Sitting of 10 November 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Licensing
    Mr. John Denham: What further licensing measures she proposes to take to tackle drunken behaviour in town and city centres. [137023]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The prevention of crime and disorder is a key objective of the Licensing Act, which received Royal Assent this summer. Its provisions include expanded police powers to close premises that are disorderly or noisy; the ability to review licences when problems arise, backed by an extended range of sanctions; and new powers to allow local authorities to address problems when the number of licensed premises reaches saturation point—an issue raised by many hon. Members. It also includes new offences to deal with
    2
    drunk and disorderly behaviour in licensed premises and the introduction of flexible opening hours to reduce binge drinking and avoid flash points at closing time.
    Mr. Denham: I thank my right hon. Friend for her response and for the positive moves that the Government have taken, but does she accept that the problem in many town and city centres is not one of individually badly run premises, but the cumulative effect of so many people who have had too much to drink coming out on to the streets? Will she keep an open mind about the possibility of making it a licence condition that in designated entertainment areas those premises should be required to co-operate with the local police through radiocommunications systems or to make a modest contribution towards the cost of policing town and city centres?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my right hon. Friend for asking that question. Yes, there is indeed provision in the Licensing Act 2003 for local authorities, on the basis of representations from the police, to add conditions to the premises licence—for example, the need to have radio pagers, toughened glass and CCTV—on evidence of drunk and disorderly behaviour. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, those conditions were directly negotiated and supported by the Home Secretary. The provisions do not, however, include a levy of the kind that my right hon. Friend requests.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Drunken misbehaviour is a major problem in Oswestry and Market Drayton. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to giving local citizens greater opportunities to appeal against local authorities that issue licences in the teeth of police advice?
    Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Licensing Act 2003 provides, for the first time ever, the opportunity for individual residents to make representations about licensing decisions. There will be an appeal mechanism, but the key change that has been

    3
    achieved through the modernised licensing law is the power that it gives to citizens and local communities, and the new powers it gives to the police.
    Mr. Frank Field: I know that the Secretary of State was in Liverpool on Friday, but I do not know whether she had time to come under the tunnel into Birkenhead. If she had, she would have seen that there, as in many other city centres, there are several pubs and clubs whose main aim, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, is to get as many people as possible drunk as quickly as possible. The cost of policing the inner parts of Birkenhead is £140,000 a year. Will my right hon. Friend speak with her colleagues in the Home Office to see whether that charge would not better be borne by those who run the trade than by ratepayers who wish to see more police on the beat, but do not want them to be used to herd together drunk and disorderly citizens?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. Sadly, on this occasion, I did not have the opportunity to visit Birkenhead. I visited Toxteth and Wavertree and also went to the town hall for a briefing on capital of culture events. I hope to visit Birkenhead on another occasion.
    I would like to deal with the point implicit in my right hon. Friend's question. In dealing, as we fully intend to do, with crime, disorder and drunkenness in city centres where there are a lot of licensed premises, it is important to recognise that the licensing regime is but one instrument available to local authorities and the police. The Licensing Act 2003 has provided new powers for both the police and local authorities to tackle the problem. My right hon. Friend will also be aware of the further powers in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, currently before the House. It is also important to remember that licensed premises, which contribute in many ways to the life and economy of our big cities and towns, do pay taxes, including council tax, and in return are entitled to receive services.
    Mr. Greg Knight: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for confirming our understanding of the position—that the new licensing regime will provide great opportunities for complaints to be made when licensed premises are responsible for drunken or loutish behaviour. That being so, why will the Government apparently allow the costly brewster sessions to go ahead next year? That archaic triennial event is likely to cost applicants in excess of £11 million. Why cannot that money be put to better use in tackling the problems of drunkenness, rather than in paying legal support costs?
    Tessa Jowell: I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman on that point—
    Mr. John Bercow: Copy it to us.
    Tessa Jowell: I will copy it to all those hon. Members who have an interest in the matter on behalf of their constituents. The purpose of the new licensing regime is
    4
    to protect children and reduce the levels of antisocial behaviour associated with drunkenness. The measures are adequate to that task.
    Tony Wright: We all know that in much of Europe towns are taken over by families in the evenings, but in this country families are driven out of towns in the evenings. We must get a grip of that problem. Might not that involve making town centres alcohol-free zones?
    Rob Marris: Steady on!
    Tessa Jowell: The short answer is no. We would not receive popular support for making city centres alcohol-free zones, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) makes an important point that the new licensing regime reflects. Local authorities will have much greater discretion to set conditions to promote family-friendly pubs. Many more pubs now serve food, and people want to take their children to them. It is a question of balance between liberalisation and protecting children from drunkenness and antisocial behaviour. Some local authorities will be clear that children should never be allowed in some pubs, but in country areas and smaller towns, a family-friendly atmosphere is to be encouraged. That is why we have a flexible licensing regime.

    Libraries, Museums and Archives
    Tom Brake: If she will make a statement on the funding of (a)libraries,(b)museums and (c) archives. [137025]
    The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): Libraries, museums and archives receive funding from a number of sources, with the principal funder being local government. My Department's aim is to ensure that its support for those three sectors is complementary and strategic, and focused on the areas of greatest need and greatest potential to deliver Government priorities.
    Tom Brake: I thank the Minister for her response. Are there any plans to slash funding for London's greatest art collections, as reported by someone who was apparently speaking on her behalf, to pay for regional galleries? If those reports are correct, does the Minister agree that we need some blue-sky thinking and should give the regional development agencies a role in filling the funding gap of £180 million that was identified by the regional museums task force in 2001?
    Estelle Morris: I am grateful for the opportunity to set the record straight. I usually speak for myself and not through someone speaking on my behalf. The Evening Standard, The Sunday Times and other papers were plain wrong about it. The hon. Gentleman may have read the letter I wrote to the Evening Standard, which made that absolutely clear. The Government have an excellent record as the first Government to fund regional museums through the renaissance in the regions programme. I want that to flourish and grow, and I hope that it will be supported. At the same time, we have also

    5
    increased funding for national museums and galleries. That is our record and that will continue to be our practice.
    Diana Organ: My hon. Friend is no doubt well aware of the important role that local and independent museums such as the Dean Heritage Museum in the Forest of Dean play in the culture of our country. What plans does she have for strategic funding for local, independent museums?
    Estelle Morris: Those museums play an important role, and I hope that they can become partners in strategic funding and can work with hub museums. There are 4,000-plus museums throughout the United Kingdom, and the sector is one that the Government neither do nor should control. People have the right to set up museums, and they do so every year. It would be inappropriate ever to have a grand strategic plan to cover every museum, but I want to do all that we can to make sure that local people have a coherent and cohesive service. More importantly, I want museums to be encouraged to work together, which has not, historically, been the practice of the sector.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the Minister satisfied with the acquisition budgets of our great national museums and galleries, and when will she be able to make an announcement on the Raphael that the National Gallery is so anxious to acquire?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman asks two questions in one. On the Raphael, the tax matters are very complex. I am eager to make an announcement as quickly as I can, and I have pushed our advisers to come up with that advice. I could not act without necessary and specialist advice from tax officials, but I have just received it and hope to make an announcement in due course.
    I always wish that the acquisition budget was greater, but it has been significantly increased from several sources—not just Government sources—in recent years. I should say that neither the Government nor anyone else can control the escalation in price of works of art as they come on to the market. No Government—this or any other—could ever pledge to make available whatever sum any gallery chose. The situation is difficult, but acquisition is an important part of the sector's work.

    Amateur Sport
    Jane Griffiths: If she will make a statement on rate relief for amateur sports clubs. [137026]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government introduced an amendment to the Local Government Bill in September to provide for mandatory rate relief at 80 per cent. for registered community amateur sports clubs. In excess of 500 clubs
    6
    had successfully applied for registration by 31 October, and a similar number of applications is in the pipeline. I strongly advise all clubs to apply for mandatory relief.
    Jane Griffiths: That reply is very welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that cycling will benefit greatly from rate relief, as it is the many small amateur clubs that nurture the cycling stars of tomorrow?
    Mr. Caborn: I very much agree. Last week, I attended a conference in Brighton organised by a good team of people—I pay tribute to Lord Phillips of Sudbury, the Inland Revenue, Deloitte Touche and Richard Baldwin, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, Sport England, and the National Playing Fields Association—who got together to make sure that the message is going out to amateur clubs. Cycling, which my hon. Friend mentioned, has a very good governing body, which is linking in on this matter and into new development in schools.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister will be aware that I recently led a delegation from the CCPR, representing a number of amateur sports clubs, to see Baroness Scotland about some of the extra costs that have been loaded on to amateur sport. While the Minister's recent announcement is welcome, does he recognise that the extra costs of such things as the Criminal Records Bureau have put a lot of pressure on sports, particularly those, such as swimming, that find it difficult to attract funding? Will he consider the costs imposed on sport as well as the potential benefits of his changes?
    Mr. Caborn: That is true, and those representations were made. Through Sport England, we are in dialogue with all the governing bodies. The hon. Gentleman will accept that we must put in place regulations of the type he referred to in order to protect young people particularly children—in various sports clubs. We have to make sure that parents believe in the integrity of coaching and the development of sports clubs. If we do not, there will be a distraction from, not an attraction to, sport.
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the news of rate relief will be particularly welcome to the 1,000 members of Selby bowls club, who were recently bowled over when Selby district council increased its rate bill from zero last year to £12,000 this year? Will he emphasise that rural district councils such as Selby can offer 100 per cent. rate relief where they think it appropriate? That may be particularly relevant to small village cricket clubs, which are such an important part of village life.
    Mr. Caborn: That news is welcome. Investment is being made through community amateur sports clubs, 500 of which had applied for relief by 31 October. Of those claims, 105 involved gift aid, and the amount saved for those clubs is £147,000. The best of them got £32,000 back, and half a dozen or so have had about £8,000, which means a lot of money is going back to sports clubs. The cash is working, and we have added

    7
    mandatory rate relief and hope to get local authorities to offer the further 20 per cent. All that is a major injection into amateur sport in this country.
    Tony Cunningham: What steps she is taking to support amateur sport. [137027]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): As well as mandatory rate relief for amateur sports clubs, the Government are providing about £60 million over the period 2003–04 to 2004–05 for club facilities in 16 sports. The amateur sector has benefited substantially from wider Sport England lottery funding, and will continue to do so. Links between schools and local clubs are also to be strengthened under the PE, school sport and club links programme.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks, but will he bear in mind the fact that when I used to coach my local rugby union side in the mid-1980s we ran five senior sides, whereas now we struggle to get two sides out—and even when we do so it is often difficult to find anyone to play against. There are real difficulties in respect of participation. We all recognise the importance of sport in dealing with crime and with health issues such as obesity and drugs, and in education and so on, so what more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure co-ordination between Departments to improve participation in sport?
    Mr. Caborn: As we are talking about rugby union, I am sure the House will send both our congratulations and our hopes for next Saturday in the match against France, as well our hopes that we pick up that silverware in the final the Saturday after.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: After a struggle.
    Mr. Caborn: The best is yet to come.
    Investment in our amateur clubs is important. In this country, 70 per cent. of our young people do not continue with active sport when they leave school—a bad record compared with many other countries. It is extremely important that we support our governing bodies to ensure that they start to invest in club structures so that we can arrest that trend. Unless we do so, the quality will not come through, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) said, because we shall not have the critical mass.
    We are also acting with the Department of Health through the newly set-up activity co-ordination team to link health, sport and physical activity. With the investment we are making in schools and in our club structures, I hope that we shall see a significant improvement not only in the clubs but also in the health of the nation.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister explain the incentives for amateur sports? I play for a cricket club in my constituency which runs five senior sides and makes a significant contribution to promoting junior and youth cricket, yet I do not think it will qualify for rate relief because the top team is in the first league of the Surrey Championship and the club employs a professional. Should not all sports that are being run on
    8
    a voluntary basis receive rate relief and consistent support? Whether such clubs are big or little, they all contribute to the community.
    Mr. Caborn: As I have just explained, a number of tax breaks, including gift aid, are available as soon as a club registers as a community amateur sports club; on top of that we have now introduced the mandatory rate relief of 80 per cent. We are also investing in the club structure. The England and Wales Cricket Board is developing the game at the grass-roots level and any club that is registered with the board can apply. The relationship between clubs and the governing body has been strengthened and I hope that will ensure that more young people come into the sport. The big four sports are working together much more effectively to try to create a critical mass of young people who do not play only one individual sport but who cross over to other sports.
    Andy Burnham: A welcome if unexpected source of support for amateur football in recent years has been the premier league, which, as a consequence of the current television deal, has invested about £60 million in football's grass roots. However, there is currently some doubt about that as the competition directorate in Brussels is looking into the structure of the premier league television deal. Will the Minister do all he can to ensure that the competition authorities in Brussels are fully aware of the public interest benefits that the current television arrangements bring to English football?
    Mr. Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are making representations to the Department of Trade and Industry, which has responsibility for competition policy. However, I want to put it on record that we have one of the best redistributions, with moneys coming into football being passed both to the amateur game and to the professional sport. Our record is probably better than that in any European league; £60 million is being invested through the Football Foundation and the youth development trusts and they are doing a good job. That is not to say that they could not do better but, relatively speaking, they are doing better than their counterparts in Europe.
    Mr. Don Foster: Although the £60 million and the rate relief for amateur sports clubs are clearly welcome, given that the Minister has acknowledged that obesity is increasing and that participation in amateur sports clubs is predicted to fall, what is he doing to take urgent action to try to get the regional sports boards, which have been delayed by up to a year, fully operational, so that they too can play a part by distributing the frozen lottery grants?
    Mr. Caborn: It is untrue to say that the boards have been delayed by a year. On the contrary, I had dinner last Sunday night with all the chairmen of the new sports boards and the Sport England board in Manchester, and the following day—a week ago today—they were discussing how they would devolve to the regions the moneys that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State secured on the back of our bid for the Olympics. So £100 million of new money will go into the multi-sports clubs

    9
    throughout the country. On top of that, we are investing £500 million through local education authorities and £130 million in sport and arts in the community. All that investment is going in, and the sports boards now have a major influence on how that money is spent in a much more strategic way than was probably previously the case.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although what he has said is very good news and the Government and the lottery are doing a lot to help amateur sport, we still have too many poor and waterlogged pitches for amateur sports, that those pitches need better drainage and that all our amateur clubs need acceptable training and changing facilities?
    Mr. Caborn: That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that we start to bring all public assets—including schools, universities and further education colleges—into play for all communities. If we start to do that, we will find that there is access to many more facilities than has been the case, but I caution my hon. Friend that there is a changing mood out there: many young people want to play not on soggy pitches but on new synthetic pitches, where, if they want to, they can play 24 hours a day, seven days a week under floodlit conditions, and many of our young people rightly want to play indoors. If we compare our indoor tennis facilities with those in France, we find that the French beat us something like 10:1, and we need to rethink that. That is why I believe that some of those who have campaigned only for playing fields have probably misread the debate about such things in the recent past.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: How can the imposition of additional costs and regulation in any way be described as support for amateur sport? Why is the Minister reneging on commitments given by his predecessor that the new licence fees under the Licensing Act 2003 would not adversely affect amateur sport and sports clubs, when it is clear from the representations that he has received from amateur sports bodies that that is the case?
    Mr. Caborn: We have not decided what the fees will be, so I do not know how people can make such assessments. We are bringing six regulatory regimes into one, and we will have to see how that plays out. A number of sports clubs could gain from the new regime that is coming in, and we will wait and see. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a commitment that we will revisit the issue three years after the implementation, and we will do so. It is our intention to invest in sports clubs in the way that I have just indicated, not to make things more difficult for them. I believe that, when the new licensing provisions come into operation, we could find a very different picture from that portrayed by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Another relief that non-profit-making amateur sports clubs have been able to claim is exemption from VAT on building work when they want to build new changing rooms and improve their facilities. It has always been normal practice for them to get that relief, but it now appears that Customs and Excise may take a different view. Will my right hon.
    10
    Friend discuss that matter with Customs and Excise? Will he look into the case of Kirkley and Pakefield community sports club in my constituency if I give him the details?
    Mr. Caborn: It would be wrong and very treacherous for me to step into the domain of the Chancellor or anyone else, even if my hon. Friend would like me to do so.
    Mr. Bercow: Go on.
    Mr. Caborn: No, I cannot, although I would love to.
    If my hon. Friend writes to me, I will ensure that the information goes to the right quarters.

    Sports Funding (South-West)
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If she will increase the Government's funding commitment for sports facilities in the west country. [137028]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): Following Sport England's rationalisation and the establishment of regional sports boards, the majority of funding decisions will be taken at a regional level. Funding allocations have yet to be set by Sport England. The south-west received some 29 community capital awards from Sport England's lottery programme, totalling just over £8.5 million in the last financial year.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that selling off school sports fields has accelerated the couch-potato mentality of young people? In fact, nearly 10 per cent. of young people under the age of six are now obese, and more than 50 per cent. of the adult population are considered overweight. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Food Standards Agency's prophecy that by 2010 health problems and other health-related issues will be costing the taxpayer £3.8 billion? Would it not be better to invest the money now in sports facilities and other physical activity in schools, rather than allowing the taxpayer to spend so much money on rectifying obesity?
    Mr. Caborn: We have had to pick up the bits that the previous Administration left us in 1997. I should make it clear that this is the first time a Government have committed such investment in sport and physical activity. We are doing so not for philanthropic reasons but because obesity is costing the economy some £2 billion. Cases of type 2 diabetes are increasing among our young people, and the projection is that if something is not done about obesity, the economy will have to bear £3.5 billion in related costs by 2010. That is why we are investing in two hours of quality physical activity and sport for every child, every week, from the ages of five to 16; why we are investing £750 million in new sports facilities; and why we are investing the further £100 million that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State secured in respect of the Olympic bid. My

    11
    announcements on mandatory rate relief, community amateur sports clubs and the £60 million investment in sports clubs are the best song that has been sung on this issue, and the biggest investment in sport for many years.
    Mr. David Heath: Perhaps we could return to the question of why the west country region gets the worst deal from the Government in terms of support for sports. We do not have major stadiums or the same investment in facilities largely because those who would benefit from such projects in terms of dealing with deprivation are spread evenly across the peninsula rather than being congregated in cities. Will the Minister address that underlying and fundamental problem with funding for the west country?
    Mr. Caborn: I would, but the hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong. I shall read out the figures for the south-west and compare them with those for the north-east for 2003—04, which some of my hon. Friends will be interested to hear. The total cost of schemes for the north-east was just over £11.4 million, and the total project costs were £37 million. The 29 projects in the south-west cost £8.5 million, and the total project costs were £14.5 million. So the investment—
    Mr. Heath: That is half.
    Mr. Caborn: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that I accept that there are problems in the south-west—indeed, I have made that point before in respect of football. The south-west has no premier league club, and such clubs are very important to the sporting infrastructure.
    Mr. Bercow: Let us have an Adjournment debate about it, then.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Caborn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    However, in terms of investment in sport, the south-west is no better off, and no worse off, than the rest of the country.

    Museum Collections (Human Remains)
    Michael Fabricant: What plans she has to amend legislation to permit museums to repatriate human remains; and if she will make a statement. [137029]
    The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): I hope to be able to use the Department of Health's proposed Bill on human tissue to relax current statutory prohibitions on the repatriation of human remains.
    Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Several thousand human remains are held by various British museums, and a number of claims have been made over the years—mainly by native Americans, the Australian Government and the New Zealand Government—for their repatriation. The Government introduced a review two years ago, and 159
    12
    pages later, that review—the report of the working group on human remains—was published. But the Natural History Museum, which holds most of those remains, says that it achieves nothing, because under the criteria virtually none of the remains would be repatriated. So where are we now?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Gentleman is still sitting on the Bench behind the Front Bench. That is where he is at the moment.
    The report has been published, there will be a period of consultation and the Government will respond to the report and consultation in due course. I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a keen interest in this subject, but I do not think that the director of the museum was saying that nothing would be achieved. He was taking issue with one of the recommendations in the report. What has undoubtedly changed is that the Government have said—we agree with the hon. Gentleman about this—that human remains should be able to be repatriated. At the moment, by law, museums cannot do that even if they wish to. I would have hoped that he would welcome that announcement as a major step forward, and also welcome the fact that the Government have taken an early legislative opportunity to make that happen.
    Let us consult and wait for the details of the working party's report. I repeat, however, that it is the Government intention to make sure that, when museums want to repatriate human remains, they will be able to do so. I hope that legislation on that will pass through both Houses of Parliament next Session.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that, in seeking to change the law on this important matter, she will pay due regard to the fact that the human remains kept in British museums have as much right to be considered the property of mankind—they possess both our future and our past in their genetic structures—as they have to be repatriated to some ethnic groups who wish to have them taken back?
    Estelle Morris: The hon. Lady puts very well both sides of the argument, and we have to find a way through that. However, it is true that some countries have to seek information from abroad if they wish to examine the remains of indigenous people, because no such remains rest in those countries. That cannot be right. I envisage a situation in which the Natural History museum and the British Museum are willing to repatriate some of the remains if they are legally able to do so. They will be able to do that once the Bill is passed.
    The hon. Lady is absolutely right to suggest that there will be cases in which museums think that research needs to be carried out in this country. Part of the Government's response to the report must deal with the issue of how differences of opinion between the requests and the views of holding museums are to be resolved. I assume that she will continue to take a close interest in that subject.

    Television Reception (Rural Areas)
    David Cairns: What recent discussions she has had with the BBC concerning television reception in rural areas. [137030]
    The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): Under the digital television action plan, we are to determine and agree a target level of UK coverage for digital terrestrial public services post-switchover. We will be discussing this with the BBC and other digital broadcasters.
    David Cairns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she not agree that there is now utter confusion in the provision of television signals in this country? We have analogue terrestrial, digital terrestrial, freeview, cable, satellite, in-the-clear and free-to-air. Solus cards that used to be free and gave one all five channels now only provide the BBC channels until one pays £20 to be able to watch the ITV channels, and people now choose satellite and digital because they have to, because they cannot receive a decent signal elsewhere. Would not a way through this confusion be the adoption of the simple principle that, if people pay for a television licence, they should be able to receive a television signal? If they cannot get a TV signal, they should not have to pay for a TV licence.
    Estelle Morris: I am not sure that it is a complicated system. If my hon. Friend wants to return to the days when there was hardly any choice of television channels, the list of ways in which to receive the signals would be shorter than the one that he has just described. I do not think that anybody wants to return there.
    I sympathise absolutely with my hon. Friend, in that many of his constituents are in the 0.6 per cent. of people in this country who do not receive analogue terrestrial coverage. I appreciate their frustration. They are left out in that they do not receive the television signals that most of our constituents probably receive. However, we are in a period of change and many forms of receiving television signals are being introduced to give the public the choice they want of what to watch. That is absolutely right.
    Nothing is set in stone. I know that my hon. Friend is about to meet the BBC to discuss specific issues. We regularly meet the BBC and other broadcasters, and we are in for a period of change. To some extent, we are being held back by the development of the technology that would enable signals to reach the areas that they do not yet reach. I will continue to work with my hon. Friend and broadcasters, and I hope that the particular problems that his constituents experience will not go on for too much longer.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Access to freeview television is currently something of a postcode lottery. What would the Minister say to my constituents, such as Mrs. Agland of Seaton in East Devon, who wish to access digital programmes but cannot afford to pay for Sky television?
    Estelle Morris: Over the next few years, there will be a development of both digital satellite and digital terrestrial television. I am absolutely certain that in the years to come, the hon. Gentleman's constituents, like
    14
    all our constituents, will find that they can receive the channels they want. As he knows, digital television coverage is progressing well and the Government are well on course to meet their target of making a decision, if they wish, by 2010. They have made it absolutely clear that the cost for individuals will be subject to the digital plans on which they are currently working, announcements of which will be made in due course.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: The Minister referred to choice in broadcasting, which many hon. Members would agree is great. However, the truth of the matter is that my constituents have absolutely no choice if they are to receive most of the BBC channels and go digital—they have to get a Sky box. Will she speak to the BBC and point out that most people think that if they pay the licence fee, they should be entitled to get the BBC for free? Will she try to disabuse it of the horrible complacency into which it has fallen over the roll-out of digital terrestrial television?
    Estelle Morris: I sympathise with my hon. Friend. When making any recommendations that we can to the BBC, we shall point out the simple fact to which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) have referred. I completely accept that one of the characteristics of public sector broadcasting is that it is a unifying force throughout the country. I accept that it is a problem if some people—no matter how few—cannot access the core provision of television channels. I undertake to do what I can, but there is no easy solution waiting to be announced tomorrow. The matter requires research, investment and, sadly, time.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Does the Minister accept that people in rural areas who are able to receive television only via satellite will resent having to pay an extra £20 one-off charge on top of the £116 annual fee that they already pay to get the BBC? Rather than charging the viewer, would it not be fairer to meet the cost of the viewing cards out of the licence fee, as at present?
    Estelle Morris: I do not think that that would be the appropriate way forward. I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing about a solution to the problem caused by the BBC's decision to change satellites earlier this year. I think that his constituents, and most hon. Members' constituents, will feel that paying £20 to receive the choice and channels that they want will represent money well spent.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I do not think that people will think that paying £20 is especially fair, given that they currently do not have to pay anything. Will not the number of people living in rural areas who cannot receive terrestrial or cable television be even greater if the Government go ahead with analogue switch-off? Will the Government ensure that when and if analogue transmission ceases, those who have to buy a satellite receiver will not have to pay far more than those who simply need a freeview box?
    Estelle Morris: We are nowhere near the end of the line on the adaptations that need to be made so that

    15
    more people may receive digital television. We made it absolutely clear in the switchover plan that the number of people who will be able to receive a digital signal should be the same as the number who can currently receive a terrestrial signal. The hon. Gentleman will see that the percentages will have increased by 2010. There are key decisions to be taken about investment in digital television and the switch from terrestrial. As I said to other hon. Members, we are in a period of change in which there is significant investment. We are making progress year on year in the number of people who have access to digital, and thus the choice that many of us take for granted.

    Sports Involvement (Women)
    Vera Baird: What steps the Department is taking to involve more (a) women and (b) girls in sport. [137031]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): My Department and Sport England ensure that public funding will be made available only to those governing bodies with equity agreements in place. Specifically, Sport England is putting £200,000 a year into the Women's Sports Foundation, the organisation that seeks to promote the participation of women in sport, and £180,000 a year into Sporting Equals.
    Vera Baird: I am grateful for that answer. Redcar has quite good women's participation in sport. Indeed, we recently received funding to develop girls' rugby. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much easier to involve more women in sport if there were better media coverage of women's sporting events? In particular, will she take up the issue with the BBC, which has a charter commitment to provide balanced viewing? The Women's Sports Foundation is starting a campaign next week to promote better coverage. Will she use her best endeavours to ensure that it has some success?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. and learned Friend raises two important points. The lack of coverage, or under-representation, of women and their success in sport by the media is a fact, as recent analysis of the coverage of women's success, as opposed to men's success, in the Commonwealth games clearly showed. On the BBC, that is a good example of why the review of its charter will be accompanied by an unprecedented level of public involvement and public consultation so that those issues are raised.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Clergy Pensions
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about measures to improve the level of clergy pensions. [137043]
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps are being taken to increase the pensions of the clergy. [137047]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mr. Stuart Bell): Following wide consultation on remuneration levels for serving and retired clergy, the Church believes the level of the clergy pension, which includes a lump sum on retirement, is reasonable in relation to the clergy stipend. At a time when many employers are switching to money purchase pension schemes—in effect switching risk on to the employee—the Church stands by its commitment to a defined benefit scheme.
    Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that although the pension for those clergy who achieve maximum service is reasonable, there are concerns about those who do not achieve it either because they have come into the vocation later in life or they are female ordained clergy? Will he consider the circumstances of such people, in particular whether they can transfer their previous pension entitlement into the Church Commissioners' fund?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that. He will know that pensions increased on 1 April 2003 and a further 3 per cent. increase is planned for April next year. The full service pension will rise to £11,343 per annum and the full-service lump sum to £34,030. In relation to those who joined the clergy at a later date, I confirm that they can transfer their pensions. On the wider point as to whether we should consider the circumstances as they affect their interests, I am happy to give him that assurance.
    Mr. Prentice: You will know, Mr. Speaker, that three years ago responsibility for financing the clergy pensions transferred to parishes. I have been reading the ecclesiastical press and it seems that some well intentioned people believe that wealthy parishes are salting away their surpluses. I want to know where those wealthy parishes are, because it is not a Church-like thing to do. The money should be redistributed as between the wealthy parishes and those that are less well off.
    Mr. Bell: That was a question for you, Mr. Speaker, rather than for me, but I am happy to answer it.
    It is a fact that pensions that have fallen due since 1998 fall on the parishes. Before that date, they stay with the Church Commissioners. Parishes are obliged to meet their commitments. I am not aware of any parish that does that in an unchristian, unfriendly manner.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Would the Second Church Estates Commissioner agree that the Church Commissioners' ability to help clergy with their stipends and pensions is entirely dependent on returns from their assets, whether in property, equities or whatever? Is it not true that a commendable proportion of the Church Commissioners' assets or income goes to clergy stipends and pensions?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is entirely right that a

    17
    substantial part of our income goes towards meeting those pensions. Over the past few years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken £20 million from our income, which will change to about £12 million in 2004. That impacts on finances that go towards pensions for clergy and, of course, their wives and dependants.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the hon. Gentleman's defence of clergy pensions was subject to the rather critical caveat that those pensions reflected the stipend, can I seek to tempt him to say whether he agrees that clergymen are grossly undervalued in the course of their working lives, so the size of the pensions accorded to them ought to be significantly uprated? In that context, can he advance any moral argument as to why he, I and other right hon. and hon. Members should receive a larger pension than the dedicated moral clergymen of our country?
    Mr. Bell: I am only too happy to answer the hon. Gentleman. The two points, if I may put my lawyer's hat on, are mutually exclusive, and one does not relate to the other. However, the hon. Gentleman is certainly right in his belief that the clergy are undervalued in our parishes. They provide an enormous contact between Church and state, which is valued by everyone. As for the basis for determining the benefits provided by the Church, which consist of a lump sum on retirement plus a pension, we try to take into account all the factors in the interests of the clergy.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Local Government Elections
    Mr. John Robertson: What discussions the commission has had with the Scottish Executive in connection with the single transferable vote and local government elections. [137044]
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) is abroad on parliamentary business, and I have been asked to reply. The commission has responded to a Scottish Executive consultation exercise on the matter, stating that local government elections in Scotland do not fall within the remit that it has been given by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and that as a matter of policy it does not offer views on the merits or otherwise of particular voting systems. Accordingly, the commission offered no substantive views on the use of STV—the single transferable vote—in Scottish local elections.
    John Robertson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the introduction of the single transferable vote in the Scottish local government elections, we will have four different kinds of electoral system within Scottish boundaries? As Scottish parliamentary elections and
    18
    local government elections are taking place on the same day, would the Committee consider looking at the possibility of both using the same system, namely STV?
    Mr. Malins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but in response to the suggestion that the voting system for the Scottish Parliament should be changed, the commission has said that as a matter of policy it does not express a view on the merits or otherwise of particular voting systems. However, he has made a fair point about the electorate's ability to understand what is going on, and the confusion that may arise if many different systems are operating. The commission's research reports, which were published last year, considered public attitudes to voting systems in the 1999 elections, and showed that understanding of the system was a factor that affected the decision about whether or not to vote in a small percentage of cases. The commission's statutory reports on the 2003 elections in Scotland and Wales will certainly draw on the results of research on public opinion to measure the electorate's comprehension of different voting systems.
    Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there were STV for local authority elections in Scotland there would be an end to those undemocratic, monolithic Labour councils, such as the one in Glasgow, which received a minority of the vote but is controlled with a massive majority?
    Mr. Malins: I can do no more than repeat that the commission has said that it does not express a view on the merits or otherwise of particular voting systems, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point in his usual forceful way.

    Postal Voting
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission in respect of all-postal ballots. [137045]
    Mr. Malins: The statutory remit of the Speaker's Committee does not normally require it to discuss such matters with the Electoral Commission. The commission has recommended that, if all-postal voting is backed by changes in the law to minimise the risk of electoral abuses, it should become the standard approach in local elections in England and Wales. It has been directed by the Government to recommend which regions are most suitable to conduct all-postal ballots in the European parliamentary elections in 2004.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he agree, on behalf of the Committee, that what will be needed in whichever regions are chosen is a certain surefootedness and dynamism, and a willingness to innovate—all characteristics that we saw in abundance on the rugby field in the Welsh team at the weekend? In his discussions with the Electoral Commission, will he therefore convey the very strong support among Welsh Labour MPs for all-postal ballots in Wales next year?
    Mr. Malins: I shall certainly convey those sentiments, and I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that I thought that the Wales team performed absolutely brilliantly in the rugby. If I am allowed to say so, being a quarter Welsh, I played for London Welsh schoolboys a long time ago. I shall pass on his points, which are well made.
    Mr. David Heath: Are the hon. Gentleman and his Committee content that, in the studies that the Electoral Commission is conducting on the pilots, it has been specifically excluded by the Government from considering whether there should be pilots at all, why there should be three, the detailed form of postal or electronic voting, and whether it should consult all returning officers after the event rather than only a selected few? Is he content that that will give a true picture of what is going on?
    Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman refers to the paucity of pilot schemes in Wales. Election pilot schemes have been permitted at local elections in Wales for the past three years, and the law provides that the local authority concerned has to apply to the Government for permission to conduct a pilot scheme. On the balance of his question, I shall be happy to ensure that the chairman of the Electoral Commission writes to him with a very full response to a point well made.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, especially in residential homes, abuse is possible with regard to all-postal vote ballots? Does he agree that, without imposing too onerous a task on the Electoral Commission, there should be some sort of monitoring of the mental capacity of those who are offered votes, especially when they have not asked for them?
    Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the need to ensure security, the absence of fraud, and so on, in relation to postal votes. As to the risks concerning places of multiple occupation, to minimise the risk of fraud in general in relation to postal votes, the commission is currently developing a series of tools for use by electoral staff, including best practice guidance on multiple occupation households. He makes a fair point.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House view with genuine concern a move towards all-postal ballots, because whatever is done, there is bound to be greater scope for abuse? Will he further accept that the commission might do better to
    20
    turn its attention to the question of making voting compulsory if it wishes to increase turnout, rather than introducing all-postal ballots?
    Mr. Malins: In relation to my hon. Friend's observation on making voting compulsory, that is not a matter that has crossed my path so far. I do not believe that we have any particular views about it, but I hear what he has to say. He said that postal voting is a significant issue. There are very different views about this matter. Many hon. Members take the view that the old-fashioned system of voting is absolutely right. It is inevitable that we will move towards postal votes for all sorts of elections, as the years pass. I think that he will agree that it is critical that we maintain security, safety and the absence of fraud whenever we can.
    Kevin Brennan: What consultations the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission on all-postal vote pilots for the European elections in Wales. [137046]
    Mr. Malins: The statutory remit of the Speaker's Committee does not normally require it to discuss such matters with the Electoral Commission. However, the commission is currently undertaking at the behest of the Government a consultative exercise on which European Parliament regions might conduct electoral pilots in 2004. I believe that recommendations will be presented to the Government by 8 December 2003.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), there is an old saying, "Three tries for a Welshman", but on some occasions even that is not enough.
    It would be a good idea for the Electoral Commission to recommend all-postal ballots in next year's elections for three reasons—namely, that three elections will be held at the same time: European elections, local government elections and community council elections. That is unique in the United Kingdom. Will the hon. Gentleman convey the strong message from MPs in Wales that that makes Wales a unique area in which to experiment by including it in the pilot?
    Mr. Malins: If there were 10 points for a try, a different team would have been in the semi-finals.
    The commission is well aware of the strong support from many Labour Members of Parliament for the postal pilot schemes. I understand that it has received representations from several organisations and individuals in Wales: it will take those into account when it makes its recommendations to the Government. The hon. Gentleman speaks for many of his colleagues in advocating his cause, and he does so with passion and a great deal of diligence.

Orders of the Day
  Water Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Water Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 2

      COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRY OF LICENCES
      'After section 46 of the WRA there is inserted—
      "46B Commencement and expiry of licences
      (1) A licence granted under this Chapter to abstract water—

      (a) to prevent interference with any mining, quarrying or engineering operations (whether underground or surface); or

      (b) to prevent damage to works resulting from such operations ('de-watering abstractions'),

      shall be stated to take effect to expire simultaneously with any planning permission or any extension or amendment to any planning permission granted for such mining, quarrying or engineering operations instead of a specific date, or dates, in the licence for the de-watering abstraction itself.
      (2) In all other aspects, reference in this chapter to the date on which a licence is stated to take effect and on which it expires, insofar as a licence for the de-watering abstraction is concerned, refers to the commencement and expiry dates comprised in any planning permission authorising the mining, quarrying or engineering operations relevant to the de-watering abstraction.".'.—[Mr. Wiggin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.31 pm
      Mr. Bill Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 3—Renewal of licences (mines and quarries)—
      'After section 46 of the WRA there is inserted—
      "46ZA Renewal of licences (mines and quarries)

      (1) An application to renew a licence granted under this Chapter to abstract water—

      (a) to prevent interference with any mining, quarrying or engineering operations (whether underground or surface); or

      (b) to prevent damage to works resulting from such operations ('de-watering abstractions'),

      shall be subject to the three tests specified in subsection (2).

