4 to provide schools programmes which meet the needs of schools throughout the UK and Ofcom will establish
1030
a minimum number of hours to be allocated to schools programmes as part of the licence conditions. Channel 4 will also be required by its licence conditions to consult people with an interest in schools and schools programming.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The noble Baronesses on both Front Benches have demonstrated a degree of complacency about children's programming that is not reflected in the wider concern outside. There is a real danger that our children will watch Disney, Fox and little else. While I do not dispute that they will want to watch those channels, given that we worry so much about promoting chocolate, we should beware of the form of obesity to be found in the pap that is served up to children on the television, although undoubtedly it is popular.
I know that the noble Baronesses will deny any complacency, but the real concern generally being expressed about children's television is not reflected in the responses.
Baroness Buscombe: I must intervene to say that I hope that I did not infer in any way that I am complacent about children's programming as it is. I wish that it was of a higher quality. We need programmes that reflect a greater strength of culture and interest in order to attract larger audiences among our children and young people.
As a mother I feel a good deal of concern with regard to the types of programming for children on our television stations today. It is an issue that I would love to debate at greater length on another occasion. It is a matter of deep concern to many people. However, it is important to emphasise that our children are watching certain programmes which happen to be made in other countries. They do so because some of those programmes are of high quality. I make no bones about it. My children watch many programmes on, for example, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel, so I am not referring only to comedy programmes, soap operas and so forth. However, I want to point out that the cultural programmes my children watch are, on the whole, foreign made.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness opposite has denied complacency and this noble Baroness shall do so as well.
We understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, that potential American owners of licensed public service broadcasters might produce programmes in this country whose true target audience is in the United States. We do not agree that this is a likely development. Even if such a change of ownership took place, the production of programmes in this country which did not appeal to audiences in the UK simply would not make common or commercial sense.
Moreover, children's television is a qualitative matter and as such is part of the third tier of regulation, as it should be. Therefore it would not be appropriate

1031
to establish anything along the lines of a quota, such as the proposed "significant proportion", within the context of this particular clause.
The provision for children's television in the public service remit is unique among the list of requirements in that it specifies that programming should be both high quality and original. These requirements highlight the unique importance of children's television within the public service remit, as all public service broadcasters are required to maintain high standards of content and quality, and each will have to meet established quotas for original programming. So we can see no case for introducing the distinction implied by the amendment.
I shall discuss Amendments Nos. 182B, 183A, 184 and 186 together. Having listened carefully to the arguments put forward in favour of these amendments, we have concluded that there are issues here which merit further thought. I propose therefore to take them away and reflect on the concerns which have been voiced and consider how far we might be able to meet them by way of an amended clause. It is unlikely that we shall be able to accept the precise amendments as tabled, but we shall look very hard at the scope for amending the current reference to religion in Clause 260 with a view to reflecting the concerns that have been expressed.
As to Amendment No. 188, we support the view that music should be a prominent part of public service broadcasting. The public service remit as it stands will achieve this. Music is universally recognised as an important aspect of cultural activity which will have to he included in programming. We expect broadcasters to understand "music" in this context to encompass not only broadcasts of live performances and recorded music, but also programmes dealing with musical subjects, composers, performers, and so on. We cannot see a case for the additional wording suggested by the amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 187, I acknowledge the concern that there may well be commercial broadcasters providing services which fall within the remit set out in the Bill. None the less, it would not make sense to extend the scope of Ofcom's reviews beyond those broadcasters who are under formal public service obligations. To do so, as we said in our response to the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, could be a source of confusion and would hardly be consistent with the role of Ofcom's reviews as a key building block of the third tier regime.
I remind the Committee that Ofcom's annual factual and statistical reviews of radio and television broadcasting under Clause 351 will encompass all broadcasters, both television and radio. In our view that is sufficient to ensure that Ofcom will be able to monitor developments over the broadcasting industry as a whole.
Amendment No. 191 would change the procedure relating to the annual cycle of statements of programme policy. As the Government made clear in their response to the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, the requirement on broadcasters to
1032
publish an annual programme policy statement, and to consult Ofcom only where the statement involves a significant change from previous years, constitutes an integral aspect of our approach to the third tier regime, which I outlined at the beginning of my speech.
While we expect Ofcom to take account of the licensed broadcasters' performances annually, we believe that a formal annual reporting process on the lines proposed in the amendment would be inconsistent with the principle of self-regulation. Our view is that the existing provision for statements of programme policy strikes a sensible balance. Accordingly, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Before the noble Baroness speaks to her amendment, perhaps I may ask my noble friend a question in regard to Amendment No. 179. I am afraid it may be that I am being somewhat obtuse, but I am still not entirely clear about the dual approach to the public service revision by Ofcom.