      (2) Those tests are that it can be reasonably demonstrated that—

      (a) environmental sustainability can be achieved;

      (b) the need for the licence is demonstrable; and

      (c) the water extracted under the licence is being and will be used efficiently and effectively.

      (3) If the tests specified in subsection (2) are met, the licence will be renewed for a minimum of six years.

      (4) Where an application to renew a licence under the preceding provisions of this section is refused, a person who made the application may appeal to the Secretary of State within such period and subject to such procedures as may be prescribed by order.

      22
      46ZB Renewal of licences (mines and quarries): compensation
      Where an application to renew a licence is refused under section 46ZA above, or the terms of the licence are varied and the effect of the resultant restriction or working rights would be such as to prejudice adversely to an unreasonable degree—

      (a) the economic viability of operating the site; or

      (b) the asset value of the site,

      compensation shall be payable in accordance with arrangements prescribed by order.".'.
      New clause 12—Presumption of renewal of licences—
      'After section 38 of the WRA there is inserted—
      "38A Presumption of renewal of licences
      There shall be a presumption of renewal of a licence, subject to the provisions of section 38(1A) above, where the Agency is satisfied that—

      (a) abstraction under the new licence is environmentally sustainable;

      (b) there is a continued justification of need; and

      (c) water abstracted under the renewed licence will be used in an efficient manner.".'.

      Government amendments Nos. 54 to 58.
      Amendment No. 10, in clause 6, page 7, line 23, at end insert—
      '(1A) Where the construction of a bore hole in connection with an exempt abstraction could affect the essential characteristics of water resources used by the licensed natural water abstractor, the consent of the Environment Agency must be sought.'.
      Amendment No. 24, in page 8, line 5, at end insert
      'if it is to address an issue of national importance'.
      Government amendment No. 59.
      Amendment No. 25, in clause 14, page 17, line 39, leave out 'in prescribed cases' and insert
      'where it would be against the interests of national security'.
      Government amendments Nos. 60 to 70.
      Amendment No. 4, in clause 17, page 21, line 42, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.
      Government amendments Nos. 71 to 73.
      Amendment No. 9, in clause 19, page 23, line 31, at end insert—
      '( ) The expiry date shall take into account the availability of water in the source of supply to which the licence applies and the investment needs of the applicant.'.
      Amendment No. 11, in page 23, line 33, at end insert—
      '(5B) In determining the period that a licence under this Chapter shall remain in force, the Agency shall take into account—

      (a) the life expectancy of any associated infrastructure works (existing and prospective),

      (b) the costs of those works (actual and projected), and

      (c) the period over which these costs may be reasonably be expected to have to be recovered.'.

      Government amendment No. 74.
      Amendment No. 12, in clause 20, page 24, line 27, at end insert—
      '(5) There shall be a presumption that any licence in respect of which the conditions of this section are met shall be renewed unless the Agency is able to show that revocation is necessary in order to protect any waters or underground strata, or any flora or fauna dependent on them, from serious damage.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 75 to 82.

      23
      Amendment No. 126, in clause 24, page 31, line 11, at end insert—
      '(5A) In this section "loss or damage" shall mean loss occasioned by physical damage to tangible property.'.
      Government amendments No. 83 and 84.
      Amendment No. 32, in clause 25, page 31, line 43, at end insert
      'and
      (b) at the end there is inserted "except in the case of licences where water would otherwise be abstracted for use on land which is subject to phytosanitary restrictions.".'.
      Amendment No. 33, in clause 27, page 33, line 17, at end insert
      'or such later date as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe'.
      Government amendment No. 85.
      Amendment No. 26, in clause 30, page 36, line 39, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£50,000'.
      Government amendments Nos. 117 and 104 to 106.
      Mr. Wiggin: The new clause would ensure that the commencement and expiry of abstractor licences occurred simultaneously with planning permission, so that as long as a business had planning permission it should be able to go ahead with abstracting water if it is environmentally safe to do so. If the dates of an abstraction licence are separate from those of the planning permission, the abstraction licence may expire before the planning application. That undermines the long-term certainty of a water abstraction business, restricting its competitive edge. Businesses wishing to abstract should have just one course of action to take. For quarries and mineral water companies, for example, the legislative burden is not sufficiently streamlined and may jeopardise their ability to compete on a level playing field with companies from abroad. The new clause would ensure that the expiration date of a licence must take into account the commencement and expiry dates of any planning permission. That would be fairer on abstractors, who would have a much more stable basis on which to attract investors. Long-term industries such as water abstraction, watercress growers and quarries need assurances of certainty, but the Bill does not offer them. The new clause would provide them with that assurance and with the certainty that they need for long-term investment.
      New clause 3 is focused on the quarrying industry and its need for certainty in the renewal of its de-watering transfer licences. It would include in the Bill three clear tests by which a renewal licence may be granted. To make it fair to the industry, the presumption of renewal needs to be made explicit by including in the Bill test renewals such as those set out in "Taking Water Responsibly". The industry is well aware of the assurances that the Minister has given to the House and to the other place. I am also conscious that during the past month my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for High Peak (Tom Levitt) have
      24
      taken part in meetings with industry representatives in the Minister's office, and that the assurances given have been confirmed in writing. That may provide safeguards for the immediate future, but they have no long-term credibility. The new clause seeks to redress that. Equally, it would include the steps for appeal and compensation to be taken when a licence is refused renewal under the tests. It is imperative that the presumption of renewal is included in the Bill, not hidden away in statements or policy documents—otherwise, long-term industries will not have any real assurances that their investments will be safe.
      The second part of the new clause would ensure that if a de-watering transfer licence is not renewed or the Environment Agency changes the conditions, thereby making an operation unviable, the operator can claim compensation. The problem with the Bill as it stands is that the agency can give an operator six years' notice of non-renewal and simply not renew and not provide compensation. That is unacceptable, especially when the agency is clearly a law unto itself and not directly accountable to the House. The new clause would put in place the genuine assurances of licence renewal, appeal and compensation that the water abstraction sector needs.
      Mr. John Bercow: It is clear that the new clause is extremely well thought through, but my brow is furrowed by my hon. Friend's reference to circumstances in which exploration takes place and a licence is not renewed. It sounds deeply unjust. Is my hon. Friend telling me that there is no right of appeal?
      Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right to have a furrowed brow about the Bill. Indeed, my brow has been furrowed for some time. It is especially difficult for those who abstract water because he is right about the difficulties that they will face if their licences are not renewed. There is an appeals procedure but I believe that it is to the Environment Agency, not the Secretary of State.
      The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): It is to the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Wiggin: The Minister corrects me, but a lesser agent of the Secretary of State would fulfil the duty. The essence of the problem is not so much that licences cannot be renewed—environmental damage may be taking place—but the lack of compensation. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. As usual, with his incisive mind he has put his finger on the nub of the problem instantly.
      Amendment No. 10 deals with the fears of drinking water abstractors, who are rightly subject to an enormous number of inspections to ensure that their water quality is the finest. However, if abstractors of less than 20 cu m sink a borehole into the substrata and start abstracting water for use as drinking water, the licensed abstractor's water quality could be affected. The safeguards in the Bill are not quite strong enough to prevent the risk of small abstractors causing damage to the business of water bottling. I am worried about the risk of others sinking boreholes into the same substrata as the original business, thereby damaging the quality of the water that it abstracts.

      25
      Many bottled water companies bottle their water at source and depend on the spring to market and sell the brand—for example, Hildon and Radnor Hills. They cannot move their water aquifer. Water bottling operations are extremely expensive to start up. As long-term investments, they need the protection that the amendment offers. It would enable the Environment Agency to police abstraction for the good of our environmental quality, which must be the overriding consideration. The Environment Agency should monitor abstractors, no matter how small, for the damage that they cause the environment. Damage done to a business aquifer by another drilling into it could take a company out of business. That problem must be resolved but the Bill does not currently address it.
      It is vital to support the British bottled water industry. Domestic bottled water companies comprise nearly 80 per cent. of the total that we drink in the United Kingdom. The issue therefore affects us all. Now is an opportune moment to have a quick sip of water. We must not only protect the industry, but ensure its long-term plan for the future.
      The licensing that the Bill introduces raises concerns that the scope of the investment will be limited. Small, unlicensed boreholes must not be able to undermine a company's investment. I know that the Minister has sympathy with the point. In Committee, he said that if there were problems the Environment Agency would have the power to lower the existing thresholds to reduce the number of boreholes. He said that the agency had powers to deal with problems should they arise. If so, why does not the Bill include such a provision? We want to prevent damage to the aquifer and ensure that the Environment Agency has more responsibility to protect it. The amendment would protect the important British drinking water industry and ensure the high quality of our environment through giving the Environment Agency such policing powers.
      Amendment No. 4 deals with a time limit on licences that will be certain for only 12 years. Clause 17(8)(a) provides for a time limit of four years for those who are not using their licence. That reflects neither the seven-year weather cycle nor the catchment abstraction management strategy. The amendment, which provides for a time limit of six years, takes into account the extended period that allows for crop rotation. That was part of the Government's intention and would also influence their ability to license genetically modified crops.
      Reasons for non-use of a licence might be as basic as having sufficient rainfall as to render irrigation unnecessary, or growing another crop on the land due to the basic rules of crop rotation under good agricultural practice to avoid the build-up of, for example, pests and diseases in the soil. A much more serious reason might be a the presence of a notifiable disease such as potato brown rot having resulted in a ban on the extraction of water from water courses for use on vulnerable crops.
      In Committee, the Minister managed only to fumble his way through this issue and did not give us a good enough reason why the limit should be four years. He stated that the four-year period could be extended by the Environment Agency if the licence holder had a legitimate case for wanting a longer period, but what
      26
      qualifies as a legitimate case for extension? This is all a bit vague and uncertain, and we should like a provision in the Bill that would clarify the matter.
      The Minister's argument in Committee for the reduction from seven years to four was that it struck a balance between meeting the needs of the abstractor and being fair to those who wanted to start abstraction but were unable to do so because others were just sitting on their licences. He then admitted, however, that there had been a grand total of zero incidences of people being denied licences for abstraction because others were holding on to unused ones, thereby undermining his own argument. My amendment to change the time limit from four years to six would allow for changing cycles, which the licence holder would deal with, and bring the provision into line with the catchment management scheme.
      Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12 also deal with the time periods relating to licences, which are currently too short in that they are meaningful for only 12 years. Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that the expiry date on licences takes into account water availability and the investment needs of the abstractor. Amendment No. 11 would ensure that the life expectancy of associated infrastructure works was taken into account by the Environment Agency, in that it should make a decision on the life of an abstraction licence only when it had considered the infrastructure costs and investments associated with the abstraction. That would provide the benefit of a more consistent and transparent framework for decision making. The British Soft Drinks Association is extremely concerned about this matter as that industry is dependent on high-cost machinery, and that is not reflected in the length of time a licence lasts. The length of a licence must take into account the type of investment involved and compensation when licences are cancelled.
      Amendment No. 12 seeks to write a presumption of renewal into the Bill. In Committee, the Minister read out the four test criteria for consideration of licences longer than 12 years, as set down in the policy document "Taking Water Responsibly". He also read out two sets of criteria to comfort companies that have a presumption of renewal. These are clear tests, which is why they should be included in the Bill rather than in separate documents, which would be most unfair to companies that would consequently have to ask for investment on the basis of trust, as the abstractors would not be properly financially protected in the legislation. We want to amend this unreasonable and disproportionate provision.
      Furthermore, the reason given by the Minister for not putting such measures into the Bill was that the tests for renewal could be changed at a later date, which would create a further fundamental problem for anyone investing in an affected business. The Government have completely failed to consider the effect that this uncertainty would have on businesses that were unable to find willing investors because the measures could be altered. My amendment would ensure that abstraction licences would take into account longer-term considerations by putting the presumption of renewal and the compensatory element into the Bill.

      27
      Amendment No. 32 would retain the seven-year period during which compensation would be available on the removal of a licence due to non-use, plant health reasons or the more normal crop rotation reasons. The Bill would reduce the period from seven years to four.
      Amendment No. 33 seeks to ensure that the revocation of any licence causing damage would be undertaken only when a thorough examination under the habitats directive of all sites had been completed, rather than trying to do so on an arbitrary basis on 15 July 2012 as is provided for in the Bill. The Minister and the Environment Agency should have some flexibility in the Bill to avoid a potentially difficult situation in 11 years' time if, due to unforeseen circumstances, the assessment of an abstraction licence had been delayed and abstractors had been caught by a guillotine. The addition of such a measure to the Bill would provide assurances to all those involved. The amendment does not seek to set a later date, or even to remove the right of the Environment Agency to revoke a licence that is causing serious environmental damage; it would simply provide a mechanism for the Minister to delay, should that become necessary.
      3.45 pm
      Experience has shown that deadlines do slip. In that event, such a serious consequence as the removal of a valuable property right would not be acceptable without being based on transparent and robust examination of the facts. Any removal of the right of abstraction must be supported by robust scientific evidence, and not driven merely by the precautionary principle or a looming deadline.
      The revocation of a licence is a serious matter, especially when the continuation of a producer's business depends on access to water. It is clearly not in the abstractor's interest to cause serious environmental damage, and it must be a minority of licences that fall into this category. Sustainable abstraction is the goal that the Environment Agency, farmers and growers work towards, and should not be jeopardised by a last-minute administrative panic by the regulator, who is bound by a rigid end-date. Our proposal would allow the flexibility that is reasonable.
      Norman Baker: We are under some time pressure, especially as many Members will probably want to speak about fluoride, so I shall be fairly brief.
      I am grateful to the Government for tabling the programme motion last week. That helped a little. I am bound to say, however, that a day and a half for discussion would have been more appropriate than a day, which is why my colleagues and I voted against the motion.
      The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) was right to raise the presumption of renewal of licences. New clause 12, tabled by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), seeks to achieve approximately the same end. It takes its wording from the Environment Agency's guidelines on the presumption of renewal. Many industries requiring licences have expressed a fear that it will be difficult to obtain investment with time-limited licences. That
      28
      applies to the watercress industry, in which my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) have rightly expressed an interest. It also applies to quarrying, which I know interests my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). He has been assiduous in protecting the industry in his constituency.
      We should strike a balance between environmental protection and the necessary limiting of licences, and providing a degree of certainty for businesses so that they can plan ahead. That means legislating for a presumption of renewal such as that in new clause 12. Such a move would go a long way towards satisfying industries that have rightly and understandably expressed concern, while also protecting the Government's agenda.
      Amendment No. 26 seeks to increase the maximum penalty for those who fail to deal properly with enforcement notices served on them. There is a great deal of money to be made in many industries, and it is wrong for people to be able to calculate that failing to reply to a notice is more beneficial financially than replying. Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 simply seek to tie down the issue of when the Secretary of State should be able to exercise what is, in the Bill, a wide discretion by limiting the matters in question to those involving national security. In Committee the Minister indicated that national security was the reason for the provision in the Bill, and no one dissented at the time. The amendments seek to prevent it from being interpreted too widely.
      Amendment No. 126 deals with the watercress industry, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole may wish to speak later.
      These are modest amendments, but I think that they will go a long way towards improving the Bill, and I hope the Government will view them sympathetically.
      Mr. David Heath: I want to say a little about quarry de-watering, in which, as the Minister knows, I take some interest. I know that the Minister and his colleagues have been very active in trying to discuss it with the industry, and to find a way out of the impasse that has developed.
      The issue is simply stated. The difference between the lifetime of a de-watering licence and the lifetime of a permission for mineral extraction means that there can be no certainty, which is a necessary component if investment is to be made in a quarrying undertaking. That has a knock-on effect on the company's profitability and on the more general environmental interests of the type of community that I represent. The Minister will know that probably the highest concentration of limestone extraction workings in the country is found in the east Mendips. I accept some of the reasons why the Minister would reject establishing a link—I realise that it would set a precedent for other industries—but if there is no link and no clear presumption in favour of renewal, certain problems will arise.
      First, as I said, it will be difficult for companies to make the investment decisions that they need to make when approaching a new permission, which will have a knock-on effect on the profitability and viability of the

      29
      industry. I have some experience of this issue, having sat on a minerals planning authority for 12 years and gone through a long phase of arm-wrestling in some cases, co-operation in others, with the quarrying industry to establish a sensible regime for the granting of permissions. The second problem I foresee is that if quarrying companies cannot go deeper and use the present spatial extent of their permissions to go below the water table, which inevitably requires a degree of water abstraction, their alternative is to use extant planning permissions to go wider. Often, those extant planning permissions are not in areas that the local community, the local planning authority or the Government want the industry to turn to for the stone reserves that national and local interests require.
      The issue harks back to interim development orders and the regime with which the Minister is familiar, which has produced difficulties over the years. I vividly recall the long debate that we in Somerset had before giving permission for the first sub-water table working. We had difficulty identifying the hydrogeology of the east Mendips and determining whether we would destroy aquifers and what the long-term consequences would be. It seems to me that, despite the undoubted difficulties of sub-water table undertakings, managing them in an environmentally sensible way is probably preferable to the alternative, which is opportunistic use of existing planning permissions balanced by neither a compensatory regime nor a control regime.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: As one who represents another part of the country with quarrying interests, I strongly support my hon. Friend's views. Does he agree that this is a classic case of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? The Environment Agency is happy with the way in which the regimes are working, and the lack of synchronisation between the existing regimes and the proposed new regimes in terms of time scale is extremely worrying from the point of view of effective planning.
      Mr. Heath: I agree. That is the difficulty we face. We do not want to throw the doors wide open to anyone to abstract water over any period simply because they have a planning permission. I understand the Government's position, which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). However, there are differences between the quarrying industry and other industries that might seek abstraction licences. Essentially, quarrying is a non-consumptive industry. First, it does not take the water away, which would be a clear potential environmental threat, but stores it and replaces it in a manner determined via the licence and permission. Secondly, a quarrying company has few alternatives. If a company that wants to abstract water for its use cannot do so because of an environmental licensing argument, it can go elsewhere, but a quarry cannot go elsewhere. It remains where it is and it has to be de-watered; otherwise, it is a large hole with water at the bottom and is of no use to anyone. There is a case for individual treatment of the quarrying industry.
      I have examined the amendments and new clauses carefully. I can understand the argument of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) in support of new clause 2, but I also understand why the Government may not be entirely satisfied with it. I must tell the hon.
      30
      Gentleman that I am worried about the compensation provisions of new clause 3 because I have some experience of the effect of compensation on the quashing of inappropriate interim development orders. In fact, it paralysed the planning authorities and prevented them from taking any sensible decisions on behalf of local communities simply because the costs were out of all proportion to the resources available to the local community. If I have a quibble, it is simply that. I am aware of that particular difficulty.
      I am certainly taken by the Liberal Democrat new clause 12, which is very simple and states what we believe to be the policy of the agency, on which the Minister has provided assurances, and we would like it to be incorporated in the Bill. I enthusiastically support new clause 12, not only in the interests of the industry, which is important in my constituency, but in the interests of the local environment.
      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I wish to speak briefly to amendment No. 126, which was tabled by me and by my hon. Friends the Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Guildford (Sue Doughty). It is similar to an amendment that was moved in Committee, but it has been reworked to reflect the ensuing debate.
      The amendment is designed to draw attention to the fact that loss or damage is not defined in the clause, and that consequently it could become a charter for claims against long-established and ecologically valuable businesses such as watercress growers. Special natural conditions have led to the bulk of UK watercress growing occurring in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset. In Dorset, watercress is grown in Bere Regis. It is a long-established and sustainable activity, but the Bill has created concerns about its future.
      I thank the Minister for meeting representatives from the industry, me and hon. Members with constituencies in Hampshire. However, concerns remain about clause 24, which provides a new means for persons who suffer loss or damage arising from the abstraction of water to bring a claim against the extractor. Previously, the grant of a licence by the Environment Agency was a defence, and any action had to he taken against the Environment Agency for issuing the licence in the first place. The National Farmers Union is concerned that watercress growers might be exposed to unreasonable claims from those who might perceive that their property value has been adversely affected by variations in the flow of watercourses and winterbournes.
      Officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have agreed that there was no intention for the legislation to provide a means of prosecution of business by residents in an area where the change of watercourses or winterbournes was felt to affect the amenity value of properties by removing a desirable characteristic such as the noise of a babbling brook in the garden. By their very nature, many watercourses on chalk down land are intermittent and the extraction of ground water by a watercress farm will not be the only factor in determining how long and how high such a stream will run.
      Subsequently, officials said that they did not feel that such claims were likely, but the Watercress Association has already heard of homeowners who want to take

      31
      legal action against businesses for precisely that reason—despite the positive contribution of the industry to employment, tourism, inward investment, ecological gains and the preservation of a traditional industry. I hope that the Minister can respond positively today and provide further reassurances to watercress growers.
      4 pm
      Mr. Morley: I was very interested in the points put forward by hon. Members because those points were not unreasonable, and it might be helpful if I repeat the assurances that I have given the industry groups that have come to see me about a number of issues addressed in new clauses 2, 3 and 12 and amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12.
      It might be helpful if I first stress some of the safeguards in the system. I know that hon. Members are united in the desire to ensure that the Bill is an effective and sustainable resource management tool for a resource that is under increasing pressure of demand. That aim is not particularly controversial. Indeed, I am glad to say that the various industry groups have been united in saying that they support the principles behind the Bill. Not unreasonably, they want some safeguards for their own sectors and I understand that. I have tried to go as far as I can in providing safeguards without undermining the basic principle of the Bill, which is sustainable water management. I shall give details of some of the safeguards for the benefit of hon. Members.
      First, new licence applicants can provide a business case to the Environment Agency to support the need for a licence with a longer duration. The agency must have regard to all relevant considerations and if there is a strong business case for a licence longer than 12 years—which is a guideline only, and not set in stone—the agency can take that case into account.
      Secondly, as I have stressed on several occasions, the policy presumption is in favour of licence renewal. That was initially set out, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) said, in the Government's policy document, "Taking Water Responsibly" in 1999. If a licence is still required and water is being used efficiently, the licence will be severely curtailed or not renewed only if the activities are causing unacceptable damage to the environment. Indeed, companies will have opportunities to discuss mitigation measures, which, in some cases, may not lead to curtailment. However, the means to curtail or refuse a licence is a powerful tool to enable the Environment Agency to deal with unsustainable extraction of water, as has happened in some cases. Abstractors will be given six years' notice of likely non-renewal or changes in the terms of their licence, which will give them time to find a sustainable arrangement, such as a negotiated solution with the Environment Agency.
      As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, rights of appeal to the Secretary of State already exist under the Water Resources Act 1991 in relation to agency decisions on the granting of licences, including licence length and licence revocation or variation. The Bill does not take
      32
      those rights away. Therefore, rights of appeal exist if abstractors feel aggrieved by the Environment Agency's decision.
      Mr. Wiggin: I apologise for missing the first 30 seconds of the Minister's speech. Why is it important that the safeguards that he has just mentioned—I am sure that the industry is grateful for them—are not included in the Bill?
      Mr. Morley: To put it in a nutshell, it is to do with the Environment Agency's need for flexibility and the risks of restraint and unforeseen consequences if such requirements are included in the Bill.
      Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend met representatives from the Quarry Products Association and subsequently wrote to its chairman, Lord Sutherland. Where will the Bill leave the quarrying industry? It is right that new licences can be for a longer period. It is also right that the presumption will be that licences will be renewed. However, is it not the case that in only three instances the Environment Agency has been concerned about water abstraction by quarrying and that all were resolved satisfactorily by technical solutions? Can my hon. Friend give the industry an assurance that it will have a long-term future and the opportunity to make long-term investment?
      Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt) and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), is concerned about quarrying, and I understand that. I believe, of course, that quarrying has a long-term future in this country. The idea of putting points in writing to the Quarry Products Association, after my meetings with members on both sides of the question and with the association, was to clarify formally what is intended in the Bill. It is important to any company or trade organisation to have such clarification, and the industry has what I am saying now, on the official record, and what I said in the letter, which gave the reassurances that the QPA sought. There is a fair degree of flexibility in the Bill for dealing with a range of issues.
      There are compensation provisions in the Water Resources Act 1991 for when licence revocation or modification results in loss or damage. Clause 102 of the Bill provides powers to make regulations governing compensation to be paid to any previously exempt abstractor who is not granted a licence or is granted a licence that will constrain his activity when the Bill takes effect. In addition, the Environment Agency has published draft guidance on how it will address the duration and renewal of licences. The agency will review, consult on and reissue that guidance once the Bill has been passed. It will take account of views expressed in Committee and on Report. We believe that the legislation has been framed in such a way as to provide an equitable, flexible and sustainable approach to abstraction licences.
      Mr. Heath: The Minister is being very helpful. Will he say something about the relationship, if any, between the Agency's approach to licensing and the minerals plans for specific areas? Is there any correlation between the two? Does he expect one to inform the other?
      Mr. Morley: One will inform the other on the planning boundaries and the long-term availability of mineral resources. One of the new clauses suggests that we should link the length of planning permissions to the length of licences. I cannot accept that, and I shall explain why. New clauses 2, 3 and 12 and amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 12 would all limit the Bill's operations and would fetter the Environment Agency's ability to manage our water resources sustainably. They would also fetter the Secretary of State at appeal. That is my concern about them.
      There is a question of balance, which has come up a few times. We must recognise the needs of industries that may be affected by our proposals, and we have tried to take them into account. The other side of the balance must be sustainable management. The Bill is about giving the Environment Agency the tools to do its job, and to do it effectively, while still providing the checks and balances on the agency's operations that one would expect in a democratic society. Getting the balance right is the problem, but I believe that it is right in the Bill, right in how we have tried to take account of the legitimate concerns of hon. Members, right in how I have given assurances on the record and in writing, and right in how concerns will be addressed in the Agency's guidelines.
      Norman Baker: In what way would new clause 12 fetter decision making? Surely it provides the balance that the Minister wants by containing a presumption that licences will be renewed while setting out conditions under which they may not be.
      Mr. Morley: I shall come to that point. I think in a linear way and the hon. Gentleman keeps jumping in and throwing me off my nice linear thought patterns. I assure him that I shall get there, along my linear course, so he should not worry.
      New clause 2 would remove from the Environment Agency responsibility for determining the time limit applying to licences granted for de-watering activities. The effect would be to transfer to planning authorities the responsibility for determining a key abstraction licence condition—the duration of an abstraction licence. It is not appropriate for the planning authorities rather than the Environment Agency to have that responsibility. Furthermore, if planning authorities were concerned about possible water problems, they might restrict the length of the permission. The proposal could have that unforeseen consequence.
      Mr. Wiggin: The Minister may have missed the point. The whole point of planning is to allow a company to know how long its business will be viable. If the planning authority has to take de-watering into consideration and has to issue planning permission of an appropriate length, investors can look at the situation and decide whether they want to invest in the company. We should not have that certainty under the two-part planning system. The Minister may have put his finger on the nub of the problem but he has not come to the right conclusion.
      Mr. Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point although I do not necessarily accept that it is as significant as he thinks. Companies may require
      34
      different permits for a range of operations. Some permits are annual and some are reviewed and renewed from time to time. I come back to the point about the presumption of renewal, which provides some comfort in relation to long-term planning. As I said, if the business case merits it, the length of the abstraction licence may be greater in some circumstances. The Environment Agency is always consulted about mineral plans, as are mineral planning authorities about catchment abstraction management. There is a link between the two, which relates to the question put by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.
      Mr. Tyler: The Minister has come to the point about which I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath): if it ain't broke, why fix it? The Minister has just said that the Environment Agency has a proper and effective role, so why must we change it?
      Mr. Morley: Because there have been some severe problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) is right. Offhand, I can think of only three cases that were resolved. The Environment Agency has been asking for those powers, so the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) should not think that everything in the mines sector is problem-free. If people are de-watering, they are abstracting from the aquifer. There may be ways of mitigating that, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out, but it should be within a regime that gives the Environment Agency some tools for managing the process. That is an important general principle in the Bill and I think that it is accepted; we are talking about the detail in certain circumstances. Although I understand the points that are being made, I cannot accept them. I feel that we have addressed the concerns raised in the discussions and that the balance is right.
      New clause 3 would introduce two new features, both concerned with the renewal of time-limited licences and both relating only to quarries. Our provisions are intended to create a system for sustainable water resources management that applies to all abstractors. There cannot be a separate regime with one sector being treated differently.
      The new clause would provide that compensation be paid to a quarry if a licence was not renewed or if it was curtailed. However, the only reason that a licence for quarry de-watering would not be renewed or would be curtailed would be that there was an environmental problem that could not be overcome. We should not compensate people for causing environmental damage. That is another principle in the Bill: the polluter pays.
      The proposal would include the presumption of renewal for mines and quarries as a statutory requirement. It would also introduce, in a well-established statutory decision-making process, a requirement that, where certain conditions were met, the decision would effectively be taken out of the hands of the proper decision-making body—the Environment Agency.
      New clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), would place the presumption of renewal in statute, for all abstractors. My concern is that such a provision would fetter the agency's ability to consider other relevant factors. It is difficult to define in

      35
      a Bill every factor that might arise in sufficient detail for all those cases where the presumption cannot apply. The presumption of renewal reiterates the effective presumption of grant existing at the time of the original application, provided that there is continuing need and that environmental sustainability is not threatened.
      4.15 pm
      The Environment Agency must have concrete grounds for not granting or not renewing a licence, and its decisions can be challenged by appeal. We have to be careful about including undue restraints in the Bill because one of the considerations that the agency must take into account in renewing a licence is the efficient use of water. The hon. Member for Lewes has not included that in his criteria, as far as I am aware.
      Norman Baker: That is covered by environmental sustainability and water abstraction in new clause 12.
      Mr. Morley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that that is his intention, but new clause 12 does not say that. [Interruption.] He can imagine how such meanings could be argued over in court. We should be as clear as possible in framing legislation. If it is impossible to deal with every circumstance in relation to the presumption of renewal, there must be flexibility to allow the agency to do its job. That is why it is unwise to stipulate in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests in new clause 12. It could lead to great difficulties in the future. My worry is that it could tie one hand behind the agency's back, and I would not want that to happen.
      Mr. Heath: I am concerned about how the agency can deal with the cumulative effect of a number of permissions on a single aquifer. Each planning permission and each licence may well not have an environmentally unsustainable effect on the aquifer, but the cumulative effect may be unsustainable. In those circumstances and under the Minister's scheme, would the agency be right to cancel all permissions in a given area?
      Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman goes into hypothetical detail. However, as a rule of thumb, the agency will certainly take into account the cumulative effect of abstraction. If a further application could add to the overall effect of a number of existing licences that would certainly affect whether a new application was granted. Of course, there is nothing new about that—the agency currently operates in that way in respect of its resource management duties—so the existing situation would not change.
      Of course, we have powers to direct the agency in how it deals with such issues if it becomes necessary to do so in the light of experience, so the presumption of renewal need not be included in the Bill, as that could be too restrictive. The presumption of renewal exists, as has been emphasised on a number of occasions, and I do so again now, so that there is no doubt or argument about it.
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 would impose particular considerations in specifying the expiry date of a licence. Incorporating criteria, such as fixed duration, or the
      36
      need to relate licences to asset-lifetime criteria could have the effect of overriding other criteria, not least environmental considerations. So those amendments are unacceptable.
      Amendment No. 12 would significantly limit the ability of the agency to refuse to renew a licence to the very narrow set of circumstances set out in that amendment. It would remove the tests to ensure whether water continues to be used efficiently or is still required. The hon. Member for Lewes says that such things are covered by sustainability, but there could be argument about that.
      I come now to amendment No. 10. I met representatives of mineral water companies, and I understand their concerns about what might happen if someone wishes to construct a borehole adjacent to the site of their existing abstraction licence. Of course, existing licence holders do have protected rights in respect of quantities. I realise that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) is concerned that boreholes might affect the chemical composition of the water, and I pointed out in my discussions with mineral water companies that I would ask the agency whether it could take such issues into account. However, there are real problems. The agency does not have a duty to take into account the effect of boreholes on the mineral composition of water. The agency's duty relates simply to quantities, so amendment No. 10 would not have the effect that the hon. Gentleman argues for. Moreover, there would be real technical problems. The greater protection is on the quantities and on the rights of existing licence holders. As has rightly been stated, there is deregulation under a certain threshold, but if a problem arose the threshold could be lowered.
      Amendment No. 24 would restrict the Secretary of State's ability to direct the agency to apply for a threshold order under new section 27A of the Water Resources Act 1991. The Secretary of State would be able to exercise this power only in relation to issues of national importance. The power to intervene, exceptional as it is, may be used to make changes to reflect important national policy matters, but it could also be used in respect of matters on which the agency had yet to have the opportunity to take action. To enable full accountability between the Secretary of State and the agency, it is necessary to have the ability to intervene in unforeseen circumstances, which may encompass wider issues than those of national importance. Again, we must ensure that the agency has flexibility.
      Amendment No. 25 deals with advertising regulations a—matter to which Members did not give a great deal of attention—and amendment No. 4 is concerned with protected rights. There seemed to be some confusion in Committee about the question of the time limit, and I must make it clear that we are talking about protected rights, not the right to abstract. Clause 17 preserves the protected right of those abstractors who no longer require a licence as a result of the Bill's various deregulatory measures—in other words, those who are below the current threshold. But where the right to abstract is not exercised, the protected right may lapse after four years, or—as was rightly pointed out—after another such period, as agreed by the agency. The intention is to prevent any unused abstraction rights from blocking access to water resources by preventing

      37
      the issuing of new licences. But I must stress that that the loss of a protected right after four years does not prevent an abstraction from taking place. Unlicensed abstraction can continue lawfully at any time because it is below the threshold; it is simply the status of the abstraction that changes.
      Amendment No. 4 seeks to change the period from four years to six years—an issue that was discussed in Committee. We believe that the proposed normal four-year period achieves a balance between the needs of an abstractor for the resources that they have a right to abstract, and the needs of other licence applicants, and, of course, of the environment.
      Clause 24 introduces the right to sue an abstractor who causes damage. Abstractors will therefore need to remain alert to the possibility that they are harming others, if they are to avoid being subject to claims for damages. That will ensure that the law on water abstraction is entirely consistent with long-established rules in other areas—for example, the requirement for property owners and other occupiers or users of land to respect the interests of their neighbours. I understand what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said about the concern that that might lead to some house owners taking action. She gave an example of people in the watercress industry, and amendment No. 126 would provide a restricted definition of loss or damage. Different rules would apply to loss or damage under these provisions compared to the usual principles that apply to other cases.
      Although the most common type of damage will be tangible damage to property, people who have suffered kinds of otherwise recoverable harm should have the ability to obtain the appropriate compensation. However, if the hon. Lady thinks that that might provide an excuse for someone to take legal action because they might argue that the water flow in the stream outside their house has devalued their property because it is on the waterside, I assure her that that is not the intention of clause 24. Just like anything else, such a case would have to be made in a court of law, and our legal advisers inform me that it would be very difficult to make such a case. In the end, it is for the court to decide, but it is not the Bill's intention to provide such a right. The Bill simply intends to put in place provision for similar rights to apply in similar circumstances so that there is consistency. I do not believe that it will necessarily bring about major changes.
      I think that I have covered the main points that have not unreasonably been raised. I hope that I have addressed those points in a serious and detailed manner and provided reassurance to Members who have spoken on behalf of companies in their constituencies. I emphasise that we take such points seriously and are seeking to address them as far as possible as we seek a balance between sustainable management, the powers of the Environment Agency and the rights of abstractors.
      Mr. Wiggin: The Minister was correct when he said that he had addressed these important and well made points.
      Will the Minister consider a suggestion about the letter that he sent to the chairman of the quarrying industry? I accept that the Minister is worried about
      38
      putting the contents of that letter in the Bill, and he made very clear the reasons for his not doing so. However, is there anything more that we can ask him to do to clarify the contents of the letter? I suggest that putting a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library might be the easiest way of allowing everyone to see its contents. [Interruption.] There is some nodding in the distance. I hope that that is a positive sign.
      We talked about the presumption of renewal being needed in the Bill. The Minister says, "No, I do not agree on that one." We also talked about contamination affecting the bottling sector.
      Mr. Morley: Although the letter was written to a third-party organisation, I confirm that, as far as we are concerned, it is a matter of public record. I am quite sure that we can arrange to put a copy in the Library.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am delighted by that good news. It is a positive response and I know that many people have worked hard to obtain such assurances from the Minister. I am grateful to him for allowing everyone to see the letter's contents by putting a copy in the House of Commons Library.
      To return to the point that I was about to make about bottling rights, the Environment Agency is responsible for the quantities abstracted but not for the quality. I completely accept and understand that, but I was not so happy with what the Minister said about the contamination effect. Although in most cases this would not happen, drilling into an aquifer can have a negative effect and pollution might reach the public through bottled water. I accept that many checks and balances are in place.
      Mr. Morley: I want to make it clear that although the principal consideration is quantity, quality and the potential for pollution are other criteria that the agency must take into account. Whether there is potential for pollution is an important consideration in whether a licence is granted.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Wiggin: I am clearly on a roll today because the Minister is being very helpful.
      The Environment Agency must also be responsible for environmental impact and if that is manifested by pollution, it should be responsible for that, whether it wants to be or not. Pollution causes environmental damage, so it does not matter how it occurs. The agency should examine its remit on the damage of aquifers carefully. I am also grateful to the Minister for touching on protected rights.
      The majority of what the Minister said was extremely helpful. I am grateful for his words and the letter that he will put in the Library, but we do need to amend the Bill somewhat.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 318.