Let me give a practical example. If Ofcom decides that a channel has evaded its public service commitments and is anxious to undertake what the noble Baroness described as enforcement procedures, will it be possible to do so under what the Minister described as the statistical review, which takes place every year? Can it be clone only on an ad hoc basis when Ofcom decides that a breach has occurred? Or does it have to wait for the five-year review? I am unclear about the distinction between the different reviews and where any interest by Ofcom would have purchase in getting a channel to revise its programming.
Baroness Blackstone: As I understand it, Ofcom can intervene and enforce change whenever it believes there is a case for doing so. It does not have to wait for the five-year review.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I shall withdraw the amendment. Nevertheless, the frequency of the review is an important issue. We have not heard reasons why the combination of the annual review, which is quite restricted in scope, with a permitted five-year period is adequate. The Committee may feel able to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Puttnamhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 179.
Page 230, line 17, leave out "five" and insert "three"
The noble Lord said: It is late, and although I shall not move the amendment, I should like to talk to those on the Front Bench and others, because I am not entirely convinced by their argument.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 180 to 182 not moved]
Lord Lea of Crondallmoved Amendment No. 182A:
Page 231, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) that sufficient high quality original drama is broadcast covering a range of issues in a variety of formats;"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 182A deals with high quality drama. Amendments Nos. 184A and 184B are included in this group. My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden will be speaking to them.
The result of the grouping on Clause 260 means that some of these matters have been touched on, but they are all part of Clause 260. Following meetings with Equity and other unions, we have concluded that Clause 260(6)(b), which contains the only reference to drama, can be provided for just by broadcasting soap operas. That is our major worry. There is great concern among people dealing with drama that that will be the result, and we would like to hear the arguments.
Drama is an essential part of public service broadcasting. Whether a single drama or a drama series, the genre contributes to the British understanding of social issues and the UK as a community, as well as providing entertainment. The reliance on drama only as a means to reflect cultural diversity rather than as drama in its own right will detrimentally affect the quality of broadcasting in the United Kingdom.
Drama can be, but is not always, expensive. Without a positive requirement on broadcasters to produce high quality in a world of greater competition, we are concerned that original and innovative drama in a variety of formats is likely to be reduced.
For evidence of what is happening with virtually the same language that we have in Clause 260, let us look at Canada. Since its changes two or three years ago on this sort of formulation, home-grown drama has virtually disappeared. The equivalent clauses have provided what a Canadian colleague called a charter for philistines. We are concerned that this Bill could be a charter for philistines when we add the dangers arising from Channel 5 being snapped up by a big multinational operator which could make that an outlet for its back catalogue. That puts greater weight on Clause 260 to get this right.
There is the worry, the spectre, the scenario, that the 9 p.m. slot could be filled by a film on Channel 5, a game show on ITV, with the BBC, in time, being undermined. The Minister will no doubt give the other side of the argument. We shall listen with great care to what she says. We are left wondering whether the only clinching argument for a programme company putting high quality drama on television would be that it looks good in the annual glossy report and can lead to some self-congratulatory awards.
We want an assurance that the eight hours of drama on Granada, 12 hours of drama on Channel 4, and so on, as provided for in the broadcasting legislation, would continue to be provided and that Ofcom would be in a position to make sure that that was done.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Lea. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 184A and 184B, which are included in the group.
Since I became partially disabled, I have spent rather more time in front of the television set than I used to. I am a great fan of television drama, but when one is looking for something to watch in the evening, one thinks, "Oh, not more cops and robbers, not more game shows". There is not enough of the good quality drama that we can produce in this country, such as "The Forsyte Saga", "Gathering Storm" and "The Lost Prince", whose names are redolent of quality. I can remember all the way back to "Brideshead Revisited". They were marvellous programmes, and arrangements should be in hand to ensure that such programmes continue to be made and increase in number.
Amendments Nos. 184A and 184B relate to children's programmes. It is clear from the contributions already made this evening that that is a matter of concern to Members of the Committee. The Independent Television Commission is on record as saying that there are signs that children's programming is often the first to suffer from harder times, as the pressure to cut costs in a more competitive environment is likely to lead to disproportionate effects on children's TV. The Bill does not ensure that those vital programmes should be original and sufficiently diverse in content. Without our amendment, or something rather similar, high quality domestic programming will inevitably be replaced by cheaper imported programming, to the great detriment of our children.