      39

      Division No. 354]

      [4:30

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bacon, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Barker, Gregory

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Lidington, David

      Bercow, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Blunt, Crispin

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Boswell, Tim

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Maclean, rh David

      Brady, Graham

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Brazier, Julian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Burns, Simon

      Maples, John

      Burt, Alistair

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Butterfill, John

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cash, William

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfied)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Chope, Christopher

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Clappison, James

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Ottaway, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Page, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Paterson, Owen

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Pickles, Eric

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Curry, rh David

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Redwood, rh John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Evans, Nigel

      Ruffley, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fallon, Michael

      Selous, Andrew

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Simmonds, Mark

      Flight, Howard

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Flook, Adrian

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Soames, Nicholas

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Garnier, Edward

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Spring, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Steen, Anthony

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Streeter, Gary

      Grayling, Chris

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Syms, Robert

      Greenway, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Grieve, Dominic

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tredinnick, David

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Walter, Robert

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Watkinson, Angela

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Whittingdale, John

      Howard, rh Michael

      Wiggin, Bill

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Wilkinson, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Wilshire, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Mr. Mark Francois and

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Mr. John Randall

      40

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Ainger, Nick

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Allan, Richard

      Dawson, Hilton

      Allen, Graham

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Denham, rh John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Austin, John

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bailey, Adrian

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Baird, Vera

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Baker, Norman

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Banks, Tony

      Doran, Frank

      Barnes, Harry

      Doughty, Sue

      Barrett, John

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Beard, Nigel

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bell, Stuart

      Edwards, Huw

      Bennett, Andrew

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Berry, Roger

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Betts, Clive

      Etherington, Bill

      Blackman, Liz

      Farrelly, Paul

      Blizzard, Bob

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Borrow, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Flint, Caroline

      Brennan, Kevin

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bryant, Chris

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Burden, Richard

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burnham, Andy

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burstow, Paul

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Goggins, Paul

      Cairns, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Casale, Roger

      Hanson, David

      Caton, Martin

      Healey, John

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Challen, Colin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Chaytor, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chidgey, David

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clelland, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Colman, Tony

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Howarth, George (Knows/ey N & Sefton E

      Cooper, Yvette

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Crausby, David

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cummings, John

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Hutton, rh John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      David, Wayne

      Jamieson, David

      41

      Jenkins, Brian

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Organ, Diana

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Perham, Linda

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Picking, Anne

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bo/ton W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Pound, Stephen

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Purnell, James

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Rammell, Bill

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Linton, Martin

      Rendel, David

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruane, Chris

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCafferty, Chris

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McDonnell, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      MacDougall, John

      McFall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Salter, Martin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sanders, Adrian

      McKechin, Ann

      Sawford, Phil

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheridan, Jim

      McNulty, Tony

      Short, rh Clare

      MacShane, Denis

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Singh, Marsha

      McWalter, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Martlew, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Stevenson, George

      Michael, rh Alun

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Straw, rh Jack

      Mole, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moore, Michael

      Stunell, Andrew

      Moran, Margaret

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morley, Elliot

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Teather, Sarah

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      42

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Tipping, Paddy

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Winnick, David

      Trickett, Jon

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Ward, Claire

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Watts, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Gillian Merron and

      White, Brian

      Ms Bridget Prentice

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 1

      LICENCES TO ABSTRACT WATER
      Amendment made: No. 54, in page 2, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—

      'transferring water to another source of supply; or

      transferring water to the same source of supply, but at another point, in the course of dewatering activities in connection with mining, quarrying, engineering, building or other operations (whether underground or on the surface),

      —in either case without intervening use (a "transfer licence");'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 2
      RESTRICTIONS ON IMPOUNDING
      Amendment made: No. 55, in page 3, line 19, leave out '"relevant' and insert '"the relevant'.—[Mr. Morley.]
    Clause 3

      EXISTING IMPOUNDING WORKS
      Amendments made: No. 56, in page 4, line 6, leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 57, in page 4, line 8, leave out 'such notices' and insert
      'notice of appeal under subsection (4)'.
      No. 58, in page 4, line 39, leave out 'otherwise,' and insert 'in relation to England,'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 10
      ORDERS UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE WRA, ETC
      Amendment made: No. 59, in page 13, line 34, leave out 'be taken to continue' and insert 'continue to be taken'.—[Mr. Morley.]
    Clause 15

      GENERAL CONSIDERATION OF LICENCE APPLICATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 60, in page 18, line 42, at end insert 'or a transfer licence'.
      No. 61, in page 19, line 1, leave out 'full licence' and insert
      'licence of the same type'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 17

      PROTECTED RIGHTS
      Amendments made: No. 62, in page 20, line 20, leave out 'is taken to continue' and insert 'continues to be taken'.
      No. 63, in page 20, line 23, leave out
      '(subject to subsection (11) of that section)'.
      No. 64, in page 20, line 25, leave out 'is taken to continue' and insert 'continues to be taken'.
      No. 65, in page 20, line 28, leave out 'is taken to continue' and insert 'continues to be taken'.
      No. 66, in page 20, line 36, leave out
      'that quantity or, if lower,'.
      No. 67, in page 20, leave out lines 38 to 44 and insert—
      '(3) The maximum quantity is the lower of the following—

      (a) twenty cubic metres;

      if, by virtue of an order under section 27A(1) above, section 27(1) above has, or has ever had, effect in relation to the source of supply and point of abstraction in question as if it referred to a quantity lower than twenty cubic metres, that lower quantity (or, if more than one, the lowest of them.'.

      No. 68, in page 21, line 18, leave out 'other provision mentioned in' and insert
      'provision mentioned in paragraph (a), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of.
      No. 69, in page 21, line 29, leave out 'be taken to continue' and insert 'continue to be taken'.
      No. 70, in page 21, line 32, leave out 'be taken to continue' and insert 'continue to be taken'.
      No. 71, in page 21, line 45, after 'or', insert 'abstractions'.
      No. 72, in page 21, line 48, leave out 'subsection (8)' and insert 'subsections (8) and (9)'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 19

      FORM, CONTENTS AND EFFECT OF LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 73, in page 23, line 13, leave out '(4)' and insert '(4A)'.
      No. 74, in page 23, line 33, at end insert—
      (4A) In subsection (7), for "or by different means" there is substituted ", by different means or for different purposes".'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 23

      TRANSFER AND APPORTIONMENT OF LICENCES
      Amendments made: No. 75, in page 27, line 45, after 'licence', insert
      'other than a temporary licence'.
      No. 76, in page 28, line 21, leave out
      'it is proposed he be permitted'
      and insert 'he proposes'.
      No. 77, in page 28, line 24, leave out
      'it is proposed he be permitted'
      and insert 'he proposes'.
      No. 78, in page 28, line 25, leave out from 'which' to 'abstract' in line 26 and insert
      those persons referred to in paragraph (a) above who would require a new licence granted under subsection (5) below would'.
      No. 79, in page 28, line 30, leave out
      'those persons would be permitted to'
      and insert
      'that the persons referred to in paragraph (a) above would'.
      No. 80, in page 29, line 36, leave out 'of four years' and insert
      'mentioned in subsection (11A) below'.
      No. 81, in page 29, line 40, at end insert—
      '(11A) The period referred to in subsection (11)(a) above is—

      four years; or

      if the abstractions authorised under the old licence were abstractions planned to be carried out at intervals of more than four years, or abstractions for emergency purposes only, such longer period as the Agency may determine on the application of the person in question.'.

      No. 82, in page 29, line 42, leave out from 'treated' to end of line 45 and insert—

      '(a)as if it had been granted at the time the old licence was granted; and

      as if it and any other new licence granted by virtue of the relevant apportionment notice had been granted in place of the old licence.'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 24

      CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF WATER ABSTRACTION
      Amendments made: No. 83, in page 31, line 15, leave out second 'loss or damage'.
      No. 84, in page 31, line 16, after 'and', insert 'is loss or damage'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 27

      WITHDRAWAL OF COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN REVOCATIONS AND VARIATIONS
      Amendment made: No. 85, in page 33, line 18, after 'WRA', insert
      '(which provide for the Secretary of State to direct the Environment Agency to revoke or vary a licence in certain circumstances)'.[Mr. Morley.]

    New Clause 5

      REGULATORY METHODOLOGY
      'After section 2 of the WIA there is inserted—
      "2B Regulatory methodology
      (1)The Authority shall prepare and publish a statement of policy with respect to its determination of charges in periodic reviews and interim determinations under all or any of the instruments of appointment of companies as relevant undertakers made by virtue of Part 2 of this Act.
      (2)The Authority's statement of policy under this section shall include a statement of its policy with regard to the following matters—

      (a)the carrying out of its duties under this Act insofar as they relate to its determination of charges;

      (b)the matters to be taken into account and the methodologies to be applied in its determination of charges; and

      45

      (c)the extent to which the performance of functions by persons with powers and duties conferred or imposed by or under this Act or any other enactment are relevant to its determination of charges.

      (3)The Authority shall determine charges in periodic reviews and interim determinations under a company's instrument of appointment as a relevant undertaker on the basis of the most recently published statement of policy.
      (4)The Authority may revise its statement of policy and where it does so shall publish the revised statement.
      (5)Publication under this section shall be in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters contained in the statement of policy to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them and shall not be made less than twelve months before a periodic review.
      (6)When preparing or revising its statement of policy under this section, the Authority shall consult relevant undertakers and such other persons as it considers appropriate, subject to the requirements of subsection (7) below.
      (7)For the purposes of subsection (6) above—

      (a)consultation shall be by way of written notice given by the Authority not less than six months prior to the publication of the statement of policy which it is preparing or revising;

      (b)such notice shall state—

      (i)the matters which the Authority proposes to publish in its statement of policy and its reasons for including them in the statement; and

      (ii)a period of not less than three months within which that person may give written notice of objection with respect to the matters referred to in the notice; and

      (c)the Authority shall give each person a reasonable opportunity to make oral representations to it on the matters referred to in the notice.

      (8)The Authority shall not issue or publish a statement of policy unless—

      (a)no notice of objection to the policy is given to the Authority within the time period specified in its notice under subsection (7); or

      (b)if one or more relevant undertakers gives notice of objection to the Authority within that time—

      (i)the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant undertakers who have given notice of objection is less than such percentage as may be prescribed; and

      (ii)the percentage given by subsection (9) is less than such percentage as may be prescribed.

      (9)The percentage given by this subsection is the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant undertakers who have given notice of objection, weighted according to their market share in such manner as may be prescribed.
      (10)If the conditions referred to in subsection (8) are not met, the Authority shall (within three months of its receipt of the first or only notice of objection) refer the policy to the Competition Commission for review.
      (11)Where a reference is made to the Competition Commission under this section, it shall be the duty of the Competition Commission to determine whether the policy which is the subject of the reference operates in a manner best calculated to fulfil the duties of the Authority arising under this Act.
      (12)Where a reference is made to the Competition Commission under this section, the Authority shall not prepare or revise its statement of policy other than on the basis of the determinations of the Competition Commission.
      (13)The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he considers appropriate for regulating the procedure to be followed with respect to any reference to the Competition Commission under this section.
      (14)Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (13) above, regulations under that subsection may, in relation to any such reference, apply (with or without modifications) the provisions of any enactment relating to the references to the Competition Commission under the provisions of this Act, the Fair Trading Act 1973 or the Competition Act 1988.".'.—[Mr. Wiggin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Wiggin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 6—Health and Safety Commission—
      'After section 2 of the WIA there is inserted—
      "2A Health and Safety Commission
      (1)The Secretary of State, the Assembly and the Authority shall from time to time consult the Health and Safety Commission, and relevant undertakers, about all safety matters which may be relevant to the carrying out of any of their and relevant undertakers' respective functions under this Act.
      (2)The Secretary of State, the Assembly and the Authority shall, in carrying out their functions under this Act, take into account any advice given by the Health and Safety Commission about any safety issue, whether or not in response to consultation under subsection (1).".'.
      New clause 7—Appeals against enforcement orders—
      (1)Section 21 of the WIA (validity of enforcement orders) is amended as follows.
      (2)At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), there is omitted the word "or".
      (3)After paragraph (b) of subsection (1), there is added—

      (c)"that the making or confirmation of the order was based on an error of law or fact; or

      (d)that in the circumstances of the case, the making or confirmation of the order was not reasonable."

      (4)For subsection (2) there is substituted—
      (2)"On any such application, the High Court may, if satisfied that any of the grounds set out in subsection (1) above are proved—

      (a)quash the order or any provision of the order; or

      (b)vary the whole of the order, or any part of the order whether the application relates to that part of the order or not.".'.

      New clause 10—Duty to carry out regulatory impact assessments—
      'After section 5 of the WIA there is inserted—
      "5A Duty to carry out impact assessments
      (1)This section applies where—

      (a) the Authority is proposing to do anything for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of its functions; and

      (b) it appears to it that the proposal is important;

      but this section does not apply if it appears to the Authority that the urgency of the matter makes it impracticable or inappropriate for it to comply with the requirements of this section.
      (2)A proposal is important for the purposes of this section only if its implementation would be likely to do one or more of the following—

      (a) to involve a major change in the activities carried on by the Authority;

      47

      (b)to have a significant impact on persons carrying on business in the markets for any of the services and facilities in relation to which the Authority has functions; or

      (c)to have a significant impact on the general public in England and Wales or in a part of England and Wales.

      (3)Before implementing its proposal, the Authority must either—

      (a) carry out and publish an assessment of the likely impact of implementing the proposal; or

      (b)publish a statement setting out its reasons for thinking that it is unnecessary for it to carry out an assessment.

      (4) An assessment carried out under this section—

      (a) may take such form, and

      (b) must relate to such matters.

      as the Authority considers appropriate.
      (5) In determining the matters to which an assessment under this section should relate, the Authority must have regard to such general guidance relating to the carrying out of impact assessments as it considers appropriate.
      (6) Where the Authority publishes an assessment under this section—

      (a) it must provide an opportunity of making representations to it about its proposal to members of the public and other persons who, in the Authority's opinion, are likely to be affected to a significant extent by its implementation;

      (b) the published assessment must be accompanied by a statement setting out how representations may be made; and

      (c) the Authority is not to implement its proposal unless the period for making representations about it has expired and it has considered all the representations that were made in that period.

      (7) Where the Authority is required (apart from this section)—

      (a) to consult about a proposal to which this section applies, or

      (b) to give a person an opportunity of making representations about it,

      the requirements of this section are in addition to, but may be performed contemporaneously with, the other requirements.
      (8) Every report under section 192B must set out—

      (a) a list of the assessments under this section carried out during the financial year to which the report relates; and

      (b) a summary of the decisions taken during that year in relation to proposals to which assessments carried out in that year or previous financial years relate.

      (9) The publication of anything under this section must be in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons who, in the Authority's opinion, are likely to be affected if its proposal is implemented.".'.
      Amendment No. 19, in schedule 1, page 135, line 8, after 'chairman', insert ',a chief executive'.
      Amendment No. 29, in page 135, line 8, leave out 'and'.
      Amendment No. 20, in page 135, line 8, leave out 'at least two' and insert 'no fewer than three'.
      Amendment No. 30, in page 135, line 9, at end insert
      'and one other member appointed by the National Assembly for Wales'.
      Amendment No. 21, in page 135, line 9, at end insert—
      48
      '(IA)'Including the chairman, the majority of members of the Authority shall be nonexecutive members.'.
      Amendment No. 31, in page 135, line 24, after 'State', insert
      'or the National Assembly for Wales in the case of a member appointed by the Assembly'.
      Amendment No. 14, in page 136, line 15, at beginning insert—

      (1) 'The Secretary of State shall, after consulting the chairman and the Assembly, appoint a person (who may, subject to subparagraph (2), also be a member of the Authority) to act as chief executive of the Authority on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may think appropriate.

      (2) A person appointed as chief executive may not at the same time be a chairman.'.

      Amendment No. 18, in clause 38, page 42, line 20, at end insert—
      '(2A) That description must include, so far as the Authority believes it to be relevant for the financial year in question, a statement concerning how the Authority intends thereby to meet its objectives and duties.'.
      Amendment No. 127, in clause 41, page 48, line 34, after 'research', insert 'and regulatory impact assessment'.
      Amendment No. 128, in page 48, line 47, at end insert `and
      (b) a regulatory impact assessment of his proposals to be carried out for the purpose of assessing the likely quantitative and qualitative environmental, public health, economic and social impacts of his proposals.
      (7A) The Secretary of State shall not proceed with any proposal for the making of regulations under subsection (4) above where it is apparent from the regulatory impact assessment carried out under subsection (7)(b) above that the adverse effects of the regulations would outweigh their benefit.'.
      Amendment No. 129, in clause 42, page 50, line 17, after 'research', insert 'and regulatory impact assessment'.
      Amendment No. 130, in page 50, line 30, at end insert 'and
      (b) a regulatory impact assessment of his proposals to be carried out for the purpose of assessing the likely quantitative and qualitative environmental, public health, economic and social impacts of his proposals.
      (7A) The Secretary of State shall not proceed with any proposal for the making of regulations under subsection (4) above where it is apparent from the regulatory impact assessment carried out under subsection (7)(b) above that the adverse effects of the regulations would outweigh their benefit.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 87 to 89.
      Amendment No. 22, in schedule 4, page 174, line 35, leave out from 'which' to end of line 39 and insert 'represents either—

      (a) the amount which the water undertaker—

      (i) reasonably expected to recover from relevant customers; but

      (ii) is unable to recover from those customers as a result of their premises being supplied with water by the licensed water supplier; or

      (b) the amount which represents the costs incurred by the water undertaker in carrying out its functions insofar as they are—

      (i) directly related to the customer in question, or

      (ii) represent an allocation of the water undertakers' fixed costs,

      as the Authority may in any case determine.

      49
      (3A) The Authority may, in determining the appropriate amount for the purposes of subsection (3) above, take account of the benefits to consumers of determining an amount which promotes competition in wholesale water supply by secondary water undertakers.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 123, 107 and 110.
      Mr. Wiggin: The new clause would require the water services regulation authority to publish a statement of policy on its determination of charges. The statement would have to include how it had carried out its duties, the applied methodology and the extent to which functions had been performed. Six months before publishing the statement of policy, the authority would also have to consult relevant undertakers about the determination of charges, which would allow each relevant person the opportunity to make an oral representation on any objections. If the authority did not meet such conditions as are laid out in proposed subsection (8), the policy would be referred to the Competition Commission for determination. The new clause would hold the authority accountable for publishing its intentions of determined charges in order to make the process more open, transparent and inclusive for the water industry.
      New clause 6 seeks to ensure that health and safety is maintained in the functioning of all relevant water bodies and undertakers by regular monitoring. That would be carried out through consultation between the Secretary of State, the National Assembly for Wales, the authority and the Health and Safety Commission. The Secretary of State, the Assembly and the authority must take on board any advice given about any safety issue in carrying out their functions. I am concerned that the Bill does not address safety carefully enough, but the new clause would ensure that it does so.
      New clause 7 seeks to expand the appeals mechanism through which water undertakers can challenge enforcement orders. Any enforcement order proved to be an error of law or unreasonable, where that is agreed by the High Court, will either be quashed or varied so that it is correct. As the Bill stands, there are not enough provisions for appeal against enforcement orders. New clause 7 would make the arrangements fairer by allowing affected businesses to continue their work if there is an unreasonable or unlawful confirmation of order.
      Amendment No. 14 follows best practice in regulatory structures by seeking to ensure that the chairman and chief executive of the water services regulation authority cannot be the same person. I am concerned that combining the posts would give one person too much power over regulation of the water industry, which could be dangerous and which the Bill addresses. A wider range of options is surely more desirable—after all, the Environment Agency separates the posts. In Committee, the Minister said that he would consult the Secretary of State to provide on Report clear guidelines on the exact structure of the procedure and on the views of the Welsh Assembly. I look forward to hearing about that. The amendment would ensure more open, diverse and discursive procedures in the structure of the water services regulation authority—for the good of not only the industry, but the consumer, whom I am, as usual, keen to protect.
      50
      Amendment No. 17 reflects my concern that although the new consumer council's access to information about licensed water suppliers is welcome, the availability of that information is too restricted. At present, the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which water companies or suppliers may refuse the council information. We are worried that there will be fewer duties to provide information than under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The criteria by which a request for information can be refused should be in the Bill. Up-to-date information is essential if the council is to act in the best interests of consumer protection. As consumers have no choice of supplier in the first place, they should be able to access information to resolve any problems. My amendment would enable the council to publish information if the benefit to the consumer was greater than the prejudicial effects on the interests of the body. Moreover, it reflects the view of the consumer council for water, which welcomes an independent consumer council, but wants the Bill to ensure that it has the right powers and resources to improve consumers' representation.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to new clause 10 and the other amendments in my name. The Minister will be familiar with the arguments that surround them, although in some cases I have tried to draft them more accurately—and perhaps more acceptably, from the Minister's point of view—to reflect my intentions.
      New clause 10 would require that where the water services regulation authority undertakes something of significance in relation to the industry and water undertakers, and where it is not a matter of urgency, it is under an obligation to carry out and to publish regulatory impact assessments. I shall not dwell on the subject of what those should cover, but hon. Members will note that subsection (5) of the new clause would require the authority to
      "have regard to such general guidance relating to the carrying out of impact assessments as is considered appropriate."
      That would include the Cabinet Office guidance that was updated in the latter part of last year. There have been some helpful innovations in respect of regulatory impact assessments, not least the inclusion of a competition assessment. The quality of such documents is a matter of continuing debate that I shall not explore further. It is important, however, that regulators should themselves have regard to the impact assessment process.
      The text of the new clause is modelled directly on section 7 of the Communications Act 2003, reflecting the duty that the Government properly laid on that sector's new regulator—Ofcom—to undertake regulatory impact assessments. I cannot see why there should be a distinction between the manner in which Ofcom is to undertake its responsibilities as a new regulator and the manner in which the new water services regulation authority is to do so. I am therefore—perhaps over-optimistically—hopeful that the Minister will say, "Thank you very much", and agree to it.
      Amendment No. 19 would insert into schedule 1 the provision that the new water services regulation authority should have not only a chairman, but a chief executive—with the implication, of course, that they

      51
      should be two separate people. That is in line with current regulatory best practice. It is also increasingly regarded as best practice in the corporate sector. Although I do not suggest that everything in the Higgs report is right, the importance of distinguishing between the roles of chairman and chief executive did not cause great controversy.
      It is important for business to distinguish between the person who is responsible for strategy and the person who has responsibility for the body's executive functions. It is even more important for regulatory bodies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) suggested, there is a danger—it is not theoretical; it has been demonstrated in the past—that a regulator who is one person can be the subject of speculation about personal views and, when a new regulator is appointed, about the way in which the policy will change simply as a consequence of a change of personality.
      We cannot remove the problem entirely but the Better Regulation Task Force's report on economic regulators said that it was desirable to move away from having the regulator as one person and that an element of greater regulatory certainty was introduced if the regulator was perceived as a corporate body rather than a personality. We are moving towards the water services regulation authority being a corporate body by looking to an authority rather than a single person such as the director general. It is no reflection on Philip Fletcher as the director general of the Office of Water Services and the way in which he has done his job that all regulators are moving in that direction. It is a retrograde step to reintroduce speculation by combining in one person the role of chairman and chief executive. If I remember rightly, the new combined code for companies reflects the desirability of distinguishing between the role of chairman and chief executive.
      Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would establish that a majority of the new authority should be non-executive members. Amendment No. 20 would establish that, in addition to the chairman and chief executive, there should be a minimum of three additional members, thus making a minimum of five and rendering practical a non-executive majority in an authority of five. Again, that is in line with best practice in corporate governance terms in the companies sector and is reflected in the structure of most regulators, including, to give a recent example, Postcomm.
      Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman rehearses arguments that we had in Committee. He and the Minister will recall that voices from all parties in Committee called for best practice. Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 reflect good practice. Although there is no need for the Minister to change the Bill, he gave an undertaking in Committee to reflect on the points that were made and give us more information on Report.
      Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is right. In Committee, he suggested that I should quit while I was ahead. Having engaged his support, if I may interpret his remarks in that way, I shall quit while I am ahead on the amendments. It is in the nature of things that we have to table the amendments again to stimulate the
      52
      debate. As the hon. Gentleman says, the Bill does not have to look different to produce a different outcome in the composition of the authority. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, we may have some good news from him. On the assumption that I am quitting while I am ahead, I shall keep moving and hope that I can win again. I appreciate that I have not won yet, but I hope to do so.
      Amendment No. 18 would take account of the fact that when the Better Regulation Task Force considered economic regulators, its recommendations reflected the fact that several regulators had been given a range of additional objectives and statutory duties that could at times come into conflict. At that time, that was not true of the director general of water services. However, we are now incorporating into the legislation some additional objectives and duties for the new water services regulatory authority—not least in relation to the pursuit of consumers' interests whenever appropriate through competition, and to environmental and social objectives.
      5 pm
      At the time, the Better Regulation Task Force said that that could create uncertainty for industry, which would be inherently undesirable. We want regulation to be predictable whenever possible, and we therefore want any possible conflicts of interest within the statutory objectives of the regulator to be interpreted in a way that is relatively predictable for the industry. The taskforce recommended that this should be done each year through the business plan of the authority concerned. In this case, the authority describes its business plan as its forward work programme, and clause 38 contains a number of provisions relating to the forward work programme of the authority. It does not, however, include an obligation to set out in the programme how the authority intends to reconcile its objectives and duties. That is an omission in comparison with the legislation that we passed last year on the establishment of Ofcom, which does have such explicit obligations built into its structure. I hope that the Minister will be able to look positively at this issue.
      The purpose of amendment No. 22 is to reflect regulatory practice among a number of regulators when considering the question of access pricing. I will not bore the House on this subject in the manner in which I detained and bored the Committee. I will simply say that, in recent examples, other regulators looking at access pricing for the purpose of stimulating competition have taken different views on how that should be done. The different approaches can be characterised either as a retail-minus or a cost-plus approach. The former looks at the retail price of what has been a monopoly undertaking and subtracts from it the avoidable costs of providing the service to customers, which is to be substituted for by a new entrant to the marketplace, and to say to that new entrant, "It is your responsibility to ensure that the amount paid to the monopoly or statutory undertaking is the equivalent to the amount that it would have expected, less the avoidable costs."
      The cost-plus approach says, "Let us find out the costs to the statutory undertaking of providing the service to the new entrant, and, through the new entrant, to the customer." Of course, that triggers a debate about

      53
      what costs are properly attributable. Members who are interested in this subject will find exactly that kind of debate taking place in the current Postcomm decision about access pricing to the Royal Mail network, where they will find a full discussion of the subject. It is therefore a matter of debate as to what extent the fixed overheads of the statutory undertaking are attributed to the new entrant or, via the new entrant, to the customer. That is why I have tried to make life simpler than it was in Committee by restructuring my proposals.
      Amendment No. 22 is therefore very straightforward. It incorporates in paragraph (a) the structure that reflects the legislation as it is currently drafted, which takes the retail-minus approach. Paragraph (b) contains a simple description of a cost-plus approach. In addition, however, I have added sub-paragraph (3A), which would provide the authority with a discretionary power to determine which of those approaches to pricing the authority may use, and, in doing so, to take into account the effects of such a decision on competition. The Minister and other Members who served on the Committee will recall that I was very concerned that the structure of pricing that has been written into the Bill will make the reality of competition far less than it ought to be, even in the limited industry to which competition is to be applied.
      Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that when challenges have been proposed, they have normally resulted in a 10 to 20 per cent. proposed reduction in water supply prices? That does not sit easily with the monopolists' view that they need a price increase. How might the matter be dealt with under the formula that my hon. Friend suggests? The monopolists will clearly say that they can only offer the price because they are cherry-picking, while the challengers will say that it is because they are more efficient.
      Mr. Lansley: At least two mechanisms will operate. There is the extent to which the regulator can deliver price reductions as a consequence of regulatory contestability, and there is the actual impact of competition. My right hon. Friend and I will probably have no trouble in agreeing that regulatory proxies of contestability have proved only modestly successful in comparison with the benefits of competition in delivering cost and thereby price reductions to consumers.
      My right hon. Friend's point about a 10 to 20 per cent. reduction is an indication—a modest indication—of what has often been delivered by the introduction of competition. I well remember that when BT introduced competition, certain people who had better be nameless were willing to go to the wall for the defence of the retail prices index formula, claiming that if the reduction went below RPI minus 1 the world as we know it would cease to exist. In fact I think the telecommunications formula reached RPI minus 12 within a few years.
      I do not know what degree of cost reduction is available in this case. As we said a number of times in Committee, the actual cost of water in relation to the cost of the fixed infrastructure that the undertaker will have to continue to maintain is very low. That means that it will be difficult to find opportunities for competition to deliver a margin to new entrants to the
      54
      marketplace while also delivering a benefit to consumers. That is one reason why the amendment is needed, especially in relation to determining the appropriate amount for access pricing by reference to the need for competition. Otherwise I think it will be squeezed out. If the primary undertakers are to receive the amount they expected, less identified and avoidable costs—which constitute a very small part of the overall price to customers, even the very large customers who will be the subject of competition—it will be difficult for secondary suppliers to enter the marketplace and deliver a margin against that.
      I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, which has allowed me to extend the argument a little. This is not just about offering the authority the flexibility that it ought to have in relation to access pricing; we should also provide a statutory power to help the delivery of competition. As I said in Committee, I am surprised that having talked of the introduction of competition, the Government have framed the Bill in a way that makes it extremely unlikely that it will be effective. It is important for us to challenge that now.
      The benefit of the cost-plus route, as opposed to the retail-minus route taken by the Bill in its present form, is that it would expose the costs of primary water undertakers. In the case of Royal Mail, the principal difficulty for the new regulator was the lack of any accurate attribution of costs, or even an understanding of them, in the Post Office on which prices could be based. If the calculation had been made on a retail-minus basis, all the inaccuracies and inflationary elements of costs would have been set in stone, and Royal Mail's management would not now be having to deal with them.
      I have gone on longer than I intended to, but that often happens when we discuss access pricing. It is not everybody's cup of tea, but it is terrifically important. It may be hidden away in schedule 4, but in the absence of amendment, I fear that one of the main objectives of the Bill will be damaged.
      Sue Doughty: I shall speak first about Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 127 to 130, then comment on new clause 5.
      Our amendments reflect our concern to ensure that any new standards are based on common sense and that there are no unforeseen results. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce new standards of performance in water supply and sewerage services for water companies. Until now, standards of performance have been set either by legislation—for example, on drinking water or bathing water quality—or by the director general of water services. In making recommendations, the director general has to strike a balance between the duties given to him by Parliament towards present and future customers. Within the limits of those powers, the director general has been independent of short-term political pressures.
      We are worried because the proposals in the Bill infringe both the independence of the authority that will replace the director general of water services and the principle of parliamentary supremacy in setting the framework for water industry regulation. The proposals risk imposing unwarranted costs 5on customers in

      55
      pursuit of standards of performance set in accordance with short-term political pressures. It is not realistic to expect the proposals on standards of performance to be deleted outright; instead, there should be a duty on the Secretary of State when setting those standards to carry out a full appraisal of the standards and to implement them only if the benefits outweigh the costs.
      Mr. Redwood: Can the hon. Lady explain what the Secretary of State and the regulator should do in the event that, say, the quantitative evaluation is positive, but adverse qualitative matters have to be taken into account? If not all the factors are quantified, how are they to form a judgment?
      Sue Doughty: We should be examining the cost of changes. There are times when we have to consider standards, sustainability, regulation and other aspects of change, but in cases in which those aspects are neutral and the costs of minor changes outweigh the benefits, we want the Secretary of State to take a view. We do not want a change that will cost an arm and a leg to implement but will bring about no real benefit. Perhaps the Secretary of State has taken a view on public health or on the environment and minor changes are proposed, but the cost of those changes far outweighs the benefit. We are therefore concerned about the regulatory impact assessment. Our aim is to ensure that the Secretary of State takes account of such matters. We want to ensure that unrealistic costs are not placed on water companies and thereby on their customers, and that the checks and balances are determined by Parliament.
      We were inclined to support new clause 5, but we have some concerns, in particular about proposed new subsections (8) and (9), which refer to percentages of the relevant undertakers that have to be in agreement. A policy must be considered in the light of the number of objectors
      "weighted according to their market share in such a manner as may be prescribed."
      The nature of the water industry is such that a small number of companies control the largest market share. The result may be a policy that is skewed in favour of a few companies, as the proposals would allow them to club together to oppose the authority's proposals on a policy statement. We fear that some of the regulatory teeth would thereby be removed.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am sympathetic to the hon. Lady's fears, because the new clause is long and complex. However, does she agree that the reason it is weighted towards market share is to give due consideration to the consumer? I know that she is keen on supporting consumers, so I suggest that she looks again at the new clause. As I said, I sympathise with her fears, but they should be allayed on the basis that it is important for consumers to gain proper weighted representation. That provision is built into the new clause.
      5.15 pm
      Sue Doughty: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says and I have considerable sympathy with his view of consumers. It is one way of looking at the issue, but it
      56
      also puts disproportionate weight on businesses. I believe that the authority should act on behalf of consumers—that is what it is there to do. My fear is that the water companies, as businesses, would benefit disproportionately. Consumers might benefit sometimes, but otherwise business considerations are paramount.
      Sadly, on balance, we cannot support the new clause. We believe that, in the end, the authority should have a written statement of policy and maintain independence.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Before I speak to amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31, I want to support the amendments moved by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on best practice within what could be called "corporate social responsibility" in the widest context. His point about the separation of powers between the chief executive and the chair of the authority is important. Several hon. Members made that point in Committee and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on it tonight, so that we may have a better idea of how the Government think the authority should be run according to best practice.
      My amendments are simple, though quite far-reaching. They would ensure that the two statutory bodies established by the Bill—the water services regulation authority and the consumer council for water—have among their membership a representative not only from Wales but directly appointed by the National Assembly for Wales. I want to explain in just a couple of minutes why I believe that that is important.
      Under the Bill as it stands, members of the important statutory regulation authority will be appointed after the Secretary of State has consulted the National Assembly for Wales. That amounts to consultation, but the National Assembly for Wales has no right directly to make appointments. I dare say that it could suggest names, but it could not ensure that its favoured person sat on the board of the authority, because it is for the Secretary of State to make the appointment.
      In respect of the consumer council for water, consultation with the National Assembly applies only to appointment of the chairman, but there will also be a member on the body who is directly appointed by the National Assembly, so a twin level of devolution is going on there.
      The Government have accepted that it is important, in view of devolution and the water industry's importance to Wales—or, I should say, because there are cross-boundary issues, within the areas covered by Dwr Cymru, Welsh Water—that Welsh consumers have someone on the consumer council directly appointed by the National Assembly. However, the wider regulatory framework allows only consultation with the Assembly rather than allowing it to appoint directly to the board.
      A similar process—I accept that what we are dealing with here is indeed consistent with it—applied to the office of communications. When Ofcom was established, similar processes were taking place and I recall hearing the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire make similar arguments about the regulatory framework. We examined the issue of users or consumers having representation from Wales, but the

      57
      Secretary of State made appointments to the statutory or regulatory body on the basis of a different level of consultation with the National Assembly.
      The point behind the amendments is simple. Now that devolution is bedding down and the National Assembly is becoming a mature body that is able to take strategic decisions, and given that water is so important to Wales, should there not be a mature relationship of equality between Westminster and Cardiff? When we consider England and Wales provisions—water in Scotland is outwith the Bill—it is not too much to ask that the Assembly have the right to make a direct nomination to the authority. That non-contentious suggestion would not create any problems. However, the Government might have difficulty with it if it set a precedent for other regulatory frameworks, such as communications and broadcasting, which I mentioned earlier. Considering the importance of Welsh water to both England and Wales, I doubt whether such a right would be a problem. I accept that the Government's approach is not to hurry devolution, but if I would like it to move a little quicker, that is not an unacceptable position for a member of Plaid Cymru.
      Although my amendments are buried in a group of amendments and we will not have the opportunity to vote on them, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to expand a little on what he said in Committee about the relationship between the National Assembly, the authority, the consumer council and the Secretary of State in making the appointments. I want to hear a description of how the relationship will work when the appointments are made, and how the National Assembly Government will be involved in them. I would also like to know how the Assembly will be able to relate to the authority over time and make its views clear on priorities for Wales, which will also affect many English water users, and their context in the work of the authority.
      The amendments are straightforward. They touch on larger issues, but we need to have the context for the consumer council and the services authority set out.
      Mr. Redwood: I rise in support of new clause 5 and some of the other amendments before us. The Bill is a wasted opportunity. I strongly believe that the successful introduction of competition into the water industry would improve the service and the level of investment, and lower prices. I am disappointed that schedule 4 is still unamended, with a 50-megalitre threshold for the introduction of competition and a ban on any competition in the household sector. I have declared my interests in the register, and they include owning a household for which I would like to have a competitive water supply. I see that I shall have to await another Bill and another day to see that ambition fulfilled.
      In new clause 5, I welcome the requirement that
      "The Authority shall prepare and publish a statement of policy with respect to its determination of charges in periodic reviews and interim determinations".
      However, the authority will find that difficult, because it will experience conflicting pressures. As I suggested in an intervention, some will seek to challenge the existing incumbents in the industry and will claim that they could deliver water for 10, 15 or 20 per cent. less than the
      58
      current prices. They will claim that they could do that universally, if they were given access to the water resources; if they were allowed to tap into the rising water tables; if they were able to extract from rivers with sufficient to extract; and if they were allowed to route their product, in part or wholly, through the pipelines of the existing monopolists. The regulator will have to take that into account and the challengers will certainly present an interesting proposition. The incumbents in the industry will say that it is unrealistic. When companies offer to undercut prices at the higher end of the market, the incumbents will claim that those companies will not sort out the problems of the existing network, solve the investment backlog or offer such prices to all users. Under this legislation, that will never be tested, because competition will be so restricted.
      New clause 5 is hopeful, but I would like some reassurance from my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin)—and from the Minister, if he intends to accept it—that the authority, when preparing and publishing its statement of policy, would give due influence to what a competitive market could provide and would not merely consider the claims of the incumbents that they need a certain percentage increase in prices regularly in order to make good the defects of the current structure.
      The industry was nationalised for all too long. During that time, it got itself into a position in which about a quarter of its product disappeared between its collection in a reservoir and its routing to a household or business premises. That was a most remarkable degree of waste. I do not think that competitive food companies would accept the loss of 25 per cent. of food products between farm and shop or in the lorries that transport them around the country; yet, until recently, we lived, apparently comfortably, with the idea that a quarter of the product could go missing. That is the kind of issue that the regulator should take into account under new clause 5 when reaching a determination about the efficiency of businesses and a sensible price.
      I am pleased that new clause 5 contains the possibility that matters can be referred to the Competition Commission for review. That gives some cause for hope. There is a case for doing just that, given current prices and efficiency in the industry. All too often pressure is low in relatively warm conditions, and we are now hearing, once again, warnings from the industry that, because we had a longish period this summer of not much rainfall, there could be problems ahead. It beggars belief that we find it difficult to guarantee a plentiful supply of water at all times in an island that is regularly soaked with rain.
      From some people, we hear that it is somehow not environmentally friendly to want rising water use. Yet anyone who understands the water cycle knows that we do no damage by using water. We use it, it passes through and it is returned to the environmental system. All we need is regulation to make sure that it is taken out in the right way and put back in the right way. Let us use it as often as possible. In a growingly prosperous society, we should expect rising water demand. I trust that the regulator will take account of the growing popularity of water when reaching his or her determination under new clause 5, if it is passed, and under the Bill in general.

      59
      I have some sympathy with new clause 10. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is right to say that we need impact assessments. I was pleased to hear that he thinks that those must also refer to competition assessments and must try to deal with the cruel dilemma that competition may point in one direction on price while the claims of the incumbents may point in another.
      We should understand that price is the crucial issue. Water is the exception to the rule in being a utility that was privatised without our introducing competition. As one would expect, it has rising prices while those utilities that were privatised with the introduction of competition showed very sharp declines in prices over a short period. That is true of gas and electricity, as well as the telephone industry to which my hon. Friend referred. In each case, we were warned when we started to introduce competition that it was quite inconceivable that prices would go down. In each case, the monopolist told us that having businesses coming in and creaming the best business from them would increase their costs and make it difficult for them to invest and survive. In each case, that was quite wrong. In each case, competition made the overall market grow and, in spite of falling prices, produced better profitability for, in most cases, the incumbents as well as the challengers. I am glad that my hon. Friend has tried to open that argument by requiring, in new clause 10, that proper impact assessments be carried out and all those issues be considered.
      My hon. Friend also tabled amendments in Committee and on Report to try to encourage best corporate practice in the regulator. I did not approach that idea with an immediate spring in my step; as my hon. Friend knows, I am not someone who would have too many public sector posts. If I thought one could get away with one person instead of two, three or five, I would normally welcome that greatly.
      5.30 pm
      I see the point that my hon. Friend is making, however: all the businesses to be regulated by that regulator would be expected to come up with high standards of corporate governance; to split power between, usually, a non-executive chairman and an executive chief operating officer or a chief executive; and to have non-executives on their board to provide some balance and criticism and to intervene when things go wrong. We probably owe it to those businesses to be a little more generous than I should normally be in public sector staffing and accept that there should be a non-executive power balance on the board. Non-executives are always much cheaper than executives and my hon. Friend recommends a non-executive chairman and non-executive board members. That expenditure may be sensible, and it could be false economy to ignore such advice.
      I am pleased to hear that the Minister is moving in that direction. I urge him to do the honourable and decent thing and accept the amendments. If his intentions are honourable, why not include the amendments? Why not protect us from some evil future Government who may not share his wisdom and
      60
      common sense and might want to run the regulatory body without the non-executive counterbalance so wisely thought through by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire and formulated in his amendments?
      I hope that the Minister is in listening mode and that he will be prepared to surprise us by his generosity and common sense. He is rare among Ministers in this Government: he understands what he is doing, listens carefully to the arguments and has some influence over what the Government do. I very much welcome that in a Minister and wish there were more like him. He is stranded without promotion because he is so much better than those who are promoted—[Horn. MEMBERS: "He was promoted."] But not to the Cabinet. He is obviously too good to get into the Cabinet; one has to reach a low standard to achieve Cabinet rank. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is too good for this Cabinet.
      The amendments suggesting that Wales be properly represented also appealed to my generous and emollient spirit this evening. As a former Secretary of State for Wales, how could I say that I was against proper representation for the Principality on such an important body? I trust that as a party we shall offer support for the proper representation of Wales.
      I do not find myself in the same sympathy with the Lib Dem amendment, moved without a great deal of understanding or force by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ooh."] I asked a simple question of the hon. Lady. Her amendment states that there should be an assessment based on things that can be quantified and an assessment based on things that require qualitative judgment. I asked her how the Minister and the regulator could come to a conclusion if quantities pointed one way and qualities pointed another, but there was no answer from the hon. Lady. She seems to have designed an extremely ambiguous proposal, which would make the legislation more rather than less difficult for the Minister and the regulator. Surely, the art of legislation is to keep it simple, short and clear. The amendment would do none of those things; it throws many things into the pot, as we are used to the Lib Dems doing, and leaves us in a grey area about what might emerge.
      Norman Baker rose—
      Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene?
      Norman Baker Norman Baker: No.
      Mr. Redwood: When somebody stands up in this place, it is normal for them to intervene. However, I see that the hon. Gentleman really wanted to leave. He obviously accepts my criticisms of Lib Dem policy on the matter and is so embarrassed that he has had to flee the Chamber. Perhaps he has gone to look for the person who actually wrote the amendment to find the answer to those interesting questions. The Lib Dems do not have the benefit of a Box of officials to scribble answers when they are under pressure in the Chamber. We saw that lack today when they could give us no answers. Given the performance from the Lib Dem

      61
      Benches, I urge my hon. Friends not to support their amendment No. 128, as it would create muddle and confusion in a Bill that will benefit from no such extra proposals.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has introduced another good proposal: amendment No. 22, which deals with access pricing and returns us to earlier contributions that he and I made in this evening's short debate on these vital matters. Again, that amendment represents a clarification. It would put a little more pressure on the regulator to explore why water prices are so high, to ask why the leading water companies think that prices should go considerably higher and to ask why, so far, so few of the inefficiencies in the leading water undertakings have been squeezed out.
      Why is so much of the product still lost between reservoir and market? Why has there not been the same competitive and aggressive promotion of the product as we have with things such as mobile telephony in the now very competitive telephone sector? Why is there so much reluctance to deliver new products and to produce the reserves necessary so that water can be more aggressively sold to the marketplace? Why do we still have such very defensive attitudes to the water industry, thinking that it is somehow wrong to buy and sell the product and wrong for people to want more of it?
      I would draw an analogy with the hot cross bun industry. It would be rather odd if, around Easter time, that industry issued a note saying, "It is most inconvenient that everyone wants hot cross buns at the same time. Would people please delay their purchase of hot cross buns until August?" Yet the water industry does that at times. When we want water in August to water our plants, we are often advised that it would not be a very good idea to water them in August. I suspect that, if we have a rainy November and December, we will soon be told that it is all right to water our plants. The only trouble is that they are sodden and most of them died in the drought anyway.
      I hope that the important issues that have an impact on consumers—water shortage, advice not to use water when it is needed most, high price, poor investment and poor quality of pipes and the network—will be dealt with under the Bill, but they would be dealt with even better if the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, including amendment No. 22, were passed tonight, and it is with great pleasure that I strongly support them.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I am fascinated to hear the right hon. Gentleman outline a new Tory stealth tax. I wonder what the extra reservoir capacity that he is clearly proposing would cost the consumer?
      Mr. Redwood: As I have explained, the competition under my model would produce cheaper prices for consumers. The Liberal Democrats have not yet grasped the point that there was a massive expansion of telecoms capacity after the introduction of competition. Consumers did not have to pay more for the extra capacity; they paid lower prices because the market expanded so much. The same would happen with water if competition was allowed. As always, the Liberal Democrats are 50 years out of date and very keen to
      62
      have subsidised, poor quality nationalised services for more or less everything. I was not at all surprised to hear them argue that case yet again tonight. At least the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) argued it a little more cogently than the hon. Member for Guildford, who is their official spokesman on the issue.
      I have been sidetracked, but I wish to conclude my remarks by saying what good amendments and new clauses have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. I am very happy to accept new clause 5—tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman—in the context that I suggested, but I hope that the House will reject the Liberal Democrat amendments, which are full of muddle and confusion.
      Mr. Morley: Before I turn to this group of amendments, it is worth responding to a few of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who made a very interesting contribution. We touched on such issues on Second Reading. Although he is right about the problems of leakages, the regulator sets targets for leakage reduction, in which there has been a 30 per cent. reduction.
      The Bill reflects the Government's view of taking a pragmatic approach to competition. We may differ about that, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that competition can produce greater efficiency and reduce prices. However, we also need to balance that against the possible effects on health, the environment and consumer prices, particularly if there is an element of cherry-picking that disturbs the cross-subsidy that can occur in water companies, especially between rural and urban areas, an example that has already been mentioned. The 50-megalitre target has been set to give the potential benefits of competition to some 2,300 water users—generally the larger water users—in the public and private sectors. Under the Bill, they will be able to examine the potential for incomers who may wish to offer a different service and different prices in a competitive way. The provision will be reviewed in due course, so that we can examine its impact and potential benefits. If this element of competition is considered a success, it could be extended. This is a pragmatic approach to a provision that could bring benefits.
      Nor do we ignore the point that the right hon. Member for Wokingham made about water management and long-term projection. Water companies are already obliged to have a 25-year forward plan that considers changes in water consumption and demand, and to have drought plans in times of water shortage, for example. Given this year's exceptionally low rainfall, water management has been pretty good overall, although our reserves are getting very low. If normal winter rainfall occurs, there should be no problem, but there may be a need for some short-term measures such as recharging reservoirs from rivers. However, that is all catered for through existing mechanisms.
      Amendments Nos. 19 and 14 would require the Secretary of State to appoint a chairman and chief executive to the proposed new authority. I have no problem with the idea of a separate chairman and chief executive. After our discussion in Committee, I re-

      63
      examined the recommendations in the Better Regulation Task Force report and discovered that the Bill is indeed drafted in such a way as to comply with them. The report recognises that there are advantages and disadvantages to separating the roles. Although splitting them may be preferable, to do so may not be appropriate in all cases. The report states that, for example, there are merits in combining the roles when a regulator is first set up. Doing so can help to smooth the transition and the teething pains associated with setting up or reconstituting a new body. Later, it might be appropriate to split the roles, but it makes sense to retain flexibility, so that we can make the right decision based on all the current circumstances.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for at least partially answering the question, but of course, the Better Regulation Task Force report that he quotes from predates the Higgs report and the new combined code of corporate governance. When the Government constitute the authority, do they intend to appoint a non-executive chairman and a chief executive, or to combine the two roles into one?
      Mr. Morley: It would be premature to give an opinion on that, because the legislation is not in place and we have first to consult the devolved Welsh Assembly, as is only right and proper. There are also consultation procedures that must be gone through.
      Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 deal with the board's size and non-executive make-up. Again, I have checked, and the Bill's provisions fulfil the taskforce's recommendations. The report clearly states that, although the taskforce recommends that all regulators should have a board, its size is for the regulator and the parent Government body to decide. The Bill is in line with that conclusion, in that it provides broad parameters but does not dictate the structure. Given the regulator's existing duties, I would certainly expect it to have rather more than just three members. But the taskforce's earlier report pressed for a reduced regulatory role if the market allows for that, which would suggest a much smaller regulator.
      On the balance of executive and non-executive directors, the taskforce recommends that at least half the board, excluding the chairman, should be non-executive. The make-up of the non-statutory Ofwat board already meets that recommendation. When Ofgem was set up, it had five executive and six non-executive members; such an alternative is also a possibility. We agree that there is value in the point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), but we prefer to avoid the problems that could arise if such a provision were set down in the Bill and operated in, for example, the case of vacancies. However, the structure of the non-statutory board of Ofwat provides a very fair balance and meets the points that he made.
      5.45 pm
      The taskforce report also emphasised the need for flexibility and the importance of avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach to setting up and managing a regulatory
      64
      body. Although it is too early for the official Government response to the taskforce recommendations, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, in appointing the board, the Secretary of State will apply the recommendations and any other developments in best practice. That will also take into account the report "Independent Regulators" of October 2003.
      Under new clause 10, the authority would have a duty to carry out impact assessments of any proposals that it makes that may lead to a change in its activities or that may have a significant impact on the water and sewerage industry or the general public. Ofwat's work with the greatest impact is, by its very nature, the periodic review of water prices. The whole review process is structured like a regulatory impact assessment but on a huge scale. It includes the preparation of broad methodology, the proposal and challenge of investment options, assessment of possible efficiency gains and financing prospects, and repeat consultation with companies and other stakeholders. We are in the middle of that detailed and thorough process, so new clause 10 is effectively asking for a regulatory impact assessment on a regulatory impact assessment. Such a provision is not necessary in the Bill.
      We concede that RIAs are good regulatory practice and Ofwat is already committed to carrying out such assessments of new policies or policy changes that are expected to have a direct effect on water and sewerage companies or other stakeholders. That is set out in Ofwat's recently published code of practice, which will become a statutory requirement under the Bill. The requirement for RIAs will be a statutory requirement in the Bill. As I have recognised, such duties have been placed on other economic regulators, most notably Ofgem under the Sustainable Energy Act 2003.
      The new clause would require the authority to carry out an impact assessment for all major activities regardless of where the initiative originated. One problem with that is that many water initiatives originate in the European Union, and we already carry out RIAs on them. By leaving such a requirement out of the Bill, the authority will be able to decide when an impact assessment is genuinely needed, reflecting the context of this particular regulator.
      Amendments Nos. 127 to 130 seek to put into statute the requirement on the Secretary of State to carry out an RIA whenever standards of performance are proposed under these clauses. The amendments would apply only when the initial proposal was the Secretary of State's, but not when Ofwat was proposing the standards. We certainly support the intention behind the amendments, but we do not think it necessary to place such a provision in the Bill. The Secretary of State is already committed to producing an RIA as well as to widespread statutory consultation whenever these clauses are used to propose standards of performance. Hon. Members may recall that we reaffirmed that commitment in the RIA that accompanied the Bill, stating that a separate RIA would be prepared every time the power was used. We are also committed to producing separate assessments that take account of the environmental, public health, competitive and social impacts of proposals.

      65
      Amendments Nos. 128 and 130 would seek to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations if the RIA showed that the costs outweighed the benefits. That consideration is an integral part of the RIA process.
      Amendment No. 22 proposes to allow the authority discretion to apply an alternative pricing principle. That risks access and wholesale prices being unduly linked only to costs incurred in serving a particular customer while ignoring certain other common costs. I am not content that such a pricing process would deliver the Government's objectives for competition in the water industry.
      Mr. Lansley: I am disappointed that the Minister has not read amendment No. 22 to find out that its structure expressly allows for fixed costs to be attributed, so it does not address only costs that were directly attributable to the customer in question.
      Mr. Morley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but risks would accompany that approach. We are worried that incoming competitors could cherry-pick benefits. That would work against the interests of consumers, especially those in high-cost areas such as rural areas.
      I listened carefully when the hon. Gentleman cited the examples of Postcomm and Ofgem, but water is not like other utilities. There is no national network for water and costs are inevitably highly localised. Within any tariff group, therefore, there are geographical cross-subsidies. Allowing access and wholesale prices to be based on direct costs alone would lead to the unwinding of those geographical cross-subsidies, which would permit the entry of suppliers in low-cost areas even if they were less efficient than the undertaker. That would prompt undertakers to raise prices in high-cost areas, such as rural areas, to cover their costs, which is my worry.
      Although there are essentially no cross-subsidies between tariff groups, there are common costs that undertakers have to incur to meet important statutory and social obligations, such as providing free fire-fighting water and lead pipe replacement programmes. Those costs are not associated with a specific customer, so under the amendment a new entrant could avoid some or all of them. The result of that would be that other customers, including households, would have to bear a greater share of the total cost.
      New clause 5 would give water and sewerage companies greater certainty about the policy intention, and likely outcome, of the periodic review. Despite the intention that the provision should clarify the review process, I do not think that it is necessary and fear that its impact would do more harm than good. Ofwat already produces and consults on a comprehensive methodology for the periodic review. It is in the regulator's interest to understand concerns about the review and the impact that it might have on those that it regulates. Given the thorough nature of the periodic review process, I cannot understand how it would benefit from the additional long and rigid timetable that the new clause would impose.
      The new right of appeal that new clause 5 would offer to companies would be excessive and could considerably lengthen an already long process. It would strengthen
      66
      the interests of companies against those of consumers still further. The balance has to be right but the provision would not achieve that. The Better Regulation Task Force report on independent regulators that was published in October had important things to say about regulatory appeals. It commented on stakeholders' ability to appeal, including those on whose behalf regulation is carried out, who include consumers. It also said that stakeholders should not be able to use an appeal mechanism merely to delay a decision that a regulator has to make. New clause 5 fails to address both those points.
      New clause 7 would widen the scope for companies to question the validity of enforcement orders issued by Ofwat or the Secretary of State if conditions of appointment or relevant statutory duties had not been met. That is not necessary because the Water Industry Act 1991 already provides a transparent appeal system that ensures that Ofwat acts appropriately when issuing an enforcement order.
      New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State, the Assembly and the authority to consult the Health and Safety Commission and undertakers about safety matters. I reassure the House that that has already been agreed in a memorandum of understanding between the HSC and the water regulators.
      Amendment No. 18 would require the authority to include in its forward work programme a description of how the projects that it plans to undertake would deliver its wider objectives and duties. Although I do not disagree with the general intention of the amendment, it is not necessary because the authority will have the power only to carry out an activity that complies with its overall duties, and Ofwat is already committed to monitoring performance against objectives.
      Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), would strengthen the role played by the National Assembly for Wales in the appointment of the authority. There is careful consultation between the Secretary of State and the Assembly and they have a close relationship that works very well. The amendments would ensure that the Secretary of State would consult the Assembly before appointing any member of the authority. The Secretary of State is committed to working with the Assembly constructively and openly, as has been demonstrated on many occasions. With that in mind, I believe that the amendments are unnecessary.
      I hope that I have answered all questions asked by hon. Members and commend the Government amendments to the House.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) for making an excellent speech in which he drew attention to the importance of Wales; I am more than inclined to agree. He accurately drew attention to the 50-megalitre limit and loss through waste.
      Having listened to the Minister's reply, I feel strongly that he failed to answer the excellent question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). Therefore, it is our intention to support amendment No. 19. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 1

      THE WATER SERVICES REGULATION AUTHORITY
      Amendment proposed: No. 19, in page 135, line 8, after 'chairman', insert', a chief executive'.—[Mr. Lansley.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 282.

      Division No. 355]

      [5:56 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heath, David

      Allan, Richard

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Bacon, Richard

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Baker, Norman

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Barker, Gregory

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Barrett, John

      Jack, rh Michael

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bercow, John

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Brady, Graham

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brazier, Julian

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Breed, Colin

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burns, Simon

      Lamb, Norman

      Burstow, Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Leigh, Edward

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Cameron, David

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Cash, William

      Lidington, David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Loughton, Tim

      Collins, Tim

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Conway, Derek

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Curry, rh David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Maples, John

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Doughty, Sue

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Evans, Nigel

      Fabricant, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fallon, Michael

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      Norman, Archie

      Forth, rh Eric

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Garnier, Edward

      Ottaway, Richard

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Page, Richard

      Gibb, Nick (BognorRegis)

      Paterson, Owen

      Goodman, Paul

      Pickles, Eric

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Grayling, Chris

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Greenway, John

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Hague, rh William

      Redwood, rh John

      Hammond, Philip

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Heald, Oliver

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      68

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Ruffley, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Selous, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Shepherd, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Simmonds, Mark

      Watkinson, Angela

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Webb' Steve (Northavon)

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

      Whittingdale, John

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Soames, Nicholas

      Willetts, David

      Spring, Richard

      Williams, Hywel Caernarfon)

      Streeter, Gary

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Willis, Phil

      Syms, Robert

      Wilshire, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Teather, Sarah

      Mr. Mark Francois and

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Mr. John Randall

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Colman, Tony

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Allen, Graham

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cooper, Yvette

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cousins, Jim

      Austin, John

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Crausby, David

      Baird, Vera

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Banks, Tony

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cummings, John

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Beard, Nigel

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Betts, Clive

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blackman, Liz

      David, Wayne

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davidson, Ian

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Dawson, Hilton

      Borrow, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Denham, rh John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Doran, Frank

      Browne, Desmond

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Bryant, Chris

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burden, Richard

      Edwards, Huw

      Burnham, Andy

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Etherington, Bill

      Cairns, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Challen, Colin

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Chaytor, David

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Grogan, John

      69

      Hain, rh Peter

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hanson, David

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Healey, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hendrick, Mark

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Heppell, John

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hinchliffe, David

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miliband, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Mole, Chris

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hutton, rh John

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Illsley, Eric

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Olner, Bill

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jamieson, David

      Organ, Diana

      Jenkins, Brian

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Picking, Anne

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prosser, Gwyn

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Purnell, James

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Rammell, Bill

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

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

      Leslie, Christopher

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Linton, Martin

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Ruane, Chris

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Salter, Martin

      McCafferty, Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacDougall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheridan, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McKechin, Ann

      Singh, Marsha

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McNulty, Tony

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      70

      Soley, Clive

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Ward, Claire

      Stevenson, George

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Watts, David

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      white. Brian

      Stringer, Graham

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sutcliffe Gerry

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Williams' Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick' David

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Winterton. Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Woolas Phil

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Wray James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Wrignt Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Margaret Moran

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being six o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [5 November].

    Clause 35

      CONSUMER COUNCIL FOR WATER
      Amendment made: No. 86, in page 39, leave out lines 40 to 42 and insert—
      '( ) The Council shall exercise and perform its powers and duties in the manner which it considers is best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 54
      DETERMINATION REFERENCES UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE WIA
      Amendment made: No. 87, in page 70, line 1, leave out '14A and 14B' and insert '16A and 16B'.—[Mr. Morley.]
    Clause 55

      CONDITIONS OF APPOINTMENTS UNDER THE WIA
      Amendments made: No. 88, in page 73, line 24, leave out 'has been' and insert 'is'.
      No. 89, in page 73, line 27, leave out from 'which' to 'within' in line 28 and insert
      'such a direction may be given'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    New Clause 14

      SCHEMES FOR THE ADOPTION OF SEWERS, LATERAL DRAINS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL WORKS
      'After section 105 of the WIA there is inserted—
      "105A Schemes for the adoption of sewers, lateral drains and sewage disposal works
      (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for him to make schemes for the adoption by sewerage undertakers of sewers, lateral drains and sewage disposal works of the descriptions set out in paragraphs (a),(aa) and (b) of section 102(1) above.
      (2) The regulations may require sewerage undertakers to prepare draft schemes and to submit them to the Secretary of State.
      (3) Each scheme shall relate to—

      (a) the area of a sewerage undertaker, or part or parts of it; or

      (b) the areas of more than one sewerage undertaker, or part or parts of them.

      (4) It shall be the duty of a sewerage undertaker, in specified circumstances, to exercise its powers under section 102 above with a view to making the declaration referred to in subsection (1) of that section in relation to sewers, lateral drains or sewage disposal works which—

      (a) fall within the area to which a scheme relates; and

      (b) satisfy specified criteria.

      (5) The circumstances and the criteria shall each be—

      (a) specified in the regulations; or

      (b) determined in accordance with the regulations and specified in the scheme.

      (6) In relation to the exercise of those powers pursuant to that duty—

      (a) section 102 above shall have effect—

      (i) with the omission of subsections (2), (5) and (7);

      (ii) as if in subsection (1) the words "sections 103, 105 and 146(3) below" read "section 105B below";

      (iii) with the omission of the words "or application" in subsection (3);

      (iv) as if for subsection (4)(a) there were substituted—

      "shall give notice of its proposal to the owner or owners of the sewer, lateral drain or works in question unless, after diligent enquiry, he or they cannot be traced;
      shall publish notice of its proposal in the prescribed manner; and";

      (v) as if in subsection (4)(b) "two months" read "two months or, if longer, the period specified by virtue of section 105B(5) below" and "section 105 below" read "section 105B(4) or (5) below, or "; and

      (vi) as if section 96(3) of the Water Act 2003 did not apply;

      (b) sections 103 and 105 above shall not apply; and

      (c) if the regulations so provide, section 146(3) below shall not apply in circumstances or cases specified in the regulations.

      (7) A duty imposed on a sewerage undertaker under subsection (4) above shall be enforceable by the Secretary of State under section 18 above.
      (8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
      105B Adoption schemes: appeals
      (1) Any person falling within subsection (2) below may appeal to the Authority if he is aggrieved by—

      (a) the proposal of a sewerage undertaker to make a declaration under section 102 above in relation to a sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works, pursuant to the undertaker's duty to do so under section 105A(4) above (the "relevant duty"); or

      (b) the failure of a sewerage undertaker to make such a proposal pursuant to that duty.

      (2) The persons referred to are—

      (a) an owner of a sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works;

      (b) any other person affected by the proposal, or the failure, in question.

      (3) The grounds upon which a person may appeal are—

      (a) in a subsection (1)(a) case, that the relevant duty is not owed in relation to the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works, or that the making of the proposed declaration would be seriously detrimental to him;

      (b) in a subsection (1)(b) case, that the relevant duty is owed in relation to the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works; or

      (c) any other prescribed ground.

      (4) An appeal under subsection (1)(a) above shall be made within two months after notice of the proposal is—

      (a) served on the owner of the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works; or

      (b) published in accordance with section 102(4) above as modified by section 105A(6) above,

      (or, if both occur, within two months after whichever is the later).
      (5) An appeal under subsection (1)(b) above shall be made within such period as is specified in the scheme (not being less than two months).
      (6) On the hearing of an appeal under subsection (1) above, the Authority may—

      (a) in a subsection (1)(a) case, allow or disallow the proposal of the sewerage undertaker; or

      (b) in a subsection (1)(b) case, determine that the undertaker was not under the relevant duty in relation to the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works in question,

      or, in either case, make any declaration that the sewerage undertaker might have made, unless the proposal is disallowed.
      (7) If, in a subsection (1)(a) case, the Authority finds that the making of the proposed declaration would be seriously detrimental to the appellant, it shall disregard any duty on the part of the sewerage undertaker to make the proposal for the purpose of determining whether to allow or disallow the proposal.
      (8) If, in a subsection (1)(a) case, the Authority disallows the proposal of the sewerage undertaker, the scheme pursuant to which it was made shall have effect as if there were no duty under section 105A(4) above on the sewerage undertaker in relation to the sewer, lateral drain or sewage disposal works in question.
      (9) Where the Authority makes a declaration under subsection (6) above, it may, if it thinks fit—

      (a) specify conditions, including conditions as to the payment of compensation by the sewerage undertaker; and

      (b) direct that its declaration shall not take effect unless any conditions so specified are accepted.

      (10) A declaration made under subsection (6) above shall have the same effect as if it had been made by the undertaker.
      (11) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in connection with appeals under this section.
      (12) The regulations may, in particular, require the Authority to have regard to prescribed matters when determining an appeal under this section.
      105C Adoption schemes: supplementary
      (1) The Secretary of State may vary any scheme, or revoke it.
      (2) Before making regulations or any scheme under section 105A above, and before amending or revoking the regulations or varying or revoking a scheme, the Secretary of State shall consult—

      (a) each sewerage undertaker which would be affected;

      (b) the Authority;

      73

      (c) the Council;

      (d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

      (3) The Secretary of State shall publish each scheme he makes, and any such scheme as varied, in the way he considers best for the purpose of bringing it to the attention of those likely to be affected by it.".'.—[Mr. Morley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 8—Discharges to watercourses—
      '(1)After section 165 of the WIA, there is inserted—
      "165A Power to discharge to watercourses
      (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, every sewerage undertaker may, for the purpose of carrying out its functions, discharge water with or without other matter from any relevant pipe into any watercourse.
      (2) Nothing in this section shall authorise any discharge which—

      (a) damages or injuriously affects the works or property of any railway undertakers, navigation authority or riparian owner; or

      (b) floods or damages any highway.

      (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting the making of any discharge without the authority of any consent that may be required by virtue of Part III of the Water Resources Act 1991.
      (4) The provisions of paragraph 6 of Schedule 12 to this Act shall apply to the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) above.
      (5) In this section 'relevant pipe' means any sewer, stormwater overflow, sewer, disposal main, lateral drain or outfall owned by or vested in a sewerage undertaker."
      (2) In section 219(I) of the WIA (general interpretation), in the definition of "accessories", after "washout pipes," there is inserted "outfalls (with ancillary works)".
      (3) In Schedule 12 to the WIA (compensation etc.in respect of pipelaying and other works powers)—

      (a) in paragraph 6(1)(a), after "section 165" there is inserted "for section 165A"; and

      (b) in paragraph 6(2)(b), after "section 165 of this Act" there is inserted ", or of water or effluent under section 165A of this Act.".'.

      New clause 13—Power to require adoption of private sewers in Wales—
      'After section 102 of the WIA there is inserted—
      "102A Power to require adoption of private sewers in Wales
      (1) As regards Wales the National Assembly for Wales may by regulations establish a scheme to enable a sewerage undertaker to be required to adopt a sewer to which this section applies.
      (2) A scheme under this section may apply to any sewer which is—

      (a) situated within the area of a sewerage undertaker or which serves the whole of or any part of that area; and

      (b) not vested in a sewerage undertaker.

      (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend section 105 so as to extend the appeals procedure to the scheme, provided that the appeal shall be heard by a person other than the person imposing the requirement to adopt.".'.
      Government amendments Nos. 100 and 101.
      Government amendments Nos. 103 and 121.
      Mr. Morley: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) tabled an amendment that aimed to tackle the serious problems caused by private sewers. Indeed, that issue was raised by Committee members from all parties. The Government are well aware of these problems and are keen to take positive action, which is why we commissioned an extensive research project into the extent of private sewers and published a public consultation document. With that in mind, I told my hon. Friend that we would introduce a suitable Government amendment to deal with the thrust of the argument that he and other Committee members had made.
      We considered a number of alternatives, and I am pleased to say that we thought that my hon. Friend's proposal was the most appropriate. New clause 14 gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations to allow schemes for the adoption of private sewers. Government amendment No. 103 ensures that the Welsh Assembly has the power to make regulations under the proposed new section if it so chooses. It is important to note that the new clause is an enabling power, and is not a recipe for the wholesale transfer of private sewers to sewerage undertakers. Furthermore, the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure to allow full parliamentary scrutiny before they are made.
      The Government have not yet made any decisions on the best way forward on private sewers. The new clause allows adoption, if a decision is made to pursue that course of action, and offers flexibility to ensure that we introduce a sensible solution following full consideration of the range of options. As my hon. Friend knows, we discussed in Committee the fact that we would hold a public consultation and respond to the options that people favour. We still have a lot of work to do on the best way forward on private sewers. The new clause gives us an opportunity to introduce adoption in various forms, but the Bill includes the enabling powers for which my hon. Friend, supported by other Committee members, was arguing.
      Mr. David Drew: May I tell my hon. Friend how much we welcome the provision? I am sure that all Committee members share that sentiment. However, will my hon. Friend give me an idea of time scale? I accept that the new clause is an enabling provision, but some people who welcome it will want to know how long it will be before the consultation is complete and the Government have considered its implications. More particularly, with regard to cases where there is a crucial need for action, when will the provision be implemented?
      Mr. Morley: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The most important thing is to respond to the public consultation, and we hope to reach that milestone in the near future. There is, as I have said, a great deal of work to do, not least in taking stakeholders' views into account. That will take time, but it is difficult to say how long. However, as a rough guide, I expect the Government's response to the public consultation to be made within the next six months. Inevitably, however,

      75
      further work will need to be done. It is difficult to give an exact time scale, but there is quite a lot to do before we can put the provision in place, which is why the enabling power was included in the Bill.
      6.15 pm
      We have provided for an appeals procedure and appropriate consultation, both on the regulations and each scheme. Work is under way to evaluate the responses to the consultation, and further consultation is likely as we narrow down the choices on the best way forward. Following discussions with the all-party group on sewers and sewerage, I know that its members have views on the subject to which the Government would like to listen. Considerations will include obvious financial implications for the generality of customers, and clearly it will be important to weigh up the balance of the different interests. We will continue to make that a priority and involve everyone with an interest, including, of course, colleagues in the House. Indeed, I am grateful for the interest that has been shown in this matter, and found discussions with the all-party group helpful.
      The new clause was tabled to demonstrate that we are serious about tackling the problems faced by householders, and I am pleased to commend it to the House. I should also like to commend Government amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 121, which are minor, consequential amendments.
      Mr. Wiggin: I shall speak to new clause 8, which seeks to ensure that sewerage industries can discharge water into any watercourse that will not flood or damage any of those covered by subsections (2)(a) and (b) of proposed new section 165 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Sewerage undertakers' former power to effect discharges from public sewers and their other pipes needs to be restored, subject to certain safeguards for affected landowners riparian owners and public bodies. No damage or interference must be caused to the property or operations of railway undertakers, navigation authorities, riparian owners or highway authorities; all necessary consents to discharge to watercourses must be obtained from the Environment Agency in accordance with the Water Resources Act 1991 for the avoidance of pollution; and full compensation must be paid to those adversely affected by such discharges, in accordance with paragraph 6 of schedule 12 to the Water Industry Act.
      Sewerage undertakers should have the right to discharge the contents of public sewers and other pipes into watercourses and canals because, without that right, they currently have to obtain a compulsory purchase order, which can take up to two years. This is what proposed new section 165A of the Water Industry Act seeks to achieve, reflecting the principles of section 165 of that Act, which authorises the discharge by water undertakers of water to watercourses for the purpose of facilitating the carrying-out of works.
      New clause 14, which the Minister introduced, is obviously welcomed by people who are discharging into private sewers, and I am delighted that he listened to comments by Committee members from all parties.
      76
      Strong feelings were expressed, especially by Members representing areas where large numbers of people were discharging into, or taking their water from, a single source. Members on all sides of the House believe that the issue needs to be addressed positively, for the benefit of both water companies and customers. Obviously, there are significant cost implications for water companies, and the Minister recognises how important they are.
      I shall not say any more as I know that we need to cover a great deal more business.
      Paddy Tipping: I wish to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister, his officials and, looking at the complexity of new clause 14, parliamentary counsel. I am delighted that we are making progress on the issue with which the new clause deals and that my hon. Friend has responded to constituency concerns throughout the country. The powers are permissive and enabling, and the next task of my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King), who have campaigned long and hard on this issue, and I will be to put them into practice. The aspect of the W. S. Atkins report—an initiative brought forward by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—that struck me most was the scale of the problem. We all knew that there was a problem, but we were astonished at its degree and depth across the country.
      As the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) said, there are significant cost implications. We will have to wait and see the outcome of the consultation. I do not want to prejudge that outcome, but the responses received so far suggest that the option of passing ownership of the sewers to water and sewerage undertakers, as set out in the Atkins report, is probably the easiest and most popular way forward. That has clear cost implications. The only meaningful way forward would apply over a period of years. I repeat that point—it is over a period of years that one would want to share the cost with consumers in general. That issue will have to be taken into account in discussions on the next price review period.
      I am delighted that we have made so much progress. I know that people in Newark and Sherwood, in a small part of my constituency where 1,441 people are affected, are delighted that we are making progress. We must now ensure that the principles agreed to in the Bill are put into practice, but I accept that that will take time.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I welcome the new measures. We debated them in Committee, where hon. Members from all parties mentioned the various parts of their constituencies that they will affect. I could spend the next 20 minutes listing some wonderful Welsh names in referring to places that are affected by bad sewerage, but I do not think that that is necessary to secure the progress of the measure. What the Minister has said makes new clause 13 redundant—a proposal that attempted to achieve the same purpose as new clause 14 in the Welsh context. Government amendment No. 103 will insert into the Water Industry Act 1991 the measures in new clause 14 so that the National Assembly for Wales will be able to make its own scheme.
      Further down the line, there will be huge issues about costs, surveying and so on. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know about the problems that will

      77
      arise, but a very important principle has been established tonight—we are dealing with a public health issue. What we call private sewers fulfil some of the most essential functions in our public health system. If we cannot get this matter right, what we are seeking to achieve in the Bill in securing higher environmental standards, water quality and water saving and conservation will be for naught. That will be the case if we cannot ensure over the next 10 to 20 years that our sewerage system is updated to meet the needs of an expanding 21st century economy, rather than those of the expanding 19th century economy, as at present.
      Those are the important principles to which the Government have agreed. I will not say that they have conceded those points, as that might suggest that some sort of battle has occurred. Instead, there has been a debate, progress has been made and the Government have rightly acknowledged that those issues need to be resolved and have recognised that the new clause is probably the best way of resolving them in the context of the Bill. I am sure that many of us would have liked to see a bit more detail in the provisions and that we could all suggest what the best approach might be. Nevertheless, an important principle has been laid down. There will be schemes and each of them will be considered on its merit, and a proper authority will look at that process—the National Assembly for Wales and the Secretary of State in England.
      We now have an opportunity to improve our sewerage system to meet the required needs, as well as to make a huge impact on the environment and on some aspects of public health. Everyone who has had sewage in their garden will be thankful for what has happened in the House tonight.
      Mr. Drew: I wish to make a very narrow point. I could have intervened on my hon. Friend the Minister a second time to raise it, but I thought it better to do so in a short speech. We have been reassured about the time scale—I heard what he said and welcome it—but my next point follows from what my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) said and relates to cost implications. When we see the different options and get some clarity about which we prefer and how we might adopt more than one, if that is what is proposed, can the process be dealt with in secondary legislation? Having introduced the enabling powers, we would not want to have to wait until the next water Bill was introduced to carry into action exactly what all of us want to achieve in respect of the adoption of private sewers. If my hon. Friend the Minister clarifies that situation, an awful lot of people will be listening. I am sure that they will welcome the moves that the Government have already made, as well as their intentions.
      Andy King: I shall be extremely brief; as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) rightly said in Committee, "Enough said—job done."
      The Minister and his Department must take enormous credit for allowing the new clause into the Bill. Originally, such provision did not feature in the Bill at all, and many of us were afraid that we would miss a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to remedy a serious situation. Although the new clause does not go as far as
      78
      we would have liked, it has gone a long way in beginning to put right the anomalous situation that has arisen. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend the Minister, his officials and the water companies through the all-party group on sewers and sewerage, of which colleagues in all parts of the House are members and to which he has made a valuable contribution. I look forward to discussing these matters with him and W. S. Atkins in the near future. The people of the Woodlands residents association, of which I am a member—I have declared my interest—will be very happy.
      Mr. Morley: There is still some time to go.
      Andy King: It will happen some time in future, but we look forward to that day.
      Mr. Morley: I think that there is an argument for protecting controlled waters, and that may sometimes involve compensation and protection against pollution, so I cannot accept new clause 8, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin).
      The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) rightly said that I had dealt with the concerns he raised in new clause 13. Furthermore, I appreciated very much the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) and for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping).
      I repeat that there is obviously a lot of work to be done, and the matter will not be dealt with in the short term. Nevertheless, the powers in the Bill allow us to deal with what we recognise to be a very serious problem throughout the country.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 11

      CONSULTATION ON THE COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
      'After section 3 of the WIA there is inserted—
      "3A Consultation and liability for expenses incurred in implementing environmental protection regulations
      (1) Where a regulation that takes effect after the enactment of this section requires a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker to incur costs for works to meet environmental protection requirements, the Secretary of State shall carry out a financial impact assessment.
      (2) In making a financial impact assessment for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State shall report on the balance of the works benefit to local populations and customers of the relevant undertaker as compared with the environmental benefits that are considered to be in the general national interest.
      (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above the Secretary of State shall consult—

      (a) the Authority;

      (b) the Council;

      (c) the Environment Agency;

      (d) relevant undertakers;

      (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to consult; and

      (f) where the regulations apply to Wales, the Assembly.