I note that the Minister has already taken on board some of the comments that have been made. One hopes that before the Bill leaves this House, we can have some commitment in the text of the Bill to ensure that, like adult consumers, children, who cannot always make informed choices and do not necessarily have access to digital or premium services, for example, will have access to good quality and programmes that are educative and culturally diverse. I hope that the amendments, or something similar to them, will commend themselves to the Government before the Bill leaves this House.
Viscount Falkland: I support strongly the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. High quality broadcasting of drama has been a feature not only on television but, before that, on the radio as well. It is an absolute cornerstone of public service broadcasting.
In the past fortnight, I have had dinner here with an independent producer of high quality drama, who is extremely concerned about the effect that the provisions will have on the ability to continue to make the kind of productions that have won awards, and which have been consistent with the quality that we expect from the BBC and high quality broadcasting generally. Assurances from the Minister in response to

1035
the amendment will he of great interest to us on these Benches. As other Members of the Committee have said, drama is extremely and increasingly expensive to produce. The drift towards cheaper programming, which is evident today, is likely to carry on apace under the regulation unless proper safeguards are built in. I could not stress more strongly our support for the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, but he used the term "philistines" as a term of abuse. These are a cultural groups of amendments and I warmly support them, but I have to say to him that recent archaeological evidence demonstrates that the Philistines have had a much worse press down the centuries than they should have done.
Baroness Buscombe: We also strongly support these amendments, the case for which was admirably made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. It is tremendously important that we ensure that there is sufficient high-quality original drama being broadcast, not least for the benefit of our children. They want drama as much as everyone else.
Lord Bragg: I should like to add my total support for the amendment. However, I do not think that it is time to despair yet. On ITV1 , for example, in the past few months we have had "Doctor Zhivago" and the "Othello" drama, and the new "Forsyte Saga" is coming back. There is also quality in some of the more popular drama. "William and Mary", for example, is a very high-quality popular drama. However, a good time to consider such an amendment is when we are still ahead of the field in quality drama—to reinforce its place in future schedules. I wholly support the noble Lord, Lord Lea.
Lord Bernstein of Craigweil: I also support the amendment. In doing so I have to declare an interest as I have a pension from Granada Television and hold shares in that company. I am driven to speak because I have great pleasure that "Brideshead Revisited" was quoted as one of the great television dramas. It occurred when I was chairman of the Granada Group, and under the aegis of my colleague Sir Dennis Foreman, who was chairman of Granada Television. Drama is indeed expensive and difficult. It is difficult also to make it relevant to what is going on in society today. It can do no harm to include such provision in the Bill to emphasise its importance.
Baroness Blackstone: It goes without saying that drama programmes should be a core aspect of the public service remit. None the less it does not seem to us that this amendment is necessary. The importance of drama in public service broadcasting is already clearly demonstrated by the fact that the list of specified programme types already refers to drama as one aspect of the UK's cultural activity. To add a further specific reference to drama would not in our view strengthen the Bill.
1036
I should also point out that drama, along with all the other items mentioned in the list of programme types in subsection (6) of Clause 260, is encompassed within the overarching provisions of subsection (4), which specify the "purposes" of public service broadcasting. Those purposes include explicit references both to programmes dealing with a wide range of subject matter and to programmes which embody high general standards with respect to content and quality. In short, therefore, quality of programming and diversity of subject matter are requirements that run across the whole of the third tier regime, each one applying to drama as much as to any other programme type. So we can see no case for the additional requirement proposed by my noble friend.
Amendment No. 182B would require each individual public service broadcaster to provide a suitable quantity of high-quality and original programmes for children and young people. As I said in my response to Amendments Nos. 180, 181 and 182, the third tier provisions will constitute a self-regulatory framework under which Ofcom will exercise a lighter touch than under the first and second tier requirements. We therefore think that Ofcom's review and reporting functions should be directed at the public service broadcasting sector as a whole rather than the contribution of each broadcaster individually. That principle holds for children's and young people's programming as much as for any aspect of the public service remit. Moreover, that approach ensures that the contribution of each broadcaster to fulfilling the remit will reflect the spectrum of obligations across the public service sector, ranging from the BBC at one end to Channel 5 at the other.