      (4) The Secretary of State shall send a copy of the financial impact assessment to all consultees and publish it in such a manner as he considers appropriate.
      (5) The Secretary of State may direct the Environment Agency to exercise his duties under subsections (1) to (4) above.
      (6) Following receipt of a financial impact assessment under this section, the Authority shall, based on the report made for the purposes of subsection (2) above, determine a percentage of the full estimated costs for works required by the relevant regulation or regulations that shall be met by relevant undertakers.
      (7) The Authority shall direct that the remaining percentage of estimated costs is met by all water undertakers or sewerage undertakers, as the case may be, in direct ratio to the number of households to which they provide water services or sewerage services or both as a proportion of the total number of households in England and Wales.
      (8) Following the written request of a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker, in cases where the undertaker has ongoing financial liabilities for works required by regulations made before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State may decide to undertake a financial impact assessment under this section.
      (9) If a financial impact assessment is made under the provisions of subsection (8) above, the Authority shall apply the provisions of subsections (6) and (7) above to the remaining financial liabilities instead of the full estimated costs.
      (10) The Secretary of State must provide an undertaker with a written decision on any request made under subsection (8), and provide explanation of the reasons for his decision, within 12 weeks of receiving any such request from an undertaker.
      (11) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purposes of this section.".'.—[Norman Baker.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 132, in clause 57, page 75, line 5, at end insert—
      (11) 'In section 222 (application to Isles of Scilly)—

      (a) in subsection (2), after the word "NRA", there is inserted the words "the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water"; and

      (b) after subsection (2) there is inserted—

      "(2A) The Secretary of State shall, within a period of one year after the coming into force of section 57 of the Water Act 2003, make proposals to the Council of the Isles of Scilly for the making of an order under subsection (2) in relation to the carrying out of the functions of the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water in those Isles.".'.
      Amendment No. 131, in clause 62, page 83, line 36, at end insert—
      '(3A) A water resources management plan that contains proposals for infrastructure investment intended to meet the requirements of an estimated growth in the quantities of water required, made by an undertaker for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) above, must include—

      (a) a least cost planning assessment that shall address in particular the potential effects of investment in—

      (i) water conservation promotion and education;

      (ii) water efficiency technology; and

      (iii) compulsory metering;

      (b) a comparative risk assessment for each infrastructure investment option or alternative proposal considered; and

      (c) such other information as the Secretary of State may specify in directions.'.

      Amendment No. 16, in clause 83, page 100, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert
      'have a duty to promote water conservation.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 95 and 96.
      Norman Baker: I am grateful to hon. Members who spoke in the previous debate for making their comments brief so as to allow discussion on the next group of amendments. I did not speak in that debate, but I wish to say that the Minister also has the support of the Liberal Democrats in respect of the measures on private sewers. He may reflect on the fact that he has managed to unite the whole House in supporting the Government on that measure. Perhaps he should look for other policies of the same nature. The new clause in question was tabled two hours before a public meeting on sewers that I attended in Polegate in my constituency, and it went down well with the voters.
      New clause 11 deals with water pricing, which is a big issue for consumers and others. The cost of water varies widely, and wildly, from one area to another, and not always on the basis of any deep logic. The post-privatisation arrangements were somewhat unfair, and water pricing inequalities have continued ever since.
      6.30 pm
      A particular problem is that some water and sewerage companies have had to bear disproportionate costs because of the need to undertake environmental improvements. All hon. Members will be in favour of those improvements. Over the past 10 to 15 years, for instance, the quality of bathing water has improved markedly. However, that has had a disproportionate impact on water and sewerage companies in certain areas. The south-west has 30 per cent. of the English and Welsh coastline, but only 3 per cent. of the population—as well as a comparatively high amount of poverty. As a result, a disproportionate burden of environmental protection falls on that population. The Ofwat report, "Tariff structure and charges 2002–2003", shows that the average sewerage component of annual water bills is £125 in England and Wales, but £211 in the south-west. Combined with water provision costs, that makes an average annual combined bill of £326 in the south-west, compared with an average of £228 in the rest of the country.
      The Government's position has always been that as the improvements benefit the local population, it is only right that that population should pay for them. As a principle, that cannot be faulted, but the problem is that environmental improvements in the south-west are not necessarily for the benefit of that region, but for that of the nation as a whole. A nationwide benefit derives from cleaning up our bathing waters that goes beyond that derived in the south-west. Although one could argue that there is a beneficial impact on tourism, for example, the current water pricing system does not take account of the national aspect.
      We all want to enjoy clean beaches and unpolluted coastline, wherever we live. As a Member representing a coastline in the south-east, I do not want to be nimbyish by saying that as long as my coastline is all right, it does not matter what it is like in the south-west. I want the south-west and other areas to be as clean as the south-east. Nevertheless, a different method of pricing is

      81
      required. The same principle applies to any region where the sewerage costs of domestic bills are particularly high because of the need to meet environmental regulations and requirements. New clause 11 seeks to establish the principle that where it can be assumed that a national benefit derives from environmental improvements, their cost should be spread more widely than the water and sewerage company that has to implement those benefits and, by extension, consumers in that area. The position has been made worse by the higgledy-piggledy post-privatisation water pricing arrangements, which should have been sorted out before now.
      Amendment No. 132, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), relates to a water inspectorate for the Isles of Scilly.
      Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that amendment, which is very important to the 2,000 of my constituents who are inhabitants of the Isles of Scilly. The Isles of Scilly have been excluded from some of the provisions in the Bill and in previous Acts. If we are to raise standards in water-related environmental matters, particularly drinking water, on the Isles of Scilly, it is important that such amendments are accepted in order to bring them up to the standards that are taken for granted in other parts of the country.
      Norman Baker: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is correct that the Isles of the Scilly are excluded from some legislation, but my hon. Friend looks after his constituents assiduously, and I am sure that any omissions are flagged up in this House through amendments and by other means. I hope that the Minister will respond to the point.
      Amendment No. 131, which was tabled in my name and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), would introduce a rather radical approach to water infrastructure development—radical in this country, that is, but less so elsewhere. It reflects aspects of best performance in the United States, where energy suppliers are not allowed to build new capacity for generation until they have demonstrated that they can meet by other means the requirements that are placed on them. That is the correct environmental approach, which the amendment would apply to the water industry in this country. It says, in effect, that in meeting the challenge of growing demand for water, it cannot and should not, for environmental reasons, be assumed that the only option is to find a way to supply that extra demand. The Government should not base their framework on "predict and provide". Increased abstraction, new reservoirs and new treatment facilities have a considerable environmental impact. We must consider ways of reducing demand, whether by encouraging water efficiency measures or considering metering in certain areas. Various levers can be pulled to reduce demand for water in a more environmentally-friendly way than churning up the countryside to produce new reservoirs. The water companies have not always paid attention to those alternatives: they need a bit of encouragement from the Government to do so.
      Groundwater levels have reached record lows in some areas—for example, in Chilgrove in west Sussex, A rdingly in Sussex, and Arlington in my constituency—where levels are down to 22 per cent.—but there has
      82
      been no concerted, high-profile campaign to persuade consumers to reduce their water usage. On 5 November, the Environment Agency received its first application from a water company for a drought permit, which affects the Cuckmere and Ouse rivers in my constituency. There is not much evidence that the water company in question had done much to restrain consumer demand. I mention examples from my constituency, but doubtless there are others all over the country.
      Water companies do not appear to have in mind alternatives to providing new infrastructure; they therefore need encouragement. It is possible to meet legitimate water demands through alternative means such as water efficiency and metering. We should adopt that approach, which is tried and tested in other countries. I hope that the Minister will view that with the seriousness with which the amendment was tabled.
      Mr. Wiggin: I shall restrict my remarks to amendment No. 16, which would insert a requirement to
      "have a duty to promote water conservation."
      All hon. Members should recognise that wording, because it was widely supported in Committee. My amendment would strengthen the wording of the Bill with regard to water conservation by further emphasising the need for each public authority to have a stricter duty to conserve water in order to improve water efficiency. Proper conservation of water must take place at every opportunity, but the Bill does not enforce that duty strongly enough. Public authorities should have a greater degree of responsibility to promote better management of water; my amendment would ensure that.
      I remind the Minister that Conservative Members voted for this amendment, but that he and his colleagues voted it down. The hon. Lady who tabled it is unavailable at the moment—I believe that she is unwell—but it is most important that this duty is included in the Bill. The existing wording is not nearly strong enough—indeed, it is rather weaselly in comparison with what it should be. I therefore urge the Government to support the amendment: I am sure that in their heart of hearts they would like to do so.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I was heartened to hear on the radio that the new leader of the Conservative party accepts that some of its past policies were wrong and that the poll tax was a mistake. I was less heartened when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) went on to say that water privatisation was a great success because it had created vast investment in the industry. Although I accept that the increase in funding has created the clean sweep schemes and the environmental improvements that we all supported, it has been done at a specific cost, which consumers throughout the country have borne.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) said, the cost has not been equal across the board. Some people in specific areas have borne a disproportionate amount, especially those whom I represent in Teignbridge and those in my hon. Friends' constituencies in the south-west. Devon and Cornwall have 3 per cent. of the population of Britain, but 30 per cent. of the nation's beaches, and we continue to pay for

      83
      cleaning them up. It is argued that there is a benefit to the south-west and the Minister nodded earlier when tourism was mentioned. However, a benefit to tourism does not directly benefit pensioners, people on fixed incomes and those on low incomes. There is little to help them to pay their water bills, which have more than doubled since water privatisation and will increase even more.
      I ask the Minister to consider the wording of the new clause carefully. It would not force him to take action but empower him. It would make him examine the financial implications and empower him to ensure greater justice throughout the United Kingdom and to introduce water justice. The two words "water justice" are important to people in the south-west. I suspect that, as time goes by and other environmental improvements are introduced and other areas have to bear the cost, people in other parts of the country will also say, "There was a missed opportunity—we could have had an equalisation scheme. We want water justice and we want it now."
      Andrew George: I should like to speak to amendment No.132, which stands in my name. I especially want to draw the Minister's attention to the specific circumstances on the Isles of Scilly. Water supplies and services there were not privatised under the original legislation. The Isles of Scilly were specifically excluded from section 222 of the Water Industry Act 1991. The position is not only legally but locally complex, in that the council has taken responsibility for water services and drinking water to St. Mary's and Bryher, but the Duchy of Cornwall is largely responsible for the private water arrangements of the islands of St. Agnes and St. Martin's and Tresco Estates is responsible for the residents of Tresco island.
      Many constituents have expressed anxiety about drinking water standards. Although the council is doing its best to ensure that drinking water is properly monitored, it would be helpful if the Minister and the Department considered amendment No. 132, which would at least allow for the sort of improvements that may be required in due course. I do not suggest that we should introduce mainland circumstances and privatisation to the Isles of Scilly because that would not be appropriate but I hope that the Minister will at least reflect on the specific, special circumstances that pertain there and ensure that the islands and drinking water customers in particular are properly protected in the same way as those on the mainland.
      Mr. Morley: New clause 11 offers a new system of paying for environmental improvements and I understand the case about high costs in the south-west. like other companies, water companies must meet their costs, including those of environmental standards. Ultimately, all those costs come from their customers. Ofwat sets an upper limit on customer prices, but there is a strong and visible link between what the company spends and the customers who fund that through their bills. Water companies understand that, and it could be argued that it has made them far more sensitive to the views of their customers, whom they rightly perceive as
      84
      a key concern. Strong evidence in the current periodic review shows that companies' business plans pay more attention to customers' priorities. That is no bad thing.
      6.45 pm
      Although I can understand the reasoning behind new clause 11, I am worried that it would weaken the connection between the company and the customers by creating a national environment fund that drew its money from customers throughout the country. There is a question about whether companies would pay as much heed to their customers if customers throughout the country met the cost of their plans. There would be a lack of accountability and a weakening of the driver that encourages individual companies to keep their costs as low as possible.
      Nick Harvey: Holidaymakers throughout the country get the benefit of the capital work that is undertaken. Will the Minister at least consider the point that by opting for a water meter, wealthy owners of second homes in the south-west opt out of contributing to sewerage services and cleaning up the beaches because they have remarkably low bills that reflect their occasional visits? Will he consider the principle of insisting on a standing charge to ensure that they share the burden with regular residents?
      Mr. Morley: That is an interesting idea. Of course, it is Liberal Democrat policy to have compulsory water meters. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one of the potential downsides. The issue of second homes is serious and too wide for me to tackle in the debate, but I understand his point.
      There are other problems with the new clause. Depending on the details, the proposal might remove the incentive for companies to spend efficiently. If a company currently undertakes an agreed investment programme at a lower cost than planned, the saving benefits the company and can be passed on to its customers at the next price review. That would not be the case if there was a national scheme such as the new clause proposes. It provides that the company be reimbursed for the estimated cost. What happens if the company manages to undertake the programme for less cost? Who keeps the difference? If the national fund meets the cost, there is no motive for the company to invest efficiently. If it pays the estimated cost regardless of the out-turn cost, that asks customers in the rest of the country to fund a windfall saving to a company from which they will never benefit.
      I understand the issue of prices in different parts of the country and fairness, but we must consider fairness to other customers. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) said that although benefits in clean beaches and good bathing water quality go to the south-west economy, they may not affect individual pensioners. That is a fair point. However, there are pensioners throughout the country, not only in the south-west, and we must consider their costs and the way in which the new clause would apply to them.
      Although I understand the argument, I am not convinced that there is a genuine distinction between the environmental measures that benefit a locality and the national benefit. We have mentioned that in the context

      85
      of tourism and the local economy. We must ensure that prices are as low as possible in all companies. That is an issue for the price review. When making decisions that affect water company obligations, we take account of customers' costs and bill levels in each company but I do not believe that it is necessarily to consumers' advantage to release companies from their responsibility to manage their investment programmes efficiently and justify them. I fear that the proposal might yield a short-term gain, but a cost disadvantage to consumers in the south-west in the long term.
      Andrew George: Does the Minister not accept that Ofwat assesses the efficiency of the companies, along with the appropriateness of their proposed schemes, and sets a K factor that takes into account all those measures? Surely the same principles could therefore be applied to this task?
      Mr. Morley: The difference there is that the K factor formula is applied across the whole country; it is a national formula. What is being proposed here is to even out what I accept are regional disparities by getting consumers in other parts of the country to make a contribution to—in this case—the south-west. I understand the points that have been made, but I would want to approach this issue by ensuring that efficiency drivers and investment programmes were in place to bring down costs for all consumers. That is the best way forward.
      Amendment No. 132 applies to the Isles of Scilly. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) will be interested to learn that I know the area very well; in fact, I have visited all the main islands. I understand his point, and he is quite right about the provision for the opt-out. There was always a provision for the council to apply to the Secretary of State to make an order so that the water undertakers' functions under the Act could be performed either by the council or by the relevant water undertaker. I understand the split that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in that regard.
      An order was made in 1990 to give the council on the Isles of Scilly various functions. Its provisions, which include enabling powers to make drinking water regulations, place certain emergency duties on water undertakers that could prove very costly for the council. I understand that the arrangements on the Isles of Scilly for monitoring drinking water quality might not be wholly consistent with arrangements on the mainland. I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that we are already considering how best to use the powers under section 222 of the Water Industry Act 1990, and we shall consult the council about costs and other implications. We therefore accept the thrust of his argument. There are powers available to provide what he is seeking, and we are prepared to talk to the council about how we can address the issue. On that basis, I hope that he will not press his amendment to a vote.
      Amendment No. 131 seeks to give greater prominence to certain demand management options, and we recognise that that is important. We had this discussion in Committee. I would say to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that water companies are already obliged to produce 25-year plans, so in that respect I believe that the Bill already covers his proposal.
      86
      Amendment No. 16 deals with water conservation. We do not disagree with the general principle advanced by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), but the fact that the Bill does not mention a duty does not mean that a requirement that public authorities "shall" do something is not a statutory duty. The Bill contains a statutory duty in respect of water conservation. As with other matters that we have discussed, difficulties might arise if we are over-prescriptive in our wording. We have no problem with the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the promotion of water conservation, but there is a statutory requirement in the Bill that meets the thrust of his arguments. In that regard, too, I hope that he will not press his amendment to a vote.
      Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the amendments and new clauses tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I am a little disappointed by his response to new clause 11 in particular. I understand his point about not weakening the connection between a water company and its consumers. That is exactly right, but the fact that Ofwat has control over water companies in a way that does not normally apply to private companies undermines his argument. The connection is still there in terms of a company having to justify its investment and forward planning.
      The Minister showed, by picking at the new clause, why he thought it was inappropriate. He did not, however, recognise the thrust of our argument or come up with an alternative that would address the legitimate concerns of the south-west and other areas in which there is disproportionate expenditure on environmental matters because of the geography of the area—the coastline, in the case of the south-west. I said earlier that the south-west has 30 per cent. of the English and Welsh coastline, but only 3 per cent. of the population. That does not change, and there must be a way of recognising the disproportionate impact of that fact on consumers in the region.
      The Minister recognised that some investment schemes had, at least in part, a national benefit. If there is a national benefit, there should be a national way of paying for it, rather than simply relating it to the local consumer. The Minister has been his usual charming self, and as emollient as ever, but he has not quite convinced me on new clause 11. I therefore wish to press it to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 247.

      Division No. 356]

      [6:55 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brady, Graham

      Allan, Richard

      Breed, Colin

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Burnett, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Burstow, Paul

      Baker, Norman

      Butterfill, John

      Barker, Gregory

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Barrett, John

      Cameron, David

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Cash, William

      Bellingham, Henry

      Collins, Tim

      Bercow, John

      Conway, Derek

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Blunt, Crispin

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      87

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Page, Richard

      Doughty, Sue

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Fabricant, Michael

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Flook, Adrian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Francois, Mark

      Randall, John

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Redwood, rh John

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Rendel, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Greenway, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hague, rh William

      Roe' Mrs Marion

      Harvey, Nick

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Ruffley, David

      Heald Oliver

      Sanders, Adrian

      Heath, David

      Saveed, Jonathan

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Selous, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Jack, rh Michael

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

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Spelmaa Mrs Carohne

      Spring, Richard

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lamb, Norman

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Leigh, Edward

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Leigh, Edward

      Turner Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Tyler Paul (N Cornwall)

      Lidington, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Watkinson, Angela

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Webb Steve (Northavon)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Wiggin, Bill

      Maclean, rh David

      Willetts, David

      Maples, John

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Norman, Archie

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Bob Russell and

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Mr. Alan Reid

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Ainger, Nick

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Browne, Desmond

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bryant, Chris

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burden, Richard

      Bailey, Adrian

      Burnham, Andy

      Baird, Vera

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Banks, Tony

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Barnes, Harry

      Cairns, David

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beard, Nigel

      Challen, Colin

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bell, Stuart

      Chaytor, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Betts, Clive

      Blackman, Liz

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Clelland, David

      88

      Coaker, Vernon

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Coleman, Iain

      Kemp, Fraser

      Colman, Tony

      Kidney, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Cooper, Yvette

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Crausby, David

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Cummings, John

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      David, Wayne

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Davidson, Ian

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      McCafferty, Chris

      Dobson, rh Frank

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      MacDonald, Calum

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      McDonnell, John

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      MacDougall, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Edwards, Huw

      McKechin, Ann

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Etherington, Bill

      McNulty, Tony

      Farrelly, Paul

      MacShane, Denis

      Fisher, Mark

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McWalter, Tony

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Flint, Caroline

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Gilroy, Linda

      Merron, Gillian

      Godsiff, Roger

      Michael, rh Alun

      Goggins, Paul

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Miliband, David

      Grogan, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hain, rh Peter

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mole, Chris

      Healey, John

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hendrick, Mark

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Hodge, Margaret

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Organ, Diana

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Hutton, rh John

      Picking, Anne

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jamieson, David

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Purnell, James

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Rammell, Bill

      89

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

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

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tipping, Paddy

      Ruane, Chris

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Watts, David

      Singh, Marsha

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Woolas, Phil

      Soley, Clive

      Worthington, Tony

      Squire, Rachel

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stringer, Graham

      Margaret Moran and

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after seven o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [5 November].

    Clause 57

      THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF DRINKING WATER AND THE DRINKING WATER INSPECTORATE
      Amendment made: No. 90, in page 74, line 33, at end insert—
      '( ) Any such proceedings by the Assembly may be instituted and carried on in the name of the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water for Wales, if there is one (or, if subsection (IB)(b) above applies, in the name of the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water).'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 62
      WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS
      Amendment made: No. 94, in page 83, line 23, leave out 'and in accordance with'.—[Mr. Morley.]
    Clause 83

      WATER CONSERVATION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
      Amendments made: No. 95, in page 100, line 40, at end insert 'or to be supplied'.
      No. 96, in page 101, line 13, after 'is', insert
      'or is deemed to be'.—[Mr. Morley.]

    Clause 92

      SELF-LAY AND ADOPTION OF WATER MAINS AND SERVICE PIPES
      Amendments made: No. 97, in page 116, line 24, leave out 'subsections (4) and (5)' and insert 'subsection (4)'.
      No. 98, in page 116, line 34, leave out from 'of to `whether' in line 35.
      No. 99, in page 116, line 38, at end insert—
      'and in subsection (4) of that section, after "subsection (1)" there is inserted "or (1A)".'.—[Morley.]

    Clause 96
      ADOPTION OF LATERAL DRAINS
      Amendment made: No. 100, in page 123, line 15, leave out 'sewerage' and insert 'sewage'.—[Mr. Morley.]
    Clause 98
      COMMUNICATION WITH PUBLIC SEWERS
      Amendment made: No. 101, in page 126, line 19, leave out ',114'.—[Mr. Morley.]
    New Clause 1

      PROHIBITION OF ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES
      '(1) The WIA is amended as follows.
      For section 87 (fluoridation of water supplies at request of health authorities) there is substituted—
      "87 Prohibition of artificial fluoridation of water supplies
      Water undertakers shall be prohibited from artificially increasing the fluoride content of the water supplied by them."
      (3) Section 88 (power to vary permitted fluoridation agents) shall cease to have effect.
      (4) Section 89 (publicity and consultation) shall cease to have effect.
      (5) In section 90 (indemnities in respect of fluoridation), at the end there is added—
      "(2) But no indemnity under this section shall apply in respect of any liability, costs, expenses or expenditure incurred in relation to artificial increases in the fluoride content of water after the coming into force of section [prohibition of artificial fluoridation of water supplies](2) of the Water Act 2003."
      (6) Section 91 (pre1985 fluoridation schemes) shall cease to have effect.
      (7) Schedule 7 (pre 1985 fluoridation schemes) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Simon Thomas.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Amendment No. 1, in page 75, line 7, leave out clause 58.
      Amendment No. 28, in clause 58, page 75, line 20, at end insert—
      '(2A) With regard to Wales, neither shall a water undertaker be authorised by subsection (1) above unless and until a referendum on increasing levels of fluoridation has been held in accordance

      91
      with the provisions of Part 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 seeking approval of the arrangements from the population residing in the area proposed to be affected.'.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 75, line 23, leave out from 'a' to end of line 25 and insert 'local authority'.
      Amendment No. 34, in page 76, line 2, at end insert 'or the water undertaker'.
      Amendment No. 35, in page 76, line 16, after 'authority', insert 'or a water undertaker'.
      Amendment No. 36, in page 76, line 23, leave out from '(9)' to end of line and insert'—

      (a) a combined reference may be made by the relevant authorities; or

      (b) a reference may be made by the water undertaker.'.

      Amendment No. 37, in page 76, line 42, after 'authority', insert 'or the water undertaker'.
      Amendment No. 38, in page 77, line 26, after 'authority', insert 'or the water undertaker'.
      Amendment No. 39, in page 77, line 30, after 'authority', insert 'or the water undertaker'.
      Amendment No. 40, in page 77, line 41, leave out from 'Assembly' to end of line 47 and insert—
      'or the water undertaker may refer the matter for determination by such person as the Assembly may appoint; and
      (b) the determination of that person shall be final.'.
      Amendment No. 41, in page 78, line 6, at end insert—
      '(4A) In making any determination under this section, the person making the determination—

      (a) shall secure that the arrangements, their variation or termination (as the case may be) are effected in an operable and efficient manner; or

      (b) if this cannot be achieved, shall refuse to require the entry into, variation of, or termination of, the arrangements.'.

      Amendment No. 42, in page 78, line 9, leave out from beginning to 'undertaker' in line 11 and insert—

      '(a) the person who made the determination shall give notice of his determination to the relevant authority or authorities and the water undertaker in question; and

      (b) except when there has been a refusal under subsection (4A)(b) above, such relevant authority or authorities and the water'.

      Amendment No. 45, in page 78, line 35, leave out 'or'.
      Amendment No. 46, in page 78, line 40, at end insert—
      'or
      for accommodating any other operational circumstance which necessitates variation of the source of the water being supplied to the area the water supply to which is required to be fluoridated.'.
      Amendment No. 6, in page 79, line 44, after 'consult', insert 'all households'.
      Amendment No. 23, in page 80, line 34, at end insert—
      '(5A) After section 89 there is inserted—
      "89A Assessment and analysis of effects on human health of fluoridated water
      (1) Following an increase of the fluoride content of water as a result of arrangements entered into under section 87, a relevant authority shall—

      (a) undertake an ongoing assessment of the correlation between fluoride consumption and changes in the dental health of the affected population;

      92

      (b) undertake an ongoing assessment of the correlation between fluoride consumption and the incidence of any known or suspected adverse effects of fluoride consumption in the affected population;

      (c) place all data obtained for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) above in the public domain; and

      (d) periodically publish an analysis of the data obtained for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

      (2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provisions about the requirements which must be satisfied by relevant authorities for the purposes of subsection (1) above.".'.
      Amendment No. 47, in page 80, line 34, at end insert—
      '(5A) After section 89 there is inserted—
      "89A Fluoridation arrangements: technical guidance
      (1) Without prejudice to Chapter 3 of this Part and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Secretary of State and the Assembly shall jointly prepare and issue a code of practice containing guidance on the technical standards that must be met by water undertakers in relation to the fluoridation of water supplies.
      (2) Such a code of practice shall—

      (a) include such provisions, and

      (b) be prepared and made in such manner,

      as shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.".'.
      Amendment No. 48, in page 80, line 37, leave out from 'State' to end of line 48 and insert—
      'shall indemnify every water undertaker which enters into arrangements under section 87(1) above against all liabilities that any such undertaker may incur in complying with such arrangements, other than liabilities arising from the undertaker's own fault or negligence.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall indemnify every licensed water supplier against all liabilities that any such supplier may incur—

      (a) in supplying water to which fluoride has been added by a water undertaker by virtue of any such arrangements; and

      (b) (if the licensee is introducing water into the water undertaker's supply system) in complying with any obligation imposed on it by the undertaker in consequence of the arrangements,

      other than liabilities arising from the licensee's own fault or negligence.
      (2A) Subject to the preceding provisions of this section, each indemnity shall be on such terms as (with the consent of the Treasury) may be agreed between the Secretary of State and (as the case may be) the undertaker or the licensee.'.
      Amendment No. 7, in page 80, line 37, leave out from 'State' to end of line 40 and insert—
      'shall indemnify every water undertaker which enters into arrangements under section 87(1) above against all liabilities that any such undertaker may incur in complying with such arrangements, other than liabilities arising from the undertaker's own fault or negligence.
      (1A) Subject to subsection (1) above, each indemnity shall be on such terms as (with the consent of the Treasury) may be agreed between the Secretary of State and the undertaker.'.
      Government amendment No. 91.
      Amendment No. 49, in page 81, line 13, after 'authority', insert 'or the water undertaker'.
      Amendment No. 50, in page 81, line 23, leave out from first 'the' to 'to' in line 24 and insert—
      'person who has made the determination shall give notice of his determination to the relevant authority and'.
      Government amendments Nos. 92 and 93.
      Government amendment No. 102.
      Government amendment No. 122.
      Amendment No. 2, in schedule 9, page 227, line 10, at end insert—
      'Sections 88 and 89.Section 91.'.
      Government amendment No. 125.
      Government amendment No. 114.
      Mr. Thomas: To date, the Bill has been disagreed with in detail, but not in principle. Now, we come to the part of the Bill with which there is disagreement in principle—a disagreement that crosses the House and runs throughout the parties. The amendments deal directly with whether we should fluoridate our water supplies, whether we should continue the fluoridation of water supplies that are already fluoridated and, if we are to fluoridate further water supplies, how we should consult local populations. New clause 1 and amendment No. 1, which stand in my name, and amendment No. 8, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Llanllienni—or Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), although in view of his appointment, we should refer to his constituency by its Welsh name—go to the heart of the debate on fluoridation.
      In the next hour and a half or so, I hope to hear the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House on how the House wants to come to a view—whether it wants to make a firm ruling on the principle of fluoridation, or whether it wants to make a more practical ruling on whether to extend fluoridation by means of the Bill. Given that this is, for the most part, a free vote—hon. Members on both sides have already expressed different ideas on how we should proceed—I hope that the House will be able, by means of the necessary votes, to make a firm declaration on fluoridation, and I hope that that declaration will be no: we do not have the evidence, the public support or the confidence at this stage, in this Bill, to pass such an important public health measure.
      Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting, if very backward-looking, point. Does he seek to examine the principle of current law, as I understand it, and to remove it? What has been wrong with that for the past 15 or 16 years?
      Mr. Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to hear precisely that argument, and I promise him that he will hear it from me, if he gives me a little time. To pick up one of his points, two views are reflected and two ways forward are offered. It is for the House to decide what it wants to do. A new clause and an amendment stand in my name—I have given the House a choice.
      Let us examine the practical grounds for fluoridation first. I shall discuss the civil liberties aspects and whether we should compulsorily medicate the population later. I have no doubt that putting the measure into the Bill has been justified on public health grounds. That
      94
      justification is based on the York review, a Government-commissioned review of all the science, the studies, and the peer-reviewed investigations to date on the effect of fluoridation on the population. That review found several important facts, which I want to put on the record.
      7.15 pm
      The review found that fluoridation appeared to reduce caries by 14 to 15 per cent.—that is, 0.4 per cent. of a tooth—but in the same context, it found that the science was poor and not without bias. The review also found that 48 per cent. of people living in fluoridated areas have dental fluorosis—a brown mottling of the teeth, which is medically accepted as a sign of fluoride overdose. We must not have too much fluoride in the water, and the Bill, by setting a limit on the amount of fluoride that may be put in the water, implicitly accepts that too much fluoride is possible, although it purports that there is an effective level.
      Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman says that fluorosis affects 48 per cent. of the population and results in brown mottling. Is he not aware that the most common appearance of fluorosis is a pearly appearance of the teeth, not brown mottling?
      Mr. Thomas: I do not know about the hon. Gentleman's pearly gnashers, but as he knows, the 48 per cent. examined in the York review identified that as the effect on their teeth. It is the York review that says that, not me, and it is for individuals to judge for themselves. Fluorosis is fluorosis: it is evidence of too much fluoride in the body, and that is the end of it.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Did not the York review find that there was a 15 per cent. increase in fluorosis? If there is a 14 or 15 per cent. improvement in the quality of teeth and a 15 per cent. decrease in the quality of teeth, especially children's teeth, because of fluorosis, does not the one cancel out the other? Is not the pro-fluoridation proposal an absolute nonsense?
      Mr. Thomas: I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman, except to say that I do not think that one cancels out the other. However, the two pieces of information are evidence that we should use when taking decisions as Members of Parliament. We should not simply swallow one line or another, but try to work out what we should do.
      It is clear that the effects of fluorosis include not only the chalky or pearly appearance to which the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) referred, but brown staining and pitting of teeth. Those are fairly severe effects. Are we proposing to put something in the water that will have that effect on 48 per cent. of the population? That serious question must be answered.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: Did the hon. Gentleman receive, as I did a couple of days ago, a document from the British Dental Association and the British Medical Association in favour of introducing fluoride into water? It stated that in some areas that are

      95
      fluoridated the incidence of caries in children was twice as bad as in areas that are not. What conclusion does he draw from that?
      Mr. Thomas: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the document that I have in my hand, which I did indeed receive recently. It shows that although fluoridated areas tend to have better dental health—I should say better health in terms of caries, not dental health, because there is more to dental health than simply caries; gum disease and cancer and mouth cancer have to be considered as well—there are fluoridated areas that have an above-average incidence of decayed, filled or missing teeth among five-year-olds. The science is unproven.
      To return to the York review, following its publication, four eminent members of the NHS centre for reviews and dissemination at York university—Professor Jos Kleijnen, Professor Trevor Sheldon, Sir lain Chalmers and Professor George Davey-Smith—made the following statement in a letter to the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears):
      "As far as we are aware, no other review"—
      they refer to the York review—
      "of this topic is of comparable scientific standard, and we are concerned about some continuing misinterpretations of the evidence which could have implications for public policy."
      I think that their use of the word "misinterpretations" refers to the Government's attitude, but that is for them to say.
      Three points were made in the letter. The first is about the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing caries—the very point raised in an intervention by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)—and the letter states:
      "We could discover no reliable, good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What we found suggested that fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but in fact the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth."
      The second point was about the effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing inequalities in dental health across social groups—I understand from our debates in Committee that this will be a strong argument, which the Government will want to advance. The letter stated:
      "The evidence is weak, contradictory and unreliable".
      Are we to legislate on the basis of weak, contradictory and unreliable evidence?
      The third point was on the safety of fluoridation:
      "Apart from an increase in dental fluorosis (mottled teeth)"—
      it is the scientists, not me, who describe it as mottled teeth—
      "we found no clear pattern among the possible negative effects we examined, and we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence is poor"—
      a point to which I shall return in a few moments.
      Mr. Adrian Bailey: Did the survey provide any assessment of the number of children who have died under general anaesthetic as a result of tooth decay? I can tell the House that, on the basis of
      96
      figures released for 1998, three children died. We would all agree that that is a serious and devastating health argument.
      Mr. Thomas: That is so irrelevant to this debate—[Interruption.] I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. It is because modern medical practice is not to give general anaesthetic to children undergoing dental examination and treatment. The hon. Gentleman should know that. It is precisely because of those unfortunate deaths that it is not now general practice to give general anaesthetics to children in dental surgeries on the high street. The hon. Gentleman knows that and he should not adduce that evidence to support his position.
      Andy Burnham rose—
      Mr. Bailey rose—
      Mr. Thomas: I am not giving way for the moment, because I want to continue with my speech.
      As emphasised in the York review, only high-quality studies can fill the gaps in knowledge about those and other aspects of fluoridation. The question that we must ask is whether the Government have, since the York review, commissioned those high-quality studies. No, they have not. They have not even received the report that they said they would commission from the chief medical officer and the chief dental officer. That report is not yet published; not yet given to Members; not yet available to the public. The one thing that the Government said they would do in response to the York review has not been done. Yet we are being told to rush this Bill through as a great opportunity to improve the dental health of children and our population. It is not. It is too fast and based on too little evidence.
      Richard Burden: The hon. Gentleman is describing the York review and I understand that he wants all the facts out. Will he also confirm—he has not said it in his speech so far—that the York review found no evidence to substantiate allegations by anti-fluoride campaigners to the effect that there was a link between fluoridation and bone cancers, thyroid cancers, Down's syndrome and hip fractures?
      Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes a reasonable point. We have all received material from all sides of the argument—particularly perhaps the side to which he refers—about fluoridation. I agree that some of it comes across as rather hysterical, shall we say. However, I would not like the hon. Gentleman to believe that the points made on that side of the argument are completely without validation in the York review, which said that there could be possible negative outcomes such as IQ and congenital defects. They acknowledged that that could not be proved, but argued in favour of further high-quality research. That

      97
      was the York review's recommendation—we do not know enough about the effects, so may we have further high-quality research, please?
      The Government's response, which had unfortunate consequences, was to ask the Medical Research Council to advise on any further priorities for research into water fluoridation. The MRC concluded that research on a number of other possible negative health outcomes—including the IQ and congenital defects mentioned in the York review, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield also referred—was of a "low priority".
      Thus the York review asked for higher-quality research as a priority, but in response to the Government the Medical Research Council declared that such research was a low priority. I cannot step into that argument. I acknowledge that I do not have the scientific ability to do so, but I do know one thing: if I am to support legislation, I want to be able to examine relevant studies and reviews. I want to be convinced that what we put into our water supply will not have adverse effects.
      As I said earlier, much of the publicity and propaganda on the issue verges on the hysterical. Although it remains the case that there is no evidence to prove the negative, as legislators we surely remain in difficulties. We need to be absolutely certain about what we are putting into our public water supply before we make any progress in that respect.
      I now want to move on to consider in more detail the Government's view of these matters.
      Gareth Thomas: I am inclined to support the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint. For the sake of clarity, however, is he saying that if the medical evidence were stronger, the human rights arguments would effectively be overruled?
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. From my perspective, I am opposed to compulsory medication. It may be good for me to have a little aspirin for my heart, particularly in debates such as this, but I do not want to be forced to take it. I want to be able to choose whether to take any medication. A little later in my speech, I shall deal with the question of whether fluoridation counts as water treatment or medication, which is at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question. We must think clearly on these matters. If it is clear that we are trying to achieve a medical result, I would say that civil liberties is an absolute issue. If it is clear that it is a different matter of water treatment, then a rather different argument applies. I hope to persuade hon. Members this evening that what is at stake here is a medical matter and that we should not proceed down those lines.
      Stephen Hesford: Having examined the hon. Gentleman's amendment, the logic of his argument seems to be that we should not fluoridate water because there is no proof either that it works or that it is not harmful. However, I have seen no amendments on the amendment paper that require water companies to
      98
      withdraw fluoridation from the 5 million people who receive fluoridated water and have done so for about 40 years.
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that no amendment is designed to achieve that, but new clause 1 would do precisely what he says. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misleads the House in going down that road. New clause 1 withdraws fluoridation from those who receive it. I hope that those who believe in civil liberties will support it, as well as those who have a more practical or pragmatic view. It is for hon. Members to decide.
      Mr. Alan Williams: Is there not an alternative, which goes closer to meeting a point of principle: to refuse to allow clause 58 to stand part of the Bill?
      Mr. Thomas: That is amendment No. 1. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that that at least keeps the status quo, but it will continue to allow fluoridation to be decided by water companies, which is the real problem. We all agree that water companies should not decide that sort of thing, and I want to argue that we should not decide it either.
      The Government have usefully copied to members of the Committee their own arguments based on a briefing from the chief dental officer of why we should fluoridate. I understand that we have a free vote tonight, but also that the Government are clearly behind fluoridation as a method of dealing with the problems of NHS dentistry, to which I shall return in a few moments. The review examined alternatives to water fluoridation. Let us accept for a moment that fluoride benefits teeth. I can accept that at a personal level because I use a fluoride toothpaste, but it is my own choice to use it. In a letter to Committee members, the Government said:
      "Dental decay can also be largely prevented on an individual basis by dietary means. However there is no evidence that it is possible to alter people's diet to this extent on a population basis and it is therefore not currently a practical public health option."
      That strikes me as a defeatist attitude from the Government. Just today, the Government addressed the issue of obesity in young children. At other times, they have talked about too much salt in our diet and, in an apparently constant stream of initiatives from No. 10, have stressed the need to change our diet. I do not disagree with that. Let us have exhortations from the Government about changing our dietary habits, how we look after our health, not smoking and not drinking too much. But let us not then use the same argument to impose compulsory fluoridation, because—it is claimed—people are too thick to learn how to look after their teeth. That is a ridiculous argument.
      The situation is even more ridiculous, because the letter continues:
      "It is also cheaper—water fluoridation costs around 50p per person per year; a year's supply of toothbrushes and toothpaste costs around£10. So there are important reasons to consider water fluoridation as the preferred method of preventing tooth decay."

      99
      the Government honestly suggesting that we should all drink fluoridated water and throw out our toothbrushes and toothpaste to save £9.50 a year? That would not improve oral health, gum disease or rates of mouth cancer. It would not help us to address the increasing problems of the NHS dental service, with one third of children in Wales not having an NHS dentist. Some 69 per cent. of the population in my county do not have an NHS dentist—
      Mr. Redwood rose—
      Mr. Thomas: Here is a man who was partly responsible for that.
      Mr. Redwood: I was going to say nice things about the hon. Gentleman, but not after that calumny. Does he agree that it is odd that the Government want to boss us all around to stop us having tooth decay, but they allow smoking? All their medical advice is that smoking causes awful health problems that then need to be remedied by the NHS, but they have not banned it. The Government are being illogical in allowing us to smoke, but making us have fluoride when we do not want it.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Thomas: I agree that that is illogical, but I will not be tempted further down that path as it would be outside the scope of the new clause and amendments.
      The British Dental Association has written to all hon. Members to ask them to support fluoridation. It makes no bones about wanting fluoridation, and that is fine, but my children have a drink called Ribena ToothKind, which is approved by the British Dental Association. Is the BDA urging legislators to put fluoride in everyone's drinking water, but at the same time willing to take money from a commercial company to say that a sweet soft drink is good for your teeth?
      Mr. Morley: There is no sugar in it.
      Mr. Thomas: That is true. I do not know whether the Minister has children—
      Mr. Morley indicated assent.
      Mr. Thomas: He will know, then, that if one lets children have sweet drinks, they ask for more. When one is out and about, one does not always have access to nice tooth-kind drinks. The children want Coke, lemonade or Fanta. Let us be clear about the facts—the British Dental Association does not have clean hands on the issue. If it is prepared to back sweet drinks, it should not tell us what we should put in our clean, fresh water. We should bear such facts in mind when interest groups tell us how we should legislate.
      Mr. John Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost of fluoridating the public water supply as opposed to the cost of toothbrushes and toothpaste. We are concentrating on the problems of a small minority of children in deprived areas who are not
      100
      getting the necessary dental care. Would it not be better and cheaper to concentrate directly on their needs, rather than do something that would affect the whole country?
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the heart of the argument. We have in many of our communities a recognised problem of severe tooth decay in young children. That is a feature of poverty, lack of education, culture, bad diet and lack of access to dental services. None of those factors is affected by fluoridation. There is no evidence that a young child in, say, Manchester or Aberystwyth who drinks fluoridated water but continues with those bad health habits will have significantly improved teeth. They might have an improvement of 0.4 per cent. in one tooth, but that is no reason to change our whole water supply. The hon. Gentleman is right—we need to target improvements in dental health directly on those who need it most.
      I know that many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude. Is fluoridation medication? When the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) pressed the Under-Secretary on the issue in Committee, she said that she did not consider fluorosilicic acid—the substance used to fluoridate water—to be a medicine, and she mentioned the guide to medicinal and health care products. I take it that she was referring to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which has published a guide to what should be considered a medicinal product. It states, on page 4, that medicines include
      "Any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in human beings or animals."
      According to that, fluoride is a medicine.
      Mr. Bill Etherington: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that fluoride is not a registered medicine. It is, however, a registered poison.
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right. Under the Poisons Act 1972, it is registered as a part II poison, alongside arsenic and paraquat. I do not think that there are many useful benefits of arsenic.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: Are those people who live in areas that have naturally fluoridated water being poisoned?
      Mr. Thomas: Those individuals who live in areas that are naturally high in radon are being poisoned. Many areas have natural features that have an impact on our bodies—such as fluoride and radon. The hon. Gentleman cannot wriggle out of that one. If it is a poison, we should not add it to our water supply.
      It is illegal to add fluoride to the water supply as a treatment. In other words, fluoride is not regulated as a water treatment agent. The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 list those substances that may be added to our water, and fluoride is not one of them. It is curious that fluoride is not regulated as a medicine, it has never been tested on the population as a medicine, it cannot be bought over the counter and it is even banned in Belgium as a treatment for teeth, yet we seek to achieve a medicinal effect by putting it in our water. I know that many hon. Members represent

      101
      the 5 million people in England who already have fluoride in their water and they will not be happy to hear that argument, but we have to look at the hard evidence. The York review and other evidence make it clear that insufficient evidence is available to decide to add fluoride to our water. There is insufficient evidence of the effects that the Minister will no doubt claim.
      There are better alternatives, such as improving access to NHS dentistry and increasing education on personal dental care—including cutting down on sugar in the diet—which could achieve similar effects to water fluoridation, but without as much controversy or the potential negative health effects, even if those stop at fluorosis. Fluorides are not the way forward for the NHS dental service. Fluorides are not the way forward to treat the population as a whole. I urge the House to reject mass medication and to support the important principle of individual choice in how we look after our own bodies and teeth, how we take medicines and how we interact with the rest of society. This is not a matter for this House.
      Mr. James Wray: May I ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for a Division on amendment No. 8? There is cross-party support for the amendment. Quite a number of people have added their names to it; I did not table it, but I have added my name.
      Stephen Hesford: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Wray: Give me a chance to get started.
      I have watched this matter over the years. From 1983, the Water (Scotland) Act 1946 was taken up in the Court of Session, and one of the reasons was that the Government wanted to fluoridate water supplies in my country of Scotland—part of the United Kingdom. The people were against that, and the case ended up taking five years to be settled in the Court of Session. That was the reason for the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985. The Government produced a Bill in 1983 because they found that it was ultra vires and outwith the remit of a water engineer to "treat" the people who drink water. All the additives that have been mentioned as being in the water are there to make it wholesome. It was important in the early 1980s to keep additions under strict control by local authorities, which are the democratic authorities accountable to the electorate. They consult the people and listen to their views. At that time, they certainly did listen. Lord Jauncey decided the case. Three or four items were put to him, including the medical, moral and legal aspects.
      Local authorities all over England and Scotland were not really interested in fluoridating public water supplies, but an organisation called the British Fluoridation Society has spent money to the tune of £185,000 to brainwash the whole of Britain to try to get fluoride into all the waters in all the local authority areas. The Government have been dishonest.
      Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend talks about dishonesty. On representation in the House, is he aware that two early-day motions were tabled and that one, in favour of fluoridation, was signed by more than 150 Members? Of the two EDMs, one was an amendment
      102
      against anti-fluoridation moves and the other was anti-fluoridation in itself. Only 21 Members signed for the anti position.
      Mr. Wray: That does not really matter.
      Mr. Butterfill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) is misleading the House—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his experience, would not wish to use that expression and accuse another hon. Member of misleading the House.
      Mr. Butterfill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House, but he certainly had that effect.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has great experience of chairing proceedings in the House, and he should know that he is trying to pursue on a point of order what is really a point of argument.
      Mr. Wray: Many early-day motions are tabled. Some get hundreds of signatures, but they never go anywhere. Neither will that one.
      The jewel in the crown was Birmingham, which has been fluoridated for 30 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "For 40 years."] That is even worse. The Government never reported back on the professor who went into five primary schools and found that 34 per cent. of the children had dental fluorosis—caused by chronic fluorine poisoning. That is where the disease comes from—a poisonous waste. No one from the medical profession ever discovered that fluoride was attracted to bones and teeth; they knew nothing about it. Cattle were found down in England with skeletal fluorosis, which came from people dumping fluoride, which was very expensive to dump. People wanted to find a cheap way of getting rid of that, so they sent an agent to have a look. It was him who discovered that it was attracted to bones and teeth. That is where chronic fluorine poisoning and skeletal fluorosis came from. I think that the company at the time may have been Fisons.
      7.45 pm
      Under the 1926 food and drugs legislation, it is a crime to add any kind of fluoride to foodstuffs. The Medicines Act 1968 clearly states what is a medicinal product. Why would a Government who believe in democracy want to transfer a non-medicinal product to a health authority and take away the democratic right of a local authority?
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am interested in amendment No. 8, but I would be grateful if my hon. Friend could clarify one point. I understand entirely that he recommends that the requirement should come from a democratically elected local authority. What would be the basis on which such an authority would make such a request?
      Mr. Wray: The reason for wanting to take the decision away from local authorities is that local

      103
      authorities up and down the country refused to fluoridate. It was then put in the hand of water authorities, but they cannot do it because of the Water (Scotland) Act 1946, so the Government have to try to persuade the water authorities. Because of indemnification, the water authorities will not like that because they have heard public complaints about the fluoridation of public water supplies and dental fluorosis. They will not implement fluoridation. In fact, an attempt was made to force authorities in the north of England, and that case was lost because the judge said that the water authority had a responsibility to its shareholders and customers.
      Mr. David Marshall: In the event of fluoridated water being eventually proven harmful to the health of human beings, who does my hon. Friend think will be liable if the victims sue? Would it be the manufacturers of fluoride, the water companies, the strategic health authorities or even the Government?
      Mr. Wray: If any of my children get dental fluorosis or chronic fluorine poisoning, I will sue everybody until I get the right one—the Government, the fluoride company, whoever. One reason why fluoride is said not to be a medicinal product is that a product licence would be needed to procure the fluoride. That licence would state clearly what the product is—a fluorosilicate, under European Union directives, and something that is certainly not on the approved medicines list. I have heard Ministers speak about fluorspar and natural fluoride. Natural fluoride comes from fluorspar. It is insoluble. With fluorosilicates, as soon as they hit the water, they dissolve. With fluorspar, the actual fluoride comes from the fluorspar and is insoluble. There is a very big difference.
      I do not care who takes fluoride. Give it to your sons, give it to your daughters—in toothpaste or in tablets, as long as it is self-administered. Once we start to use water as a panacea, as mass medication for the whole population, half of whom do not even have teeth, we might as well put the fluoride into buckets.
      We have a socialist Government and they should never medicate people against their will. It is illegal in English law to medicate someone against their will. It is as though a doctor diagnosed all his patients and prescribed them fluoride without seeing them. We have never done that in this country. That is what bothers me—the fact that a Labour Government who believe in democracy want such demagoguery and want to fluoridate public water supplies.
      The Government know the moral aspects and the medical aspects; they certainly know the legal aspects. Why are fluorides forbidden and criminal under the Poisons Act 1972? Why are the human rights of the individual being taken away by a few Members of Parliament who are not even taking the time to read exactly what will be going into our water? Why do they not find out what fluoride is and where it comes from?
      Out in the commercial world somebody will be making big bucks. That is what this is all about. If the whole UK water supply is fluoridated, somebody will get their palm greased. They will be ready when the Government decide to put fluoride in the water.
      104
      There will be no way of really measuring one part per million. How will the Government know how many children are already taking fluoride tablets at school? How will they know how many people already brush their teeth with fluoridated toothpaste? If a baby ate a tube of toothpaste she would die. There is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a child.
      Mr. Etherington: Earlier my hon. Friend was asked about the democratic processes that might be used by local authorities to ascertain the wishes of the public. Does he share my view that whatever the system is I would have more confidence in it than if the matter were left to a strategic health authority?
      Mr. Wray: I certainly do.
      What worries me is that the Minister is misleading the House. The chairman of the York university review committee, Professor Trevor Sheldon, sent a letter to the press about the statements—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman accuse the Minister of misleading the House? If I did, I hope that he will very quickly withdraw that statement.
      Mr. Wray: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I withdraw it.
      Trevor Sheldon wrote an open letter that stated:
      "The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definitive evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation."
      Why does the Minister not promote the comments of the director of the Medical Research Council, Dr. Paul Harrison? He said:
      "But there is a lack of research on some important aspects, which is why we're highlighting the need for more research…Because of the wide use of toothpastes and other dental health care products containing fluoride, we need a better understanding of how much fluoride we're all absorbing."
      Everybody else is worried, so why does the Minister say that it is safe to take fluoride? All those bodies have looked at the evidence and considered the studies.
      In 1997, Wolverhampton fluoridated its water supply, so why did dental costs rise by 112 per cent? Should not those costs have been lower after fluoridation? We are not getting the right facts in this case.
      I hope that hon. Members will vote for the democratic right of local authorities to retain control under amendment No. 8 and that they will vote against the fluoridation of public water supplies. That is a criminal act and it is illegal under various Acts passed by the Government.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House? It is obvious that only a short time is left for this debate so I hope that in future contributions, including those from the Front Benches, Members will bear in mind the fact that there is a great deal of interest in taking part.
      Mr. Wiggin: I shall try to keep my comments as brief as possible, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to address a large number of amendments.
      Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly about amendment No. 8, which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Baillieston (Mr. Wray) has just discussed. We shall certainly press it to a vote and on the Opposition Benches it will be a free vote.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Some time ago when we held a debate on the composition of the other place there was a series of genuine free votes. To indicate that they were genuinely free votes, the Government Whips Office put in Tellers for both sides. Has my hon. Friend received any notification from the Treasury Bench that Government Whips will be telling on both sides when we vote on this group?
      Mr. Nick Ainger: indicated assent.
      Mr. Wiggin: I see that the Government Whip is nodding. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) for making that vital point; if we are to have a free vote, free it must be.
      Currently, the Bill gives strategic health authorities the role of consultation with local communities to determine whether fluoride should be added to their water supply. We want that to be undertaken by local authorities. The Minister has insisted that any decision to fluoridate water will be determined by "local" people after "local" consultation. Strategic health authorities are not local. The SHA for my constituency is in Coventry, which is a long way from Herefordshire so it is not local in any sense of the word.
      Strategic health authorities are neither democratically elected nor accountable. Their accountability comes only through the Secretary of State, which is not a direct local mechanism. They do not match up with the Government's insistence on local consultation and I should prefer an element of democratic decision making with elected and accountable local authorities having that power.
      Mr. Drew: I shall be voting with the hon. Gentleman on the amendment. Not only am I unhappy about the level at which the decision will be taken, but I have received two letters, one from the Greater Manchester SHA and one from my SHA, Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, urging me to support the provisions on the basis that we should have a fluoridated water supply. How can those authorities carry out open, honest and democratic consultations when they are telling us which way to vote?
      Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. We want not only democratic accountability, but at least proper information to be provided to all people, so that they can decide how they would like their water supplies to be treated. Of course, that is difficult if the strategic health authority has already made that decision.
      8 pm
      Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the decision being in the hands of the wrong body. Why did the then Conservative Government leave the decision in the hands of the health authorities when they passed the Water (Fluoridation) Act 1985?
      Mr. Wiggin: I do not think that they left the decision in the hands of the health authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] I thought that the decision was left in the hands of the water authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I thought that that was what the Government were seeking to change. Anyway, like the hon. Gentleman, I was probably at school at the time, so I was not privy to the full debate.
      Andy Burnham rose—
      Mr. Wiggin: Hang on; let me answer the first question. The important point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make is that the then Government probably acted—I am sure that they did—on the best scientific evidence at the time. One of the biggest criticisms of the Bill is that the York report has requested further research, but the Government have not carried it out. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is highly exercised, so I shall give way.
      Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman asks me to explain further. The original Conservative legislation said that the health authorities would undertake the consultation, but that the water companies may choose to fluoridate on the back of the health authorities' request. The word, "may" is the loophole in the 1985 Act that people are exploiting to open a debate on the question per se, but the hon. Member responsible for that legislation—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—is wholly in favour of the change that other hon. Members and I are proposing tonight.
      Mr. Wiggin rose—
      Mr. Butterfill: May I just make it clear that the previous legislation left it free to health authorities to recommend fluoridation, but that it was up to the water authorities to decide whether to go ahead and, since most of them were worried about getting sued, they did not do so?
      Mr. Wiggin: I shall make some progress not only because it is important that hon. Members have the chance to make their own speeches, but because we have moved on about 20 years, and there seems little advantage in debating what happened 20 years ago.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Water authorities will not take the decision because they are not convinced that it is safe and they fear they will be sued if they do so. That is what they fail to say.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to hon. Members for all their interventions. One of the Bill's fundamental flaws is that it does not give us the decision on fluoridation, but the rights and wrongs of what has happened in the past are not for us to debate. I would prefer it if they were, but that is not the case, so I must make progress.

      107
      I would prefer to see democratic decision making, so it is right that such powers should be in the hands of local authorises, as elected and accountable bodies. Strategic health authorities have an overwhelming bias in favour of fluoridation. Such an issue needs neutrality—the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—with each local community given an equal amount of information from both sides of the debate, so they can make up their own minds.
      The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) asked in an earlier intervention why local authorities should take that decision. The answer is that it must be in their interests to ask their electorate and, when they get the answer, to act accordingly.
      Mr. Kaufman: My question was not why. I find it very attractive that local authorities should take the decision. What I am interested in having elucidated to me is by what process the local authority would make its decision.
      Mr. Wiggin: I shall come to my amendments slightly later on, but I would prefer a proper referendum to be conducted—every household should be consulted. We are talking about mass medication, whether we want to call it that or not, so we must have mass consultation to go with it. That is the least that we can do.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) makes an important point, but it is also important to note that the Bill does not specify what the current consultation with the strategic health authorities—or, indeed, in Wales, with the National Assembly—should involve, so that criticism should be channelled at the Bill as well.
      Mr. Wiggin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I shall come to that in speaking to my amendments.
      Richard Burden: The hon. Gentleman sees this as a health issue. Does he think that any other health issue should be decided by local authorities, rather than by part of the health service?
      Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the real misunderstanding. He talks about a decision being made by a local authority or by a strategic health authority; I am talking about local people being able to take that decision. That is why I would prefer local authorities to make the decision. They start from an unbiased position, so they can undertake proper consultation without pursuing their own agenda, and they are elected and accountable. None of those things applies to strategic health authorities, so we need to move on from whether they should make the decision or whether local people should make it. That is why the hon. Gentleman and I will not agree, but he can now understand why his comments are not the same as mine and are not relevant. It does not matter what other health decisions are made by local authorities because they are not covered by the Bill.
      Mr. Bailey: The hon. Gentleman has not said what would happen if there were different types of local
      108
      authority in an area—a county council, a district council or even a district council and a parish council—and they were at odds with each other.
      Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have referred to local authorities, but I imagine that the county council would be involved in my area, for example. I have a unitary authority in Herefordshire, but a county council and a district council in Worcestershire, both of which are in my constituency. There are difficulties, but why would strategic health authorities do a better job? They are not accountable and not elected. [Interruption.] I will not ask the hon. Gentleman to respond, but I am sure that he will comment on that in his speech. In answer to his question, my feeling is that, so long as an authority conducts proper consultation, it will be able to make the decision. As the Minister said in Committee, the majority of people must be in favour of fluoridation before it takes place.
      Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wiggin: I will. I have been very generous; I do not see why I should stop now.
      Mr. Williams: I appreciate that fact, and I am grateful to him for giving way. Does he not understand that he is giving the argument away? Either we believe in compulsory medication or we do not. If we do not believe in compulsory medication, it does not matter whether it is done by the Government, by a quango or by a local authority, it is still wrong. I believe that compulsory medication is wrong in all circumstances.
      Mr. Wiggin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but it is wrong to say that I am giving the game away or behaving in any way like that. That is not what I seeking to do with my amendments. I want to ensure that the Bill, which only deals with whether fluoridation may or may not take place, guarantees accountability—that is the bit that is missing.
      Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, regardless of the fate of any other amendment, he will nevertheless press amendment No. 6 to a Division, because that amendment refers to consulting all households?
      Mr. Wiggin: I would love to press amendment No. 6 to a Division. I cannot confirm whether I will do so because we will be under a lot of time pressure; otherwise, the Bill will not receive a Third Reading. If we are successful with amendment No. 8, however, perhaps it will be possible to press amendment No. 6 to a Division. That is an important point, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making it.
      Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42 and 46 all relate to the same purpose: including the water undertaker in the decision-making process. The Bill only takes account of the health authority in such decisions, and those amendments would enable water companies, as well as health authorities, to initiate variations in arrangements to accommodate changes in

      109
      circumstances, including operational emergencies. Under the Bill, only health authorities can request changed arrangements, but it is only fair that water undertakers should also apply the same provisions. There should be statutory provision for water undertakers to make arrangements for changes in their obligations to take on operational contingencies. Those amendments would ensure that the water company, as well as the health authority, could request such a provision.
      Amendment No. 37 would ensure that the decision on the level of fluoridation concentration could be taken by the water company, as well as the health authority. It is only fair that water companies have an input into what concentration of fluoride should be added.
      Amendments Nos. 36, 38, 39, 40 and 42 would place the water companies on the same footing as health authorities in a disagreement over a requested variation. Water undertakers should be able to appeal to the Secretary of State and relevant authorities when the terms of a requested variation cannot be agreed. Again, that relates to the point made in amendments Nos. 34. 35 and 37 that express statutory provision should be made whereby water companies can request variation of their obligations to accommodate operational contingencies.
      Amendment No. 41 would require that in the references of disputes under section 87B, the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly should be empowered to ensure that new or revised fluoridation schemes are operable and efficient. If a scheme failed to be so, entry into the arrangements would be refused.
      Amendment No. 46 would add to the circumstances under which suspension of, or variation of, fluoridation takes place, and suggests the addition of necessary changes to source of supply. The boundaries of operational supply zones often have to be varied to accommodate seasonal changes in weather patterns and other operational exigencies.
      Amendment No. 6 is very important. It seeks to ensure that every person affected by the proposed fluoridation scheme must be consulted, or at least invited to participate in the consultations. I had to concede that invitation because the Government do not intend to hold the proper referendum that I would have preferred. Consultation literature must be sent to every household in the affected area. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
      "That is the sort of thing that we have in mind."
      I welcome that comment. Furthermore, she added that
      "we believe that some sort of door-to-door consultation must be part of the overall consultation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 October 2003; c. 461.]
      Is she therefore proposing that the Government will ensure that every door of every household in every area will be knocked on to discuss fluoridation? I find that highly unlikely. Equally, we must ensure that all households in an affected area receive neutral, unbiased information from both sides of the debate, and that the information is understood by all. Will that happen? I should like to see a referendum on a topic as controversial as fluoridation. Given its health effects—to say nothing of the civil liberties factor, to which
      110
      reference was made—it is all the more vital to ensure that everyone has their say after a fully informed debate. We have still not had an answer as to what democratic result the Government consider right in order to fluoridate water supplies. Fluoridation will affect individual freedom, because people have to drink water. Their choice and right to drink non-fluoridated water—indeed, fluoride can even be absorbed through the skin when in the bath—will effectively be eliminated, unless the Government are going to give every opponent to fluoridation the money to buy bottled natural drinking water if they live in a fluoridated area, which, of course they are not. It is important that all households be consulted on whether they want fluoridation to take place, and if the Government are serious about their promise to let local communities decide, my amendment should be included.
      On amendment No. 47, Water UK believes that, in relation to fluoridation of water supplies, there should be statutory provision by the Secretary of State for specifying construction and operational standards. This code of practice, prepared by the Secretary of State for water undertakers, is in the interests of safety and of the avoidance of arguments over the standards that have to be met and paid for. The amendment would provide clear assurances in that regard.
      Amendment No. 48 is very similar to amendment No. 7, except that it adds a subsection (2) to accommodate licensed water suppliers in indemnity arrangements against all liabilities incurred in fluoridation. Amendment No. 7 would ensure that the Secretary of State grants indemnities to water suppliers that agree to fluoridate a water supply under clause 58; we should surely welcome that. In Committee, the Minister stressed that a water supplier that agrees to fluoridate should not incur any additional liabilities, compared with a water supplier with no fluoridation scheme. She is right, but my amendment seeks to be sure of exactly what liabilities are covered in the indemnity, what is excluded, and the costs. It should be expressly provided that the Secretary of State must indemnify water companies against all liabilities that they may incur as a consequence of fluoridation, other than those arising from their own fault or negligence. We want proper protection for consumers in all areas.
      Amendment No. 48 adds to amendment No. 7 by attaching subsection (2) in order to accommodate licensed water suppliers. Of course, the question arises of why indemnities are needed in the first place. Is it because there is a risk associated with mass water fluoridation? And it is because of that risk that water companies must be protected against future action? However, just because we recognise that the Government may know of the dangers of fluoridation—hence the indemnity—does that mean that we can skip over the harmfulness of fluoride? As has been said, fluoride is a class 2 poison. We should not legislate without the necessary high-quality research. The high-quality research that the York review itself requested has not been undertaken; indeed, in Committee the Minister told us that it was marked as "a low priority". We need to assess the proportionality of the risk of tooth decay in children, and the risk posed by fluoride for people of all ages. The scientific research is

      111
      contradictory, and the satisfactory evidence is non-existent. The safeguards are clearly not in place. The matter is in no way resolved, so the clause in question should not be included. Giving an indemnity to water companies does not detract from the doubt and uncertainty that surrounds the issue; and it certainly is not a reason why we should accept fluoridation.
      I want to know how much the proposed indemnities will cost, what legal advice is being taken, and whether the Bill fulfils its human rights obligations.
      Mr. David Kidney: On the York review's recommendation for further research and the Medical Research Council's 15 recommendations for such research, the hon. Gentleman points out that we have yet to receive the results. But even if this House were willing to legislate without knowing the results, would he think it odd that we consulted the public without their knowing the results?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Wiggin: As I said earlier, it is important that the public be properly informed and consulted.
      Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the Government may be indemnifying the water companies, they will not get an indemnity themselves? There is no doubt that they will face legal action if they proceed with the Bill.
      Mr. Wiggin: I share my hon. Friend's concern. I, too, have heard that the provision will be tested in law and I am very worried about that, because ultimately the consumers will pick up the bill, whether they wish to or not. For that reason, this part of the measure makes me extremely nervous.
      Have the Government received the advice of the chief medical officer and the chief dental officer, commissioned in September 2002? We were promised in Committee that a great deal more information would be available on Report. We all look forward to knowing what that information is. If these amendments were accepted, they would provide assurances for all water undertakers that liabilities are covered by the indemnity arrangements, which would be most helpful.
      Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 would enable water companies, as well as health authorities, to initiate changes to pre-1985 fluoridation arrangements, which would be fairer to water companies. Water undertakers should be included in statutory provisions that will affect their industry.
      I look forward to hearing the rest of this debate. This is an extremely important issue, and I regret very much the sneaking of this clause into the Bill. It is clear that this issue needed a great deal more time in which to debate it.
      Andy Burnham: In fact, the clause has not been snuck into the Bill; 150 Members of this House signed an early-day motion, which I tabled, on this issue. That shows the strength of feeling in this place—on both sides of the House—which the Government recognised by introducing the clause.
      112
      Today, we have an opportunity to correct a loophole in the law that has thwarted the will of the House for 20 years, and left health inequalities between rich and poor communities that are wider than they need be or should be. Tooth decay is almost entirely preventable, and water fluoridation has been shown to be a safe and effective way of preventing it. Yet we rarely get the chance—
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Can my hon. Friend justify his statement by saying by whom it has been so shown?
      Andy Burnham: The justification is the figures, provided for every constituency, from the British Dental Association. In respect of five-year-olds, the constituencies with the best dental health in the country all have a fluoridated water supply. Those with the worst dental health are the poorest communities, which do not have a fluoridated water supply.
      Mr. Lansley rose—
      Mr. Kevin Hughes rose—
      Andy Burnham: I shall make progress as others want to speak.
      We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to pass legislation that will have a rapid effect on the nation's health, particularly in our most deprived communities, and we must seize it. In fact, it was a Bill passed in 1985 by the previous Conservative Government that made water fluoridation legal, although pointing that out will not help me on this side of the House. The Government's proposed change simply gives effect to the spirit of that legislation.
      Mr. Drew: I was under the impression that, when the clause was added, it was an all-party move that the Government did not instigate, but which they may have been sympathetic to. If the Government are in favour of fluoridation, let them say so, but they are not saying that. They are sitting on the fence and hoping that this place will vote in favour of fluoridation. Can my hon. Friend clarify that point?
      Andy Burnham: I referred to early-day motion 247, which I tabled. It was signed by Members on both sides, including the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who introduced the original legislation—a powerful voice—and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) among many others. The Government are right because they are giving communities the chance to decide for themselves. I do not believe that a single Member of the House has the right to deny my constituents the ability to make their own decision on this issue.
      Mr. Alan Williams: Does my hon. Friend not understand that he is not doing what he says? He is not giving his constituents the right to do what they want. He is taking one minority—a local government minority—and getting that to force-feed fluoride, as opposed to having a regional health authority do that. He is still force-feeding fluoride and compulsory medication.
      Andy Burnham: I am not force-feeding anything to anyone. I support the amendment that gives effect to the original water fluoridation legislation that was passed by the Conservative party and incorporated in its privatisation legislation. It said that, on the back of consultation with local communities, health bodies should make a request to fluoridate. That was the spirit of the legislation that the House passed, and on what basis should we deny our communities the chance to choose for themselves in accordance with the spirit of that legislation?
      Mr. Wray: When my hon. Friend reads the paper from the British Dental Association, does he not notice that inner London has the best dental care? The water in that area has never been fluoridated.
      Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I am looking at the league table for the worst dental health in the country. If he does not mind me saying, Glasgow has the worst children's dental health in the whole country. When we know a safe and effective means of doing something for the children in Glasgow, we should do it.
      On my hon. Friend's specific point, I see that Cities of London and Westminster is No. 10 on the list of the worst constituencies for children's dental health. Under-fives there have, on average, almost three missing, filled or decayed teeth. Right below that constituency are Kensington and Chelsea, which is at No. 11 on the list, and Regent's Park and Kensington, North, which is at No. 12. Inner London is right at the top of the league for the worst dental health in the country.
      Mr. Wray: Glasgow also has the four most deprived areas in the whole of the United Kingdom.
      Andy Burnham: My point is that, as a supporter of a socialist Government and member of the Labour party, I ask my colleagues in my party to vote for water fluoridation. We know that it is the most effective way of improving the dental health and quality of life of children in our poorest communities. We should all take that opportunity as members of the Labour party.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will my hon. Friend look at the British Dental Association report? Does he not see that in 19 of the best 20 constituencies for dental health the water is not fluoridated?
      Andy Burnham: I have looked in detail at the figures and I point my hon. Friend to the constituency with the best dental health in the country. The best is Tamworth, where the water is fluoridated. Tamworth does not have the social profile of the wealthiest parts of the country, but it has the best children's dental health. I put it to him that that has something to do with water fluoridation.
      I shall now attempt to make progress. This is a controversial issue and the Government deserve credit for taking it on and seeking to resolve it. However, I take the view that the issue has been allowed to become controversial not because most people oppose fluoridation—surveys of the public show that they do not—but because a noisy minority send long letters to Members of Parliament. The chief medical officer unequivocally endorses water fluoridation as the most
      114
      effective means of improving the health of the nation. What Member of the House has more evidence than he does to make such a recommendation?
      Mr. Etherington: My hon. Friend suggests that a majority are in favour of fluoridation, and he has already made the point that he is trying to do what he thinks is right for his constituents. A poll carried out by a local newspaper showed that more than 90 per cent. of my constituents were against fluoridation. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he talks about MPs being influenced by noisy minorities. That is not always the case.
      Andy Burnham: The latest poll carried out by NOP found that 67 per cent. of people support fluoridation if it can be shown to reduce tooth decay—and it can.
      Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to apologise to the House and to my hon. Friend. Another hon. Friend has just pointed out that there is another page in the report and that I was looking at the wrong one.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order for the Chair, but a personal correction. I hope that we can now proceed to allow as many Members as possible to speak before the debate concludes.
      Andy Burnham: In my view, the health arguments do not stack up. They are chucked around by people opposed to fluoridation because they know that the civil liberties argument advanced by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) is not strong enough. That is what it comes down to: a choice between the civil liberties of the individual and the common good, and particularly the common good of our most deprived communities.
      I readily accept that there may be a cost to the individual's liberties in drinking one part per million of fluoride in water. But what is the benefit? Water fluoridation has been shown to improve the dental health of an entire population, cutting needless suffering and improving people's quality of life. Given that choice and that cost and that benefit, I will always opt for the common good over civil liberties. It is morally wrong for us to know of a safe and effective means of cutting children's suffering and then not give local communities the power to choose it for themselves. But that is what some propose we do tonight.
      New clause 1 is a backward-looking piece of nonsense from the Flat Earth Society that deserves rejecting out of hand. It would end water fluoridation in parts of Birmingham and the west midlands without giving those communities any say about it whatsoever. On what basis does the hon. Member for Ceredigion have the right to do that to the communities that currently have water fluoridation?
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Andy Burnham: I have given way a lot and Mr. Deputy Speaker wants us to make progress. Just as