I have considered the arguments put forward on Amendment No. 184B. I am extremely supportive of the intention of the amendment to strengthen safeguards on the range of television for children and young people. The Government are therefore willing to take this amendment away, to consider it and to come back on Report with a suitable government amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his earlier amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I refer to a matter on which we should like more information before Report stage. Am I in the right, or is the Minister in the right in saying that the measure we are discussing is not necessary? Overseas evidence suggests that the form of words in the Bill is precisely the form of words that allows a coach and horses to be driven through the provision of drama. I refer to the provision of drama by Granada that has been mentioned. At this stage I shall withdraw the amendment but there is every likelihood that—
Lord Puttnam: I thank my noble friend for giving way. Our proceedings are about to finish and I seek to help the Government. We are about to embark on a recess which gives the Government the opportunity to rethink some clauses. When we return, big battles will commence on certain very important clauses. As my

1037
noble friend Lord Lea said, those battles will concern evidence-based objections to non-evidence-based assertions.
I bring to the attention of my noble friend the Minister a PIU document of January 2000 which was described by a former Cabinet Secretary as a seminal document. The document concerns evidence-based policy making and has been read by all Ministers. It states that Ministers should routinely demand rigorous analysis to support decisions on all policies and programmes and that senior civil servants should see as a key aspect of their job ensuring a reliable supply of such analysis.
The document refers to a culture in Whitehall that rewards Ministers and senior officials for good analysis and holds them to account when policies are not evidence-based. It further states that Ministers should publish details of the models used by government and the data that support them. There is a requirement to publish a regulatory impact assessment with all new legislation setting out the impacts on business. The RIA must also be produced by departments as a condition of Cabinet endorsement of any policy. These mechanisms stimulate demand for analysis of the impact of policy options. Their force derives in part from the simple requirement that such analysis is carried out and in part from the requirement to make public the results of the analysis.
The next two weeks will be typified by an enormous volume of analysis being brought forward to argue against many of the Government's intentions on cross-media ownership and media ownership generally. I very much hope that the Government will refer to the above mentioned document and, in rebutting or dealing with the arguments that are put forward, will come back continually with their own evidence base, their own impact assessment and the evidence that they have really thought through these very important policy objectives and are not merely relying on a wing and a prayer and assertions.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Puttnam for his remarks. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg.
1038
I am sorry that I have given the Philistines a bad press. If the Minister's only problem is that the measure we are discussing is not necessary, as opposed to its being positively incompatible with the Bill, I have every hope that we shall make progress. The measure constitutes an important guarantee in terms of the provision of high-quality drama on British television in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Manchesterhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 182B:
Page 231, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) that religious and spiritual activity in the United Kingdom, and their diversity, are reflected, supported and stimulated by their representation in those services (taken together);"
The right reverend Prelate said: I thank the Minister for her remarks. I also thank Members of the Committee for their support. I look forward to hearing further from the Government. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 182B not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 183 and 183A not moved.]
Baroness Whitakerhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 184:
Page 231, line 31, after "religion" insert "or belief"
The noble Baroness said: I thank my noble friend for her very constructive response. I have common cause with the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 184A to 188 not moved.]
Clause 260 agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before six o'clock to Monday 2nd June at half-past two o' clock.

  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  Northern Ireland Departments: Underspend
  Palace of Westminster: Security
  Palace of Westminster: Security
  Iraq: Italian Support for Coalition
  Iraq: Italian Support for Coalition
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  Guantanamo Bay: British Detainees
  Arms Control and Disarmament
  Arms Control and Disarmament
  Dalai Lama
  Dalai Lama
  Iraq: Participation of Women
  Iraq: Participation of Women
  West Bank: Security Walls
  West Bank: Security Walls
  Iraq: Kuwaiti Prisoners
  Iraq: Kuwaiti Prisoners
  Gulf Veterans' Illnesses
  Gulf Veterans' Illnesses
  Identification Friend or Foe Systems
  Identification Friend or Foe Systems
  Nuclear Premises
  Nuclear Premises
  Naval Manning Agency: Key Targets
  Naval Manning Agency: Key Targets
  Iraq: Reservists
  Iraq: Reservists
  Driving on a Prohibited Road: Prosecutions
  Driving on a Prohibited Road: Prosecutions
  Secure Training Centres
  Secure Training Centres
  Deaths in Custody
  Deaths in Custody
  C-FAR and Youth at Risk: Financial Support
  C-FAR and Youth at Risk: Financial Support
  Extradition
  Extradition
  Human Trafficking
  Human Trafficking
  Civil Partnerships
  Civil Partnerships
  Empty Homes
  Empty Homes
  Tuberculosis: Slaughter of Cattle
  Tuberculosis: Slaughter of Cattle
  Biofuels
  Biofuels
  Internet Access: Get Started Campaign
  Internet Access: Get Started Campaign
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link and West Coast Main Line
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link and West Coast Main Line
  Seafarers' Welfare: ILO Provisions
  Seafarers' Welfare: ILO Provisions
  NHS: Cancer Services
  NHS: Cancer Services