      115
      imposing fluoridation would be wrong, so is any effort to prevent local communities from accessing a proven health intervention used the world over.
      Amendment No. 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, seeks to preserve the status quo, with private water companies in charge of the decision. This is an unashamed attempt to maintain a flawed system simply because the deadlock it will bring—and the choice that it denies to local communities—suits the hon. Gentleman's views. Surely the House should, wherever possible, facilitate local people taking their own decisions.
      Amendment No. 8 has more to recommend it. If nothing else, by placing the decision in the hands of a local authority, it passes the democracy test. If passed, it would be a significant improvement to the current system, but it is, I think, superficially attractive for two reasons. First, the practicalities dictate that fluoridating a water supply should be a strategic regional decision, not a local matter. Secondly, it is a public health matter and, as such, should rest with those who are expert in public health matters and skilled at informing the public in these difficult areas.
      For these reasons, the Government have rightly placed the decision in the hands of strategic health authorities. It is, of course, vital that SHAs conduct extensive and rigorous consultation before taking a decision to proceed with a regional scheme. If the decision were to go to local authorities, differences of opinion between them may render a scheme impractical. If, in an area such as Greater Manchester, there was one objection, that could be sufficient to render the scheme impractical. That could prevent those who voted in favour of water fluoridation from receiving it, which would be neither democratic nor fair. I suspect that the amendment is a wrecking amendment that has been dressed up to appear more attractive, but it should be resisted. Clause 58 should be allowed to remain as drafted.
      I make two appeals to hon. Members on both sides of the House: first, choose the common good over civil liberty, especially given that the liberty concerns a negligible particle of fluoride and the good would substantially improve dental health in the most deprived of our communities; and, secondly, even if hon. Members are not persuaded of the case for water fluoridation per se, basic democracy demands that clause 58 remain unamended. I have seen at first hand general anaesthetics being administered week in, week out at Manchester dental hospital on children as young as five. Although the hon. Member for Ceredigion said that such procedures are not used any more, 2,000 such general anaesthetics are administered each year in Greater Manchester, but none is administered in Birmingham, which has fluoridated water. Should any hon. Member deny my constituents the chance to do something for themselves about that dreadful situation?
      Norman Baker: I have two immediate regrets. First, the proposal should not be in the Bill at all because, irrespective of its merits, it belongs in a health Bill. Secondly, I regret the fact that I am only the fifth speaker, despite the fact that we are an hour and a half into a two-hour debate, which shows that we have had
      116
      insufficient time. I guarantee hon. Members that my speech will be the shortest of those that we have heard so far.
      8.30 pm
      I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) tabled new clause 1, because we danced around the issue of fluoride for some time on Second Reading and in Committee. Is it appropriate to put fluoride in water? That is the nub of the issue and the question that people want answered, so I hope that we shall have the chance to vote on new clause 1 in half an hour.
      Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Norman Baker: I shall not give way to any hon. Member who has already spoken, although I shall give way to hon. Members who have not spoken, if necessary.
      Does fluoride give health benefits? I conclude that it does but that the benefits are limited. Are there health risks from fluoride? Probably not, but there might be risks, so we need to do further work on that. That equation is not sufficient to justify overriding civil liberties and the genuine opposition of at least a minority of the population to the adulteration of water—as they see it—by adding a medical substance. The hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) talked about choosing the common good over civil liberties, but civil liberties are the common good, so we should not mix up those two concepts.
      In Committee, the Minister said with some sophistry—without wishing to be rude—that fluoride is not medication because it is not classed as a medicine. The whole purpose of adding fluoride to water is to derive a medical benefit. Hon. Members clearly have a view of whether that is right or not, but let us not pretend that fluoride is not a medicine. For the purpose of the Bill, it is treated as a medicine. Let us concentrate on whether it is appropriate to use the mass-medication process suggested in the Bill.
      Mrs. Patsy Calton: Will my hon. Friend consider medication a little more? What does he think should be done about the fluoride that occurs naturally in some parts of the country?
      Norman Baker: The hon. Member for Ceredigion dealt with that point when he drew a parallel with radon gas, which is naturally present in some parts of the country. We encounter environmental hazards during our lives about which we can do little—they are part of living on this planet. However, we do have the opportunity to decide whether to enhance or minimise those hazards. Some people believe that fluoride, as a man-made addition to water, is unwelcome because of its potential hazards. Adding fluoride to water is not necessary when one considers the ultimate behaviour of man.
      Amendment No. 1 is superficially attractive. Although I happen to be against fluoridation, in Committee I voted against removing what was then clause 61—it is now clause 58—because it does not relate to whether it is right or wrong. New clause 1

      117
      relates to the principle of whether fluoride should be in water but clause 58 contains mechanistic provisions for the bodies that should decide the matter—the water companies, as is the case at present, or strategic health authorities, as the clause would provide. Hon. Members who want to vote against fluoride should vote in favour of new clause 1 because clause 58 relates only to who should make decisions on the matter. I am clear that it would be better, although not perfect, for the decision to be made by a strategic health authority rather than a water company, which is the basis of clause 58. That is why I favour new clause 1 but oppose removing clause 58.
      Having said that it would be preferable for a strategic authority to make the decision, it would not be the best solution. If fluoride is to continue to be added to water, it is better for that to be decided by common consent with popular support. The decision will receive popular support if it is taken independently. However, SHAs are not independent because they have an agenda. They are not democratically elected and there is only a thin line between them and the Secretary of State for Health, which shows their democratic credentials. SHAs would not take a local decision because they are not local. It would be quite wrong to impose a measure that many people would consider to be an infringement of their civil liberties by a mechanism that was not independent, democratic or local, which would be the case if SHAs made the decision. If new clause 1 is unsuccessful and the House accepts the principle of adding fluoride to water, it is important for us all that there is a means of dealing with its addition in a way that commands public support. In that way, even those who do not want it will know that they have had an opportunity to have their say and had an input into the decision. That can be achieved by involving local authorities. They might not be perfect but they are local, democratically elected and accountable, which is more than can be said of strategic health authorities.
      The drafting of amendment No. 8, for which I have considerable sympathy, is faulty. It refers to one local authority. There is, of course, no coterminosity between local authority boundaries and water company boundaries or even water supply areas within water companies. South East Water uses several different sources to supply people in my constituency. The direct link between a local authority and the water supply is not necessarily right. A combination of local authorities would be necessary to bring about a decision-making process. I do not pretend that that would be easy. It is better to have a difficult but justifiable situation, however, than an easy but unjustifiable situation, which is the case with the strategic health authorities.
      I hope that we will vote on new clause 1 so that we determine the principle of the matter. It is a free vote for my colleagues, as I imagine it is for other parties, although I am not sure about Plaid Cymru. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), shakes his head. Perhaps he has inside knowledge of Plaid Cymru's workings. I also hope that we will vote on amendment No. 8 because the accountability of those who take the decisions is important.
      Mr. Alan Williams: I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) that when the subject was first debated on the Floor of the House I was on the Opposition Front Bench, which I left to join the Back Benches so that I could oppose the then Government's proposal. I did so for the same reasons that make me oppose it today. It is a matter not of whether fluoride is good or bad, but of whether compulsory medication is right or wrong. It is a fundamental right of every individual in this country, other than in a major national emergency, to say, "I do not want medication." It does not matter what part of the electorate is chosen to make the decision, whether it is the local authority or people voting in a national referendum, a minority will be forced to accept compulsory medication.
      My hon. Friend said that 67 per cent. of people in a poll were in favour of fluoridation. That means that one in three people who replied did not want to be force fed fluoride, but in arrogance people who have just come into this House and do not understand the prime responsibility—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)Order.
      Mr. Williams: Those people do not understand that the prime responsibility of the House of Commons cuts across parties to protect the rights and privileges of the people of this country. People have the right to say no to medication. We cannot say no to a water supply, because we must have water. No one can pretend that fluoride is a matter of life or death. Professor Sheldon said that at best it gives an estimated benefit in the order of 15 per cent. Are hon. Members seriously saying that to get a 15 per cent. benefit we will force feed one in three people? It is as simple as that. If hon. Members miss that point, they do not understand what the House of Commons is about.
      Sir Paul Beresford: I obviously have a declared interest and, as such, will take a slightly different approach. I will not go through the facts and figures. Other hon. Members have the opportunity to do so. I want to touch on the caries aspect of the problem and my experience of fluoride in this country and elsewhere.
      The proposal is a little start—a tiny step forward—but it is decades behind the United States, Australia and New Zealand. I was a child in New Zealand and graduated from dentistry there. We have three dental generations in New Zealand: my parents' generation, which has plastic teeth; my generation, which has our own teeth but heavily filled; and the next generation—my children's generation—most of whom have little or no sign of decay and no fluorosis. I speak as someone who has looked through a microscope at the teeth of living patients. The first place in New Zealand where fluoridation was introduced many decades ago was a little town called Hastings. There was a huge scream, and there were allegations of the type that we have heard tonight about cancer and brittle bones. There were even allegations about the process being used by the Nazis for torture, but it all proved to be absolute rubbish.
      Research on the subject in the past few decades has been enormous. Fluoride occurs naturally in many water supplies throughout the world, so there has been

      119
      a great the opportunity to look into its effects. In Hastings, the mayor made a brave decision to add fluoride to the water and there was, as I said, a scream. However, his biggest problem came from a local lady who said that a cup of tea would taste different. On day one, he pulled a lever, and the fluoride went in. There was an enormous number of complaints, but about six weeks later there was a small item in the paper saying that when the mayor had pulled the lever it was not connected to anything. A piece of machinery that was supposed to come from England had not arrived on the boat. However, New Zealand has had fluoride ever since, and it has been of tremendous benefit.
      Much has been made of the fact that decay can be prevented by other means, which is true. Much, too, has been made of the fact that there should be expenditure by the Government to teach prevention. The Ministry of Health in New Zealand tried that years ago, and put a huge amount into prevention. There was an advertising campaign, and three special colleges for school dental nurses were set up—the population, I remind hon. Members, was only about 2 million. Those girls did drilling and filling sessions at every single primary school—as kids, we called them "the murder house" because we had an enormous amount of decay.
      Once fluoride arrived, decay gradually disappeared and the need for those dental nurses was reduced. The population has more than doubled, as has the school population, but the number of schools for dental nurses has gone down from three to one. The girls are spending two thirds of their time teaching prevention, because they do not need to drill and fill.
      When I arrived in Britain about 30 years ago and went to work in east London, I could not believe what I saw. The points made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) are quite right, as are the points made on the postcards, which, I hope, Members have received. What I saw was disgusting and appalling. I spent a large proportion of my time extracting teeth or refilling teeth when dental decay had eaten around what I had done heroically the previous year to save teeth, not just in children but in adults. Last night, I spoke to an elderly dentist in New Zealand, who told me that before fluoridation, filling teeth heroically was like trying to fill a bath with the plug out—it was hopeless. When fluoride arrived, that changed.
      I remember children and adults coming into my clinic with swollen faces and broken-off teeth. They had pus pouring out and were in considerable pain. They had sleepless nights and had to take days and hours off work or school. It was appalling. We used to run a general anaesthetic session every Thursday afternoon. That is not permitted now, because it is done in the hospitals, which have picked up the load that we had to deal with. We would put 18 to 20 patients through a huge series of extractions because there was no clinical alternative. That does not occur in New Zealand, Australia or the United States, where there is fluoride.
      I was staggered by the working hours that were lost. On Monday morning, dentists would have queues of patients lining up to see them. That does not happen in areas with fluoride.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that that is all down to fluoridated water? I do not think that he can make that claim, because not even the York review and the General Medical Council are saying that. He is stretching the point a little.
      Sir Paul Beresford: What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that, having looked at mouths in one country where there is fluoride in water and in another country where there is none, I believe that, in addition to the benefit of fluoride toothpaste and where decent tuition has been given, we can beat caries with fluoride in the water supply, topped up by other methods. We must recognise, however, that in trying to teach adults and children in a country where there is less than one toothbrush per person, we need fluoride to take the initial step.
      8.45 pm
      In the past, children who came out of a dental surgery—this often still applies today—would be petrified of dental care thereafter, which contributed to the difficulty. I now run a very specialist and extremely part-time dental practice doing advanced restoration. The only pain is in the white envelope at the end of the day. We are doing high-class work, but it is still vulnerable to decay, and people would be protected from such decay to a considerable degree if fluoride were included in the water supply.
      Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Sir Paul Beresford: No; my hon. Friend has been bouncing up and down like a yo-yo, and I shall leave things like that for a moment, as I wish to move on.
      I have spent most of my life battling dental caries. I have been to conference after conference and read journal after journal, and I am absolutely convinced of the benefits and safety of a fluoridated water supply. Perhaps the best answer to those with health concerns, especially the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who tabled the new clause, is to remember that almost all the All Blacks will have had fluoridated water all their lives, and they beat Wales.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I do not think I shall join that particular controversy.
      Hon. Members have made my job of speaking to the Government amendments and winding up the debate difficult. I shall endeavour to address the arguments and not deal with individual amendments, as time will not permit me to do so. First, it is ironic that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who is in pursuit of liberties, is pursuing them through a whipped vote of his party, whereas many hon. Members are on a genuinely free vote. That is an extreme irony.
      Clause 58 is an enabling clause. No one is forcing anyone to do anything here or anywhere else. The point is that the provision is not for the whole country and it is democratic, as we are going to local communities and the Bill enables those communities to decide for themselves. That is very important. While we might want to reduce demand for dentistry, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion said, we also want to improve

      121
      dental health, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) pointed out, which is why dentists throughout the country support the measure as well. It is not in dentists' interests in terms of their business—let us admit it—to support the measure, but they have done so because of their interest in dental health. And yes, brushing teeth is essential too.
      Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: May I refer my hon. Friend to a letter written by the Secretary of State on 6 November, which states:
      "We are in sympathy with the amendment to the extent that we are resolved that local authorities should play a major part in reaching decisions"?
      Why does she accept that regional health authorities should undertake consultation but not local authorities, given that local authorities are democratically elected, while health authorities are quangos of this Government?
      Miss Johnson: Let me point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also said:
      "we are equally certain that the overall process should be 'owned' by the Strategic Health Authority".
      That is the case for just the reason that hon. Members have advanced—strategic health authorities have a strategic role in public health. That is why they are ultimately the right place in that regard. I shall deal with the question in more detail and return to the question of local authorities in a moment.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Miss Johnson: I need to make some progress, as I have but 10 minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) is right about dental health inequalities. I draw hon. Members' attention to a letter in yesterday's edition of The Times that was signed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and Lord Fowler, all of whom were Secretaries of State for Health, and all of whom were supporting the fact that people should be able to choose fluoride under the existing clause. I do not need to point out that that is a very unusual collection of individuals who do not always bat together: in this case, it is important that they are doing so.
      Mr. Morley: It is a dream ticket.
      Miss Johnson: As my hon. Friend says, it is a dream ticket.
      On compulsory medication, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) is right to say that as fluoride is a naturally occurring substance, fluoridation is no more medication than is exposure to many other trace elements. We need some fluoride in our diet; many vegetables, among other things, contain trace elements of it, just as water contains many trace elements.
      We commissioned the University of York to review the evidence and, in response to its criticism of the quality of some of the evidence, we asked the Medical Research Council how it might be strengthened. It came to the conclusion that many of the suggested areas for
      122
      further research were very low priorities, because the existence of many of the harms that hon. Members have mentioned could not be proved.
      Mr. Kidney: After the MRC's response, the Government commissioned a study on one recommendation and asked the chief medical officer and the chief dental officer to report on the others. Does my hon. Friend have the results of that research, and can she share them with us before we vote?
      Miss Johnson: We have provisional advice on the outcome of the research on bio-absorption of fluoride. The results are very encouraging. As they are still being peer reviewed, it would not be appropriate to discuss them now, but all the evidence will be available to local communities when strategic health authorities discuss the matter under the provisions of the Bill, if it is supported by the House.
      On international comparisons, 400 million people in 60 countries benefit from optimally fluoridated drinking water, either naturally occurring or adjusted. That includes 64 per cent. of people in the US, 43 per cent. in Canada, 75 per cent. in Israel and 61 per cent. in New Zealand.
      Mr. Butterfill: Can the Minister confirm that in certain parts of the United States and, indeed, Europe, fluoride-treated water has been withdrawn?
      Miss Johnson: No, I cannot. Indeed, in Los Angeles, fluoridated water was recently introduced to a large additional population. I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman refers.
      The effectiveness of fluoride in reducing tooth decay is not as the hon. Member for Ceredigion suggests. The York study said that fluoridation would result in 15 per cent. more children having no tooth decay, which is better than the 15 per cent. reduction that he describes. In the end, it comes down to a balance of judgment. Hon. Members mentioned the 1,500 to 2,000 children in the Manchester area who have their teeth extracted under general anaesthetic each year and may thereby be placing their lives at unnecessary risk. That could be avoided by going down the path that the clause advocates in enabling those communities to decide for themselves. Six million people in this country drink fluoridated water. New clause I would remove that ability even from those who currently use fluoridated water. I hope that hon. Members of all parties are well aware of that.
      There is 40 years' experience of fluoridation.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: If we were to hold a vote on fluoridation in Doncaster in which 40 per cent. voted against it and 60 per cent. in favour of it, what advice would the Minister give to the 40 per cent. who did not want fluoride in their water? What would they do?
      Miss Johnson: My hon. Friend knows that we do not propose to hold referendums. However, whenever local opinion is in favour of something, some people will not support it. That is probably true in Birmingham where water is fluoridated.

      123
      The York report suggested that approximately 15 per cent. more people in fluoridated areas had fluorosis, not 48 per cent., the figure that I believe that the hon. Member for Ceredigion cited. From his considerable experience of dentistry, the hon. Member for Mole Valley described the way in which the matter is regarded and how minor it often is.
      Amendment No. 8 deals with the involvement of local people. The Secretary of State for Health circulated a letter to all hon. Members that stated that we were in sympathy with the amendment to the extent that we are resolved that local authorities should play a major part in reaching decisions about whether an area should fluoridate. The views of local authorities will need to be taken into account at every step of the consultation. We are convinced that decisions should be owned at strategic health authority level.
      Mr. Drew: Will the Minister give way?
      Miss Johnson: I shall in a moment. As part of our modernisation programme, borough councils, unitary authorities and all the county councils have established overview and scrutiny committees, which have a remit to consider health services. We accept that local authorities have an important role in those matters.
      Mr. Colin Challen: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether the results of any public consultation would be binding on health authorities under the Bill?
      Miss Johnson: We are clear that health authorities should accede to the proposal to ask for fluoridation in their area if consultations ascertain that the local population is in favour of it. I was a local authority member for 16 years and I do not believe that local authorities are the right vehicle for the decision. In many cases, local authorities do not cover large areas. There is already an issue about the coterminosity of water companies with strategic health authority areas. The logistics, the size difference, the potential bureaucracy of bringing authorities together and the problems that some hon. Friends have outlined of local authorities running the process rather than being key components, as we envisage them, mean that the proposal is wrong.
      Strategic health authorities are responsible for health decisions and it is therefore right that they are able to pursue the matter as the overall ring holder.
      Norman Baker: Does the Minister envisage a one-size-fits-all solution in a strategic health authority or can local communities express their views such as the possibility of different solutions in the same health authority area?
      Miss Johnson: That is an interesting point. We believe that the solution should apply to a strategic health authority area, but there will be issues with the water companies about boundaries and the relationships with them.
      Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister give way?
      Miss Johnson: I want to move on to make one or two additional points. I have had little time to contribute to the debate.
      124
      In Bolton, 70 per cent. of five-year-olds have experienced tooth decay. On average, each child has more than three decayed teeth. There is no fluoridation in the north-west. In the west midlands and Crewe, only 23 per cent. of five-year-olds have experienced tooth decay. I believe that the case has clearly been made for allowing local communities to decide, and we are enabling them to do so.
      I would like to draw Members' attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who said in Committee that he had decided that he was not prepared to pass by on the other side, and that this was a question of balance and judgment. He said:
      "I have decided that, in this instance, child health must take precedence over my scruples, prejudices and personal views on individual liberty and freedom."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 23 October 2003; c. 442.]
      I urge other hon. Members to do likewise.
      It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 284.

      Division No. 357]

      [9:00 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Allan, Richard

      Etherington, Bill

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Fabricant, Michael

      Austin, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Bacon, Richard

      Flook, Adrian

      Baker, Norman

      Forth, rh Eric

      Barker, Gregory

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Barnes, Harry

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Francois, Mark

      Barrett, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Goodman, Paul

      Benn, rh Hilary

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Bercow, John

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Brady, Graham

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Greenway, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Grogan, John

      Breed, Colin

      Gummer, rh John

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Harvey, Nick

      Burgon, Colin

      Heath, David

      Burnett, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Burns, Simon

      Hendry, Charles

      Burstow, Paul

      Hinchliffe, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Butterfill, John

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Howard, rh Michael

      Cameron, David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cash, William

      Hughes, K.evin (Doncaster N)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Collins, Tim

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Con way, Derek

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Cotter, Brian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Crausby, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Lamb, Norman

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Leigh, Edward

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Doran, Frank

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      125

      Lidington, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Selous, Andrew

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Shepherd, Richard

      Loughton, Tim

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Simmonds, Mark

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      MacDougall, John

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

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Maclean, rh David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen' Anthony

      McNamara, Kevin

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Maples, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Streeter, Gary

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Syms, Robert

      Maude, rh Francis

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Thomas Gareth (Clwyd W>

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Moore, Michael

      Tipping, Paddy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trickett, Jon

      Mudie, George

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Norman, Archie

      Tyne, Andrew

      O'Brien, Mike

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Paterson, Owen

      Watkinson, Angela

      Pickles, Eric

      Webb Steve (Nortnavon)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      White, Brian

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Whittingdale, John

      Wiggin, Bill

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Willetts, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Randall, John

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Redwood, rh John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Willis Phil

      Robathan, Andrew

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Wood Mike (Batley)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Ruddock, Joan

      Ruffley, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mr. Jim Murphy and

      Sanders, Adrian

      Derek Twigg

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Browne, Desmond

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bryant, Chris

      Baird, Vera

      Burden, Richard

      Baldry, Tony

      Burnham, Andy

      Banks, Tony

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Cairns, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Bell, Stuart

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Caplin, Ivor

      Berry, Roger

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Betts, Clive

      Challen, Colin

      Blackman, Liz

      Chaytor, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Chidgey, David

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clappison, James

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Borrow, David

      126

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hutton, rh John

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Illsley, Eric

      Clelland, David

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jack, rh Michael

      Colman, Tony

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jamieson, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cummings, John

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Curry, rh David

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kidney, David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Denham, rh John

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Dismore, Andrew

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Edwards, Huw

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Fisher, Mark

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Flint, Caroline

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Linton, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacDonald, Calum

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      McFall, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gilroy, Linda

      McKechin, Ann

      Godsiff, Roger

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Goggins, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hammond, Philip

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hanson, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      McWilliam, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Healey, John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Heppell, John

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miliband, David

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mole, Chris

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moran, Margaret

      127

      Morley, Elliot

      Spellar, rh John

      Mountford, Kali

      Squire, Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stevenson, George

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Olner, Bill

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Organ, Diana

      Stringer, Graham

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Page, Richard

      Stunell, Andrew

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pearson, Ian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Perham, Linda

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Teather, Sarah

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Tredinnick, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Truswell, Paul

      Purnell, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kermptown)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Rammell, Bill

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

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

      Walter, Robert

      Ward, Claire

      Rendel, David

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Watts, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wilkinson, John

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Salter, Martin

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Woolas, Phil

      Sawford, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Singh, Marsha

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Soley, Clive

      Joan Ryan

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [5 November].

    Clause 58

      FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLIES
      Amendment proposed:No. 8, in page 75, line 23, leave out from 'a' to end of line 25 and insert 'local authority'.—[Mr. Wiggin.]
      Question put,That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 243.
      128

      Division No. 358]

      [9.14 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Harvey, Nick

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Allan, Richard

      Heath, David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Austin, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Bacon, Richard

      Hinchliffe, David

      Baird, Vera

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Baker, Norman

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Barker, Gregory

      Howard, rh Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Jack, rh Michael

      Bennett, Andrew

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Bercow, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Borrow, David

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Brady, Graham

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Brazier, Julian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Burns, Simon

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burstow, Paul

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burt, Alistair

      Lamb, Norman

      Butterfill, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Cameron, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Cash, William

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Challen, Colin

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Chidgey, David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Chope, Christopher

      Lidington, David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Collins, Tim

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Loughton, Tim

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Cotter, Brian

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Crausby, David

      McCafferty, Chris

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      McDonnell, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Maclean, rh David

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Maples, John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Maude, rh Francis

      Doughty, Sue

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Moore, Michael

      Etherington, Bill

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fabricant, Michael

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Flook, Adrian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Organ, Diana

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Francois, Mark

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Garnier, Edward

      Ottaway, Richard

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Page, Richard

      Goodman, Paul

      Paterson, Owen

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Pickles, Eric

      Grayling, Chris

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Greenway, John

      Purchase, Ken

      Grogan, John

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Gummer, rh John

      Randall, John

      Hammond, Philip

      Redwood, rh John

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Rendel, David

      129

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Teather, Sarah

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Tredinnick, David

      Trickett, Jon

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Truswell, Paul

      Ruddock, Joan

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Ruffley, David

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tynan' Bill (Hamilton S)

      Selous, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sheridan, Jim

      Waterson, Nigel

      Simmonds, Mark

      Watkinson, Angela

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      White, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wiggin, Bill

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

      Willetts, David

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Willis, Phil

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wood Mike (Batley)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Straw, rh Jack

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Streeter, Gary

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. Jim Murphy and

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Derek Twigg

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clelland, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Banks, Tony

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Colman, Tony

      Beard Nigel

      Cook'rh Robin (Livingston)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bell, Stuart

      Cousins, Jim

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Cox' Tom (Tooting)

      Berry Roger

      Cryer'Ann (Keighley)

      Belts, Clive

      Cummmgs, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Cunningham rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Blizzard, Bob

      Curry, rh David

      Bottonmley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      David Wayne

      Brennan, Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Davis rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dawson Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Denham, rh John

      Browne, Desmond

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Bryant, Chris

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Dowd Jim (Lewisham W)

      Burnham, Andy

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Caplin, Ivor

      Farrelly, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Fisher, Mark

      Chaytor, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Clappison, James

      Flint, Caroline

      130

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Follett, Barbara

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, rh Derek

      McNulty, Tony

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      MacShane, Denis

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      McWalter, Tony

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McWilliam, John

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Gilroy, Linda

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Martlew, Eric

      Goggins, Paul

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hanson, David

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Miliband, David

      Healey, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moffatt, Laura

      Heppell, John

      Mole, Chris

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hill, Keith (Streatbam)

      Moran, Margaret

      Hodge, Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mullin, Chris

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Olner, Bill

      Hutton, rh John

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Perham, Linda

      Illsley, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Plaskitt, James

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Purnell, James

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Khabra, Piara S.

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

      Kidney, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Ruane, Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Salter, Martin

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Sawford, Phil

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Leslie, Christopher

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Simon, Siôon (B'ham Erdington)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Linton, Martin

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Luke, lain (Dundee E)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Soley, Clive

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Spellar, rh John

      MacDonald, Calum

      Squire, Rachel

      MacDougall, John

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McFall, John

      Stevenson, George

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      McKechin, Ann

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      131

      Stringer, Graham

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ward, Claire

      Young, rh Sir George

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Watts, David

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Joan Ryan

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
      Mr. Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about whether a free vote means that the Government Chief Whip should herd her supporters into the No Lobby.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not a matter in which the Chair becomes involved in any way.
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
      9.27 pm
      Mr. Morley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The Bill has made steady progress through the House, and I thank hon. Members for their commitment in helping it reach this stage and for their contributions to interesting and thoughtful debates. In particular, I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), for her work this evening on fluoridation, on which we heard some very good speeches.
      The points raised on the Bill have not suggested that its principle is wrong. I am glad that the principle of the Bill has received so much support. Members have asked whether the Bill should go further, how far it should go or what should be in it that is not in it. I feel that our debates have answered the fundamental questions asked while clarifying our intentions and the Bill's scope. I am particularly pleased with the amendments that we have made today to strengthen the sustainable development duty on the consumer council, which was of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). I am sorry that she cannot be with us tonight, but she will be pleased to know that we have addressed the points that she raised in Committee.
      Hon. Members have welcomed the amendments intended to address the problem of private sewers, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and Opposition Members who raised that matter. As an estimated 50 per cent. of households are connected in some way or other to private sewers, the issue is not
      132
      minor and requires much careful thought. Although it is unlikely that there will be quick, short-term solutions, the Government are committed to addressing the issue.
      I enjoyed the debates, although I realise that concerns remain and that we have not reached agreement on some things. I very much hope that the assurances that I have given and put on record about the principles and about some of the affected groups and industries will go some way to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised.
      The impact of the Bill on industries that abstract water, especially in relation to quarry de-watering, which is being introduced for the first time, understandably concerns people who will have to obtain licences when they previously did not have to. Like many of the resources on which we rely, water is not in infinite supply. Until recently, we thought that rain was not in short supply in this country and that our water stocks could always be replenished but, increasingly, demand is rising and our water supplies struggle to meet it. Recent drought warnings in some parts of the country are a timely reminder of that. It is thus important that all types of abstraction are controlled. The impact of quarry de-watering on other abstractors and the damage that it has sometimes caused to conservation sites should not be played down. However, the industry is legitimate and I hope that my reassurances will go some way to meet its concerns.
      Abstraction licensing based on water consumption rather than on activity type or water use is the only real way to tackle the problem of managing demand. If we are serious about sustainable development, we need to be ready to make those changes and look for alternatives to our current water use as well as seeking ways to reduce demand.
      In setting up new regulatory arrangements, it is tempting to be over-prescriptive, but experience tells us that we need some flexibility to allow the water services regulation authority and the consumer council for water to be managed and to shape themselves. Our role is to ensure that the minimum requirements are laid out to enable those bodies to carry out their functions in an open and transparent manner that benefits consumers, the industry on which they depend and other stakeholders. I can only reiterate that we are committed to best practice and, in the case of the authority, to follow the recent recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force.
      As we have just heard, fluoridation will continue to spark much debate. However, it is important to continue to stress that the Government's approach to fluoridation has not changed; we are simply placing the decision to add fluoride to local water supplies in the hands of those best placed to make a decision: local strategic health authorities, in consultation with their local communities.
      Despite our differences of opinion, there has been agreement among Members on both sides of the House about the main principles of the Bill: to promote the sustainable use of water resources, strengthen the voice of consumers and achieve a measured increase in competition. Those principles bring challenges and the Bill meets them by reforming abstraction licensing to improve long-term water resource management; introducing provisions for the better operation and

      133
      regulation of the water industry and giving water consumers an independent voice; providing opportunities for competition for new entrants to supply water to large commercial and industrial customers; and promoting water conservation by undertakers and public bodies and, through them, by the public at large.
      The Bill cannot deal with all water matters. In relation to our debates about such things as the water framework directive, it is important to think of the Bill as only one part of the wider water conservation and sustainable development picture. The Bill's contribution to that picture will greatly depend on the commitment to its principles beyond this place. Although the principle of sustainable development underpins the Bill, the measure is specifically about balancing the interests of the environment, consumers, water companies and other abstractors—a balance that we have sought to achieve throughout the Bill.
      The Bill's Committee was one of the more constructive Committees on which I have served. The contributions from both sides were thoughtful and some good ideas were proposed. I end my speech by repeating that the measure forms part of an ongoing process to ensure that we take a sustainable approach to water, which is not an infinite resource—as we saw from the pressures put on us this year, the driest on record. We also face global pressures on water resources. The issues are important and the Bill goes a long way to meeting our commitment to sustainability in all aspects of Government policy.
      9.34 pm
      Mr. Wiggin: The Bill had the potential to make a significant and positive impact on the UK water industry's regulation, competition and environmental sustainability. Instead, the Government have missed many good opportunities to implement something constructive, open, democratic and fair. I agree with the Minister that contributions throughout the debates on the Bill have been thoughtful, constructive, helpful and heartfelt in their intentions. The Government's intentions may have been sound, but they have failed to deliver them, and I am disappointed about the huge gulf between what could have been achieved during the constructive debates in Committee and what has been allowed to pass.
      First, the Bill fails to link water abstraction with planning. The application processes for abstraction and planning and their dates of commencement and expiry should be simultaneous, so that there is only one course of action to take for a business wishing to abstract. A business with planning permission should be able to abstract, as it is a requirement of the planning process that abstraction is environmentally safe. The delay created by such a separation will undermine the certainty that businesses require in the longer term. That will not provide a sustainable outlook for water abstractors and is the first example of the Government fracturing investment in the water industry. Such fracturing persists throughout the Bill.
      Secondly, the Government must have severely dented investor confidence in the water industry through their alterations to abstraction licences. I tried to ensure that the period of abstraction licences should be determined
      134
      only after the Environment Agency has taken into account the infrastructure, costs and investments associated with the abstraction. The presumption of renewal could have been made more explicit in the Bill, but the Government have failed to create an open and clear process that would provide the stability required by those making long-term investment decisions. I cannot understand why the criteria for licence renewal are not incorporated into the Bill.
      Thirdly, I remain concerned for drinking water companies—the Minister did not mention them, but they constitute a very British industry—and the Bill's consequences for their long-term prospects. Of course, I refer to allowing small abstractors to drill boreholes into licensed abstractors' aquifers. We covered that earlier today.
      Water conservation duties have not been given high enough priority. Despite the Minister constantly reminding us in Committee and today that the Bill is about water resource management, the provision on the first crucial step to managing water has been worded far too weakly. That is not in the best interests of the future efficiency of our water sector. Equally, it is important to voice once again my concerns about the powers of the water services regulation authority and the possible danger that they involve. By not stating that the posts of chairman and chief executive are separate, the Government could allow a monopoly on the control of the regulation of the water industry.
      Another matter of enormous significance is the failure to connect the Bill with the EU water framework directive of 2002. Perhaps one day the Government will get around to introducing legislation to deal with the EU commitments that they signed us up to.
      I regret that clause 58, on fluoridation of water supplies, was sneaked into the Bill and subsequently pushed aside other important water issues. That is a fundamental failure by the Government: the Bill was neither the time nor the place to include that clause. Although fluoridation may have swamped the other topics by comparison, consultation on the issue has still not been as in-depth and detailed as perhaps it should have been.
      I am also concerned that strategic health authorities will not ensure neutral, comprehensive consultations, because they are certainly not the correct bodies to assess people's views objectively. That has been shown by the very close vote that we have just had. Strategic health authorities are not representative of local communities, but the Government have nevertheless steamed ahead with the arrangements and duly failed to live up to the promise of local determination. Instead, they have left the decision to bodies with clearly biased agendas. This is a sad day for democracy and freedom.
      The ideas of sustainability and resource management behind the Bill are welcome, but, sadly, the principles have not been applied to the content. As for the Government's supposed commitment to sustainability, the UK ranks 91st in the world environmental sustainability index. That is a disgrace and perhaps a reflection of the Government's lack of commitment to this country's environment. I am saddened by the knowledge that the Bill will not further the sustainability of the water industry.

      135
      There has been much constructive and intelligent debate among hon. Members on both sides in Committee and today, but my hopes that such discussion would lead to improvements in the Bill have not been realised to the extent that I had hoped. I regret the waste of the available opportunities for improvement, and I fear that the lack of certainty caused by the refusal to put statutory assurances in the Bill will significantly undermine the industry's long-term investment future.
      9.39 pm
      Dr. Brian Iddon: It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill, and I congratulate the main spokespersons on both sides of the House on demonstrating the necessary technical knowledge, particularly in the early stages, when we were talking about abstraction; it was such knowledge that saw the Bill through. I have not followed the water industry with particular zeal, but I have learned a lot by serving on the Standing Committee, which sat for 11 two-and-a-half-hour sittings. If not exactly a marathon, that was certainly a long time.
      The memories that remain with me from the debate on abstraction include the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) waxing lyrical on the watercress beds that I never realised I was looking at in that lovely view of Salisbury cathedral. To him, I therefore say, "Thank you for the memory." I was not so convinced by the golf course lobby. Given that I do not play golf myself, I did not shed too many tears about the sustainability of golf courses during our consideration of the sustainability argument.
      Another lasting memory was my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) telling us about the dry junior urinals that she had come across in a recently built school in her constituency. She asked us to spread the message, and I am doing so right now. But the funniest moment in Committee proceedings occurred when, as people were thinking about nothing in particular, the Clerk suddenly stood up and shouted, "Rats in the sewers!" I thought, "When? Now? Is a bubonic plague epidemic about to spread in London?" The shout was reminiscent of how the doormen shout the Divisions, and it surprised us all. It was a funny moment in the middle of such serious business. I congratulate those Members who promoted the adoption of private sewers. I never realised that there were so many private sewers throughout Britain. I can tell the Government that I have a lot of private street works, as well, which I shall be flagging up before too long.
      To be serious for a moment, I asked the Whips if I could participate in this Bill because of the children in my constituency who suffer from bad dental health—an issue that the Minister mentioned today that was also mentioned in Committee. I said that I was ashamed to hear Bolton being mentioned so frequently in connection with bad dental health. I shall not spell out the statistics, but they are terrible. I wanted to participate in the Committee and to see the Bill through, as we shall shortly do, because the children in my constituency are suffering badly. They have no vote, and no knowledge of the health promotions that their households should be aware of.
      136
      I am delighted that the Lords supported the Bill by a ratio of 3:1, that the Committee supported it by a ratio of 14:6, and that there has been such a substantial majority across the political divide. It was nice to see people voting on the issue, rather than on its politics. I offer my thanks on behalf of the young children in my constituency, particularly those aged five and under. Depending on what the strategic health authorities and local authorities now decide, they could benefit from this important step forward.
      I repeat that it has been a pleasure to serve on the Bill, and I congratulate all those who made such an important contribution to it.
      9.43 pm
      Norman Baker: I, too, thank those who were involved in the Bill. In particular, I thank the Minister for his generous response to the amendments—a response that was generous in the tone that he adopted rather than in the outcome. Still, that was a bitter pill with a sweetener attached. I also thank the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), who approached the Bill very constructively. I congratulate him on his promotion to the post of shadow Secretary of State for Wales. It is good to know that, sometimes, the good guys get a lift up in this place, as well as the bad guys.
      Having said nice things, I shall be slightly critical of the Bill for a moment. As we know, it was essentially a re-hash of what was dropped from the Utilities Bill, which shows that it had 2000 stamped all over it, rather than 2003. In the three years since then. the opportunity to move on has not been taken. The Bill totally failed to incorporate the water framework directive. In Committee, that was the directive that dared not speak its name. The Minister said that the Government had other ways of dealing with that matter but Scotland has a much better Bill as a consequence of the way in which matters are approached north of the border.
      The Bill does not deal with the serious issue of water pricing, although Liberal Democrats did their best to raise it by referring to metering and to ironing out the differences in prices across the country. The Bill does not deal with water debt and only in passing with water efficiency. It does not deal with least-cost planning but it deals with fluoride, which is a health issue. It is interesting that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson) insisted that fluoride was not a medicine, but went on to set out the medicinal benefits that would result from adding fluoride to water—some mistake, surely.
      The Bill is good as far as it goes. It does not go that far, but it goes some distance and should be welcomed on that basis. I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening, because I am now being nice about the Bill. It advances the cause of the environment through its abstraction proposals and it introduces a duty on public authorities to conserve water. It deals with private sewers, an issue that Members on both sides have been keen to raise, and with strengthening the consumer voice. There are definite plusses with the Bill and that is why we voted for it on Second Reading. We shall do so again tonight in the unlikely event that there is a Division.
      As with the Waste Emissions Trading Bill, my regret is not about what is in the Bill but what is not in it. It is a missed opportunity; we could have gone much further.

      137
      When the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gets slots for legislation—that does not happen often because the Home Office corrals most of them—let us hope that it will take the opportunity to introduce comprehensive Bills rather than Bills that go only some part of the way, even if it is in the right direction.
      9.46 pm
      Stephen Hesford: I have sat for eight hours on Second Reading and Report in an attempt to make a few points about fluoridation, so I hope that I can ask the House's indulgence to make one or two more points on that issue.
      I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. It is long overdue. The unfortunate consequence of inadequate legislation in 1985 caused severe distress to many inner-city areas that will benefit from this measure if a strategic health authority feels it right to go to consultation and ask its local population whether they want their water fluoridated.
      I draw attention to the York review that took place in 2000 and the Medical Research Council report of 2001–02. The Government set them up to look at the issue, which had become stalled when every water fluoridation application through the health authorities from about 1990 onwards was rejected by water companies for reasons that have been outlined in the House. The all-party group on primary care and public health, of which I have the honour to be secretary, thought that it was about time that the issue was revisited to consider what had happened between 2000 and the end of last year when we began to consider the issue. We organised consultation and we received written and oral statements from 17 witnesses on both sides of the argument.
      The all-party group is the only group that I know to have examined the issue in the House and to have considered it from a neutral stance. We held three oral sessions and took evidence from the 17 witnesses. We reported, in effect, to the House, and although I do not want to overstate the role of the group, it is a valuable Back-Bench body that discusses issues that sometimes do not receive the limelight that they deserve.
      When we reported in April, we came to the firm conclusion that fluoridation, as a public dental health measure, was a good thing. We said that it would be effective for the reasons that have been rehearsed today and that there was no evidence that it caused ill health. Of course, as hon. Members have said, more than 5 million people in this country currently benefit from natural and artificial fluoridation.
      Members of the group reached the firm conclusion that the civil liberties argument could be rejected if, as we believed, the yardstick of public dental health was firm. A similar consideration applies to such measures as the compulsory wearing of seat belts and crash helmets. There is a civil liberty aspect to those measures but public health or road safety considerations outweigh that disbenefit.
      Interestingly, when the group examined the MRC report and heard from the scientists who conducted the review, Dr. Harrison, who led the review, said that he believed that fluoride was safe. It was suggested earlier that there were 15 items that the review found
      138
      outstanding but our questioning found only one—[Interruption.] It might be suggested that this has nothing to do with the Bill, but we have just voted on fluoridation.
      The early-day motion in favour of fluoridation that was signed by 150 hon. Members has been mentioned, and the all-party group reported at about the same time that that motion was tabled. The report was sent to the then relevant Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who said that it was an important contribution to the debate on fluoridation. The group made the following recommendations and I am pleased that the House has confirmed its view tonight. It said that fluoridation was a public dental health measure, that the legislation needed amending and that health bodies should carry out open, effective and transparent consultation when recommending fluoridation to their populations. It also said that the Department of Health should amend the protocol to allow water utilities to be properly indemnified. Those measures have come to pass tonight, so I am delighted to have played a part in that and that the House has accepted the all-party group's recommendations.
      9.52 pm
      Mr. Robert Key: This has been a good, short Third Reading, so I shall be brief. The Minister for the Environment was right that the Bill was one of those of which it was well worth serving on the Committee. However, we shall have to return to several matters. I look forward to returning to the water framework directive, abstraction and Crown immunity. I look forward to addressing the price of water, which must be determined by metering in the future. I look forward to tackling sewerage systems that flood into clear and clean waterways and the price that we pay for that. I would like to examine Ofwat's role in future investment in the water industry because I believe that it is obstructive. I would like much more attention to be paid to planning consent linked to sustainability when considering water and sewerage. My message tonight is that the Bill has surely taught us to stop wasting water, if nothing else.
      There is a lavatory in the No Lobby. Cold water was dripping from its tap on the evening of the Second Reading debate on 8 September. I reported that but the tap is still dripping. The House of Commons has wasted thousands of litres of water from one tap for want of a washer. It is time that we put our own house in order.
      9.54 pm
      Mr. Drew: I shall try to be as commendably brief as the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who, for the purposes of our deliberations in Committee, I considered an hon. Friend because we worked together to make the Bill better. Although some of us will campaign outside this place to ensure that fluoride does not get added to our drinking water, that was the one sore point in an otherwise consensual piece of legislation.
      I want to emphasise the role of flood relief. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that forward because it is as important as sewerage. Some of us are pleased that it is in the Bill, but other legislation also needs to be introduced. The cohesion in Committee and the importance of flood relief deserve to be mentioned.

      139
      As hon. Members said, we will return to other issues, but let us not underestimate the importance of flooding as a key consideration.
      9.55 pm
      Hugh Robertson: I want to say a few brief words about the Bill's effects on the horticultural sector. The Minister is aware that I have one of the few constituencies in England where fruit farming is the predominant agricultural type. Many of my constituents are deeply worried about the effect of the Bill on trickle irrigation. Their concerns centre on two things: the cost of trickle irrigation schemes and the regulatory impact of such schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) dealt with many of those concerns in Committee, for which I thank him. I am sure the Minister will agree that fruit farming should be supported.
      Mr. Morley: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman some reassurances on trickle irrigation. When it comes to abstraction licences and costing, the Environment Agency will be structured in a way that recognises trickle irrigation as a much more efficient use of water.
      As I will not contribute to the debate further so that others may speak, I take this chance to thank Committee members. In addition, I will miss the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), who is leaving his post as shadow spokesman on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to become shadow spokesman on Wales. He is obviously the nearest thing the Conservatives have to a Welsh MP. I also thank the excellent officials who worked so hard in supporting the Bill and drafting amendments.
      Hugh Robertson: In which case, I simply thank the Minister for that assurance.
      9.57 pm
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I want to refer to one thing that has not been mentioned. Changes have been made to the Bill's measures, whether they be on fluoridation or private sewers, at all its parliamentary stages. I have been here four years and it is rare for that to happen. So that is a positive event to acknowledge.
      One thing that we did tonight, which we did not have an opportunity to debate but should be noted in passing, was to provide a better definition of sustainable development. We debated that in Committee. I am glad the Minister saw sense on the nonsensical initial definition of sustainable development. What is in the Bill now is far better for consumers and whatever authority is involved. That will be more important in the long term than anything else in the Bill because it sets down the principles, which are more vital than the details. If we get the mindset right, the details will follow. The Bill is important for getting the mindset right.
      9.58 pm
      Mr. Redwood: I remain disappointed by the Bill. It will not tackle the problem of rising water tables under many of our big cities. If more competition were introduced, more companies would come forward to tap into those resources and solve two problems at once. The Bill will not solve water shortages. Indeed, it seems animated by a wish to ration and control water use rather than to tackle shortage. Again, if competition were strengthened that would go a long way to dealing with water shortages without damaging the environment. There is nothing damaging about using the water cycle more often as water makes its way from the mountains to the sea.
      I am disappointed by the flooding provisions. Many of us have had flooding problems in our constituencies and we often find that we do not get an answer because of the conflicts between the Environment Agency, the local council and the water companies. Although I understand that the Minister has worked through the Bill to tackle those issues, the solution will not be perfect. Conflicting powers remain and we will find that the three different bodies involved will deny responsibility and make it difficult for us to get the solutions that our constituents want.
      I am worried about price—
      Norman Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Redwood: There is hardly enough time.
      We have very expensive water. Again, competition would tackle that. There is nothing in the Bill to deal with the absence of a national water grid, yet we have an embryo national water grid between the various main pipes in the regions and with the canal network. It would be good if more work were done, through the industry, to find a way to get a national water grid so that we can transfer more water more readily from the wet areas of the country to the drier areas where there are more people and rising water demand.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That

  (1) at the sittings on Wednesday 12th, Monday 17th, Tuesday 18th, Wednesday 19th and Thursday 20th November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and

  (2) from Thursday 20th November until the end of the current Session of Parliament, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House on any day on which a message from the Lords Commissioners is expected until that message has been received.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 12th November, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No.16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents),

  141
  the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer relating to Stamp Duty Land Tax not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 29th October 2002 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply. .—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

  REGULATORY REFORM
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation, etc., orders),
  That the draft Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies)(England and Wales) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 17th September, be approved. .—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: It may be convenient for the House to take motions 5, 6 and 7 together.

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

  INVESTIGATORY POWERS
  That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th September, be approved.
  That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 15th October, be approved.
  That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Intrusive Surveillance) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 11th September, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  SEA FISHERIES
  That the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 2003 (S.I., 2003., No. 2669), dated 14th October 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  POSTAL SERVICES
  That the draft Postal Services Act 2000 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 14th October, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  Question agreed to.

  Science and Technology
  Ordered,
  That Mr David Heath be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Dr Evan Harris be added.—[Mr. Mc William.]

  OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
  Ordered,
  That Dr John Pugh be discharged from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee and Mr Adrian Sanders be added.—[Mr. McWilliam.]

  Ordered,
  That Tom Brake be discharged from the Transport Committee and Mr Paul Marsden be added.—[Mr. Mc William.]

  Dementia
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. Tony McWalter: As often happens with Adjournment debates, constituents initiated this debate—in this case, the family of a woman with dementia. However, this issue became my preferred topic for a debate not because of a constituent but because of the remarks of two Ministers, one for education and the other for local government. They made it clear that there will be continuing, welcome increases in the resources vouchsafed for education, but they also suggested that there will be a continuing squeeze on the total resources that local authorities can expect to spend. The implication of both those statements for a service that is not educational and is grossly underfunded is that it will have to persist with a resource level not very different from what it currently receives. That has certainly happened with social services.
  In my area, Hertfordshire, because, ironically, improving prosperity has resulted in a boom in house and land prices, the prospect of a person with dementia getting the package of care that they need is no different from what it was when the Government took office in 1997. The closure of care homes, as well as full employment and the need for people to earn more money than would normally be paid to someone working with dementia patients, mean that it is difficult indeed to find staff to look after people in residential homes. I know that the Government's good intentions have never been in question, and there have been many initiatives designed to repair one bit of the system or another. The national service framework for older people, for instance, published in 2001 and regularly updated, shows that much new investment in health will unquestionably be directed at improving the condition of older people. However, most of the needs of someone with dementia, whether in a mild, intermediate or severe form, are categorised not as health needs but as needs for social care. The regime for social care varies throughout the country, but throughout England and Wales, while those who work in the field do so with dedication and determination, as far as sufferers and their carers are concerned, the regime is unresponsive, harsh and unyielding. One has only to contrast the stories that one hears from constituents about how wonderful the health service has been with those that one hears about the terrible problems that they have had with social services to feel that those harsh remarks are justified.
  If dementia is a cruel illness, we owe those who suffer from it and those who try to care for them a high degree of consideration and kindness. What happens instead is that, sadly, we look at these matters from an entirely economic perspective. Governments begin with the thought that an adequate system would be dreadfully expensive, and then devise ways of saving money, often without any real attention to the fact that this cruel illness is made a great deal more savage because we fail to apply normal political intelligence to it.
  144
  This debate has two themes: resources and morality. I shall spend more time on resources than ethics, but I want to reflect on how those with dementia and their carers are dealt with. In a sense, it does not matter whether the Government point to 50 initiatives or 500 or whether they tell me that they have increased resources by 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. What one needs to do is focus on the lived experience of those touched by the cruelty of dementia, and the experience of those who love them and want them to have their pain, bewilderment or loss attenuated. Those who love and care for those with dementia want their own exhaustion, sense of grief and loss, fear and emotional needs to be given proper consideration, but the experience of people now facing this problem in their lives is terrible in most cases. They are categorised as having not a health need, but a need for social care and support, and that system is scandalously complex, economically punitive and shamefully unresponsive.
  We know that the Government accept that the consequences of dementia could be attenuated—even the most recent communication on the national service framework for older people, dated 25 September this year, makes that point—but what comes over time and again is the need for a national strategy on dementia. To expect each local authority to cope as best it can, each with a different history and philosophy and a different resource base, is to assume that muddling through is, for the most part, the best that can be done. It is not.
  I speak of these matters with some passion because I think that, in part, people with dementia are seen only as a problem and not as having a continuing contribution to make to the quality of our lives. Perhaps I can mention my own case. Shortly after I first met a lad called Jack, then aged five, we were in a home for people with dementia where he was visiting his great aunt Ruth. I was struck by how the residents responded to him as he chatted to them and played with his toys, as well as by the way in which this child dealt with each of these people as a friend. The gentleness of Jack's mother and her consideration for her aunt Ruth were striking. It was clear that she had visited the home on many occasions and that residents looked forward to her visits. Jack's mother became my wife and he became my stepson. He is now 6 ft 2 in tall and at university, and I still think that the people in that home had a strong and positive formative influence on him, as they did on me and his mum.
  If that story sounds a little too personal, it is not unusual. Currently featured in "EastEnders"—so it must be a common occurrence—is a storyline in which Kat will finally realise that Alfie is the man for her because she can see in him a considerateness for his gran, who appears to have dementia, that her rich beau would never display—at least I hope that is how it will work out.
  People with dementia are part of society, and the way in which we treat them in part defines who we are. The home that I mentioned was a private home with very large fees, and most people could not think of being helped there. The care that most people receive is a great deal less effective than that which was given to my adopted aunt Ruth.

  145
  In our society, we claim to have built consideration for those with dementia into the governmental system, but of course there is no single system. Central Government delegate it to local authorities, but then say that they are expected to spend a standard amount on social services. Local authorities never treat reviewing the standard spending assessment—SSA—as a priority; most who have that responsibility spend well above their SSA for social services because they are humane, but they know that the service that they provide falls pitifully short of being able to hear a cry of pain and to respond to it appropriately.
  Dementia has many forms—some milder, some more pronounced and some extreme—but for many sufferers, and for all if they live long enough, the final solution is to live in a residential home, probably for the rest of their natural life. In Hertfordshire, the amount of money that the county council pays for someone who is reliant on public resources falls far short of what care home providers think appropriate. SPAIN—the Social Policy Ageing Information Network, a conjunction of various bodies that do work in this area—suggests that it is about £85 short per patient per week. The county has done its best, but last year, after hard negotiations, it had to agree a 7.9 per cent. increase in the rate that it pays for residential care, although the Government were, yet again, expecting a settlement well below that figure.
  Even at that level, many operators of residential homes try hard to close them down, because the land that then becomes available is so valuable that they can secure their own economic circumstances and retirement by selling it. People from Hertfordshire are living in homes hundreds of miles away in Wales, the Isle of Wight and Liverpool—although, Mr. Speaker, I have heard no cases of them being sent to Glasgow, so we are at least that humane. Splitting families up in that way has a devastating effect on people. That is the reality behind the national service framework claim that
  "There are serious shortages of suitable care homes in some areas…and few local authorities have yet developed sufficient services to help people with dementia continue living at home."
  Those are the Government's own words.
  Once someone is in a home, there is a continuing squeeze on money. If they are in a private home and have to subsidise it out of their own family resources, there is always the prospect that they may end up living so long that they have to move from a place that is comfortable, and where they have a more manageable existence, to a place where they know no one and their circumstances are decidedly less commodious. Caring families facing the prospect of their relatives having to make such a move, or people facing dire economic consequences for themselves if they try to hang on, are presented with an invidious choice.
  What makes residents of a comfortable home insecure, and what makes it so difficult for families to find a place for their relative with dementia, is the spectre of what counts as health care and what counts as social care. For example, health care assistants count, paradoxically, as social carers. A Kafkaesque labyrinth of funding complexity is involved when they are employed. That results in lengthy delays in the appropriate resources that are eventually allocated to people with the illness.
  146
  I have a constituent whose niece is willing to help with her social care. That includes helping her to clean herself after she has excreted. What would be the health consequences if she did not have such help? Help with the preparation of food is social care, but how costly is it to cope with the health needs of someone who is malnourished? Of course, looking after elderly people with dementia is demanding and it is not surprising that many vacancies remain unfilled, given the low wages and career development prospects.
  Sadly, one way in which people sometimes cope is through the prescription of neuroleptic drugs. The use of such drugs has escalated to the point where many people with the complaint no longer have the quality of life that my adopted aunt Ruth enjoyed nearly till her death.
  I thank the Alzheimer's Society and Andrew Chidgey for their help in preparing for the debate. I conclude by quoting the words of the Social Policy Ageing Information Network, which is composed of many of the charities that deal with such matters. Its report concludes:
  "We urge the Government to act decisively to bring social care for older people into line with the ambitious programme for the NHS. The good intentions are there, the resources to carry them through are not.
  Piecemeal measures",
  which include amounts of £300 million to patch up some parts of the system,
  "are not enough—they merely serve to divert the pressures from one part of the system to another. What is needed is a fundamental review of funding for older people across the whole spectrum of social care. Without such a boost, neither older people's needs nor the Government's modernisation objectives for the NHS"—
  let alone the needs of those with dementia—"
  can be met."
  10.17 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on securing the opportunity to debate this important issue. However, I cannot possibly agree with his comments about Glasgow. Having lived there for several years, I must leap to the defence of that fair city. If that ensures that I am called promptly in future debates, that is even better.
  My hon. Friend described some of the problems that face people with dementia and their carers. Dementia can doubtless have a dramatic effect on individuals, their families and friends. My hon. Friend is right to take the matter seriously and raise it in the House.
  Debates such as this are bound to concentrate on what is going wrong. I should therefore like to start by saying that a great deal is going right as regards how we care for people with dementia. It is important to put that into context, because about 600,000 people in this country have dementia in various degrees of seriousness. When dementia is diagnosed, it is important that the individual and the family approach it as far as possible with a positive outlook. That is difficult if we give the impression that it is awful for everybody all the time.

  147
  Many people have a high quality of life for many years because the disease progresses relatively slowly in some cases.
  Lady Hermon: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Ladyman: I shall in a moment, once I have made some progress.
  Some of the care and support comes from people's families and friends, who work tirelessly to ensure that partners, parents and neighbours are cared for in the best possible way. However, the statutory and voluntary sectors provide much support. They increasingly provide a range of person-centred services. The statutory and voluntary sectors also provide a range of support services to enable carers to continue caring.
  Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister for taking this intervention. I had not intended to intervene, particularly in another hon. Member's Adjournment debate. As the wife of a dear husband who has only recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer's, I urge the Minister to consider the fact that, somehow, GPs should look much more closely at the symptoms. I went to our GP five years ago, but my dear husband was diagnosed only last year. With the greatest respect to the Minister, he can tell me how much is being done now, but early diagnosis would have helped my husband and our two children a great deal.
  Dr. Ladyman: First, may I offer my sympathy to the hon. Lady and my best wishes to her husband? I entirely agree that, if we can diagnose these conditions and begin to manage the problem much earlier, it is often much easier to deal with the matter. Early diagnosis and early intervention in long-term conditions can often be key to their proper management, and I am sorry that that has not happened in her case.
  The point that I was making was that many people who have been diagnosed with dementia can have many happy, quality years of life before the condition becomes serious. If there is a positive aspect to the situation, it is that people in the hon. Lady's situation should be aware of that. A story that I often tell is that it is reputed that, not that many years ago, one of our own Prime Ministers was diagnosed as having dementia while still living at No. 10 Downing street, and stayed there and ran the country for a year or so after he had received the diagnosis. It is important, therefore, that we put this into perspective. Such a diagnosis is not an immediate death sentence, and we need to manage the condition as positively as we possibly can. I think that that was probably the thrust of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead. There is a great deal of quality of life to be drawn from even the most difficult of situations.
  Let me give an example. Hon. Members might have heard of the Jackdawe scheme, a specialist home care service in Nottingham for people with dementia, which recently won a health and social care award. On average, the people using the service receive 10 hours of care a week, and the care provided is in line with what
  148
  they need, not with a fixed menu of services. Most people with experience of the service speak of the quality of life of those who are being cared for in the project.
  As my hon. Friend intimated, most people do not want to go into a care home, and one of the things that the Government are doing is to look for alternatives to that. We have put a huge amount of money into intensive home care packages for older people, including those with dementia, and many people with dementia can be kept in their own home for a considerable period. About 27,000 more intensive home care packages are in place already.
  We can also make available the extra care model of housing, an example of which is Alexandra House in Coventry, which I visited fairly recently. I met a lady with dementia and her husband—who was in his mid-eighties—who was looking after her, living in their own flat in that extra care community. For about a decade, he had done nothing but look after his wife, and that was now taking its toll on him. Because they were living in an extra care facility, however, she was able for the first time to get the care that she needed, and he was able to take a break from caring and to start to lead his own life again. I met him on the day before he was due to start a computer course at the local adult education college, at the age of 87. He was able to leave his wife for the first time in many years because he was confident that she would be looked after when he was out of the house. There are, therefore, many alternatives to care homes, and we must explore them.
  My hon. Friend talked about the shortage of care home beds for people with dementia for whom that is the only option. He criticised the Government for leaving the responsibility for that in the hands of local councils, but the reality is that that is where we place the responsibility for judging local capacity. We cannot possibly judge it from Whitehall, because we do not know the situation in his area or in other areas around the country. We therefore put a responsibility on local councils to do that planning, and we have given them adequate resources to do so. My hon. Friend talked about the resources available in his area, and about Hertfordshire's financial position, but since 1997 we have increased by 25 per cent. over and above inflation the funding for personal social services across the country.
  My hon. Friend talked about standard spending assessments. Actually, we do not have those any more: we have formula spending shares, which reflect deprivation levels and other local issues, and determine how much each council receives. Councils are, however, supposed to top up spending on those services from council tax. That is what council tax is for—to add extra money. We give councils responsibility for judging local needs, and trust them to balance the availability and capacity of services against those needs.
  The availability of care home places is also an issue when social services departments are working out how to reduce the number of delayed discharges from acute hospitals. To enable acute beds to be used to maximum effect, Hertfordshire offers patients and their relatives the opportunity to move to the homes of their choice, but in the interim, until a vacancy becomes available, people may have to wait in homes that are not in Hemel

  149
  Hempstead. That, I think, is the position described by my hon. Friend, in which people find themselves outside their local communities.
  Hertfordshire has a block contract for 60 nursing home beds for people suffering from dementia, all of which are in the Hemel Hempstead area. A further 74 beds are contracted with nursing homes in Luton and Harpenden. I am assured that Luton is the furthest area in which people are placed and that, if relatives experience problems visiting the home, the council uses the carers grant to assist them. At least, that is what I am told. If my hon. Friend has evidence to the contrary, I hope he will bring it to my attention, because when councils tell me porky pies I take that seriously. There is also access to 460 residential care home beds for people suffering from dementia who do not require nursing care all—in Hertfordshire.
  As I said earlier, the local authority offers choice through the preferred choice option. When people have been placed outside Hertfordshire, they return to the Hemel Hempstead area as soon as there is a suitable vacancy. Some take up that option; others do not.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the important issue of carers. Most people with dementia are cared for at home, and we have made extensive efforts to improve support for carers. We shall more than double the money currently given to councils to support carers. It is £100 million this year, £125 million next year, and £185 million by 2006. Councils can use that money to give people short breaks from caring, and to provide them with other help.
  Let me stress a point that I always stress when speaking about this subject. We have introduced a regime enabling carers to demand their own assessments. Many carers do not realise that they can go to their local social services departments and demand assessments of their needs. I urge them all to do so.
  My hon. Friend mentioned pre-nursing care, personal care and the costs involved. In October 2001 the Government delivered their commitment to bring in free care from registered nurses for people paying all their own nursing home fees. That also applies to people receiving nursing care at home. It ends the anomaly of people having to pay for care in nursing homes that would be provided free in residential accommodation or at home.
  The Government recognise that caring for someone with any form or level of dementia often requires the involvement of a registered nurse. The complexity of the problems experienced by sufferers, including behavioural change, means that frequent review and supervision of their care may be needed to maintain
  150
  their safety, nutrition, personal hygiene and so forth. All those important functions are delivered as part of nursing care, and the national health service now fully funds that care.
  As for personal care—described as "social care" by my hon. Friend—in responding to the royal commission on long-term care we decided not to make personal care free for everyone. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that some or all of the personal care costs of almost seven in 10 people are met by the state.
  Those whose personal care costs are not met by the state have assets in excess of £19,500. By making that decision, we will be able to redirect an additional £1 billion a year by 2006 into services for everybody. Were we to provide free personal care for such individuals, we would not have as much money to spend on other services. The intensive home care packages, the carers grant, and the so-called access grant, which makes the services available to allow us to keep people in their own home, are all paid for by not making personal care free for people who have significant assets. If we made personal care free for such individuals, all that would disappear—we would be unable to provide that level of support, and all older people, including those with dementia and mental health problems, would suffer as a result.
  I put it to my hon. Friend and to you, Mr. Speaker—you have an interest in these matters from the Scottish perspective—that the Government in Scotland came to a different view. They decided to fund personal care for everybody. Now, more people in Scotland than in England are having to enter care homes, and in a few years that divergence will be very dramatic indeed. People in England will start to see the merit of the Government's decision, and I suspect that people in Scotland will start to ask their Government why they took the line they did.
  In addition to what I have described is something called NHS continuing care. When an individual's medical needs outweigh their personal care needs, as sometimes happens to people with dementia, they become eligible for NHS continuing care, whereby the NHS pays not only for their nursing care and personal care, but their accommodation costs. That is the third level of care, about which people who engage in this debate often forget. It is true that the ombudsman criticised—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church Repairs (VAT)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what recent representations the Church Commissioners have made on the reduction of VAT on church repairs. [137050]

  Mr. Bell
  The hon. Lady will be interested to hear that I am going to Brussels tomorrow with members of the Church of England VAT Group for meetings with UK representative officials and with Commissioner Frits Bolkestein.

  I have also had a meeting with the Economic Secretary, who has been most helpful and supportive.

  Clergy
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners when the McClean review of clergy terms of service is expected to deliver its final report. [137051]

  Mr. Bell
  The review group will submit its first full report to the Archbishops' Council in December. It will look at ways of improving security for clergy who do not have freehold of office or employment contracts. The group hopes to submit its final report, which will consider the future of the freehold, by the end of 2004.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission when he expects the Commission to absorb the functions of the bodies responsible for reviewing parliamentary boundaries. [137048]

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission when the Electoral Commission will absorb the functions of bodies responsible for reviewing parliamentary boundaries. [137049]

  Mr. Matins
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that the Government have not yet announced a date for the transfer to the Electoral Commission of the functions of the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions, as provided for in section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission if he will make a statement on progress with extension of postal voting. [137052]

  Mr. Matins
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for the Government, not the Electoral Commission, to take steps to extend the availability of all-postal voting. However, the Electoral Commission submitted recommendations to Government on the future use of postal voting at local elections in their report "The shape of elections to come" in July 2003. It has also been directed by Government to recommend up to three European Parliamentary regions where all postal pilots would take place at the European Parliamentary elections in 2004.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Packaging
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will take steps to require fast food outlets to use only biodegradable packaging. [134847]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no plans at present to require fast food outlets to use only biodegradable packaging. The concept of degradable plastics that are made from mineral oil (a fossil fuel resource) and specifically designed for disposal with no beneficial recovery potential, runs counter to the aim to increase recycling. In addition, if disposed of in landfill rather than, for example, being composted, biodegradable waste breaks down to release greenhouse gases. It is for this reason that the Landfill Directive requires member states to significantly reduce the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill.

  The Government do support the development of biodegradable plastics from non-fossil sources. The Government-Industry Forum on Non-Food Uses of Crops has concluded that there is a opportunity to produce compostable packaging materials in the UK. Defra is currently drawing up a Non-Food Crops Strategy. A draft is expected to be issued for consultation early in 2004.

  The Government are also committed to reducing the incidents of fast food litter. We recently launched consultation document entitled "Voluntary Code of Practice for the Fast Food Industry—Options for Reducing Fast Food Litter and Waste in the Local Environment". The consultation closes on 30 January 2004.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps the Government is taking to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol becomes legally binding. [136111]
  3W
  Mr. Morley
  When the Kyoto Protocol enters into force, the targets it sets will become binding on the parties involved. In order for the Protocol to enter into force it must be signed by at least 55 countries including Annex 1 (developed) countries representing 55 per cent. of developed countries carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. Currently 119 countries representing 44.2 per cent. of emissions have ratified. Following withdrawal of the US from Kyoto in 2001, ratification by Russia is crucial to meet the 55 per cent. target and bring the Protocol into force.

  The Prime Minister has written to President Putin twice this year to stress the importance of Russian ratification in the near future, and other ministerial colleagues press their Russian counterparts on the issue whenever appropriate. Officials also meet regularly with Russian counterparts and we have highlighted the significant economic, as well as environmental benefits to Russia if they ratify. We are confident that the Protocol will come into force in 2004.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance her Department has issued on the(a) formal and (b)> informal interaction between civil servants and commercial lobbyists. [137267]

  Alun Michael
  Matters of propriety and conduct such as formal and informal interaction between employees of Defra and commercial lobbyists are covered by the general requirements of the Civil Service Code. The Code, along with further detailed guidance and advice is reproduced in the department's staff handbooks. The Cabinet Office also issued formal guidance on contact with lobbyists and this was made available to ex-MAFF staff via Office Notice and is replicated in the ex-DETR Staff Handbook.

  Crop Spraying
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department plans to introduce crop spray buffer zones for land next to housing. [137567]

  Alun Michael
  No decision has been taken to introduce crop spray buffer zones for land next to housing. A public consultation on the viability of no spray buffer zones closed on 31 October. A copy of the consultation paper will be placed in the House of Commons Library shortly.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect on farmers of the introduction of crop spray buffer zones for land next to housing. [137568]

  Alun Michael
  The public consultation on the viability of the introduction of no spray buffer zones closed on 31 October. The responses will help to inform a full Regulatory Impact Assessment including a cost/benefit analysis of effects on farmers.

  Export Health Certificates
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many export health certificates have been issued since 1 February. [135928]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since 1 February 2003, 207 export health certificates have been issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) for exports of sheep. 145 of these certificates have been certified to enable exports to take place. Details of the number of certificates issued for exports to each country are set out in the following table. These figures are derived from the computer system used to issue export health certificates and are subject to updating and amendment. Figures for certificates issued by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Northern Ireland (DARDNI) for exports of sheep will follow shortly.

  Country of destination

  Breeding

  Fattening

  Slaughter

  Belgium

  5

  0

  0

  Denmark

  1

  0

  0

  France

  12

  49

  0

  Germany

  4

  2

  0

  Ireland

  21

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  11

  19

  0

  Sweden

  1

  0

  0

  Isle of Man

  18

  0

  0

  Oman

  1

  0

  0

  St. Helena

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  75

  70

  0

  Flooding
  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the flood defence budget will be in the next three financial years. [136555]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government is committed to maintenance and improvement of flood and coastal defences, including those to reduce the risk of coastal erosion as well as flooding. Central Government's spending plans for flood and coastal defence remain as announced following the 2002 Spending Review:

  £

  2004–05

  469

  2005–06

  564

  These figures include Defra funding and funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister through local authority mechanisms as well as an estimated £20 million revenue from a new funding stream in 2005–06.

  Provision for 2006–07 will be set in the Government's next Spending Review in 2004.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what fiscal contribution district councils are required to make to flood defence capital projects. [136556]

  Mr. Morley
  District councils are empowered under the Land Drainage Act 1991 to undertake works to manage flood risk on watercourses which have not been
  5W
  designated as "main rivers" (for which the Environment Agency has the requisite powers) and which are not in an internal drainage district (for which the relevant internal drainage board would have powers).

  The district council is responsible for funding those projects which it directly promotes but Defra makes available grant aid at a rate of 45 per cent. for capital flood defence projects which meet the Department's criteria and (for those projects only) the council can also apply to the Department for a Supplementary Credit Approval to cover borrowing for the balance of expenditure after grant. The latter results in support from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) through its local authority funding mechanism.

  The authority primarily responsible for managing flood risk in England is the Environment Agency. The Agency obtains part of its funding for capital flood defence projects along with other aspects of this activity from county councils and unitary authorities in the form of levies agreed annually by the relevant Flood Defence Committee. However, it is the intention that these levies should be largely replaced from April 2004 by direct funding from Defra as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 12 March. An appropriate transfer of resource from ODPM to Defra will take place to reflect this change in funding. A further change we are making is to transfer responsibility from district councils to the Agency of those ordinary watercourses identified as creating the greatest flood risk.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which of the farms in the Alnwick area of Northumberland declared to be infected places in the foot and mouth epidemic were subsequently found to have no positive blood test results. [135916]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Information relating to individual premises or farms is held by Defra in strict confidence and, in accordance with the Data Protection Act, cannot be released. Statistical information below county level cannot be released for the same reason, as it may enable premises to be identified. I can, however, report that in Northumberland, during the 2001 outbreak of foot and mouth disease, 75 out of 88 infected premises were sampled and 17 returned negative results.

  A negative lab result does not mean that infection was absent. Each case was confirmed on the basis of a clinical diagnosis of foot and mouth disease by the vet on the farm, supported by convincing clinical evidence.

  Landfill
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many incidents of pollution from landfill sites have been investigated in each of the last three years; how many prosecutions resulted; and what amount of fines was levied. [136110]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 30 October 2003,Official Report, column 374W. All of the incidents referred to in that reply were investigated by the Environment Agency.

  Large Combustion Plant Directive
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which United Kingdom power stations have been granted derogation from the Large Combustion Plant Directive. [136025]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  So far the revised Large Combustion Plants Directive (2001/80/EC) has been implemented in the UK only for plants subject to it that were first licensed after July 1987, and it will not apply to other plants until 1 January 2008. Derogations under the Directive for these plants will be a matter for Environment Agency in England and Wales and their equivalents in rest of the United Kingdom. Operators of plants licensed before July 1987 may apply for a limited hours derogation before 30 June 2004. Such a derogation would allow the plant to be exempt from complying with the emission limits or the national emission reduction plan established under the Directive, but it would mean that the plant could operate for no more than 20,000 operational hours between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2015. Other applications for derogations would be made nearer the time that the Directive applies.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to implement the Large Combustion Plant Directive in the north-east region. [136026]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Large Combustion Plants Directive (2001/80/EC) applies thoughout the United Kingdom. It has already been implemented for plants first licensed after July 1987. The Government have just completed a consultation on proposals to implement this Directive for plants first licensed before July 1987. We are considering the responses to that consultation and the Government will take a decision shortly on the most appropriate implementation approach; whichever approach is adopted would apply in the north-east region.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had about the possible siting of a new nuclear waste facility. [136048]

  Mr. Morley
  None.

  Ozone Depleting Substances
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what quantities of CFC have been collected and safely destroyed from the licensed facilities operating in the UK under EU Regulation 2037/2000 on Ozone Depleting Substances in each year since implementation of the regulations. [133302]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]We are currently collating the figures and we will write to the hon. Member as soon as they are available.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to public funds has been of implementing EU Regulation 2037/2000 on Ozone Depleting Substances in each year since implementation of the regulations. [133303]
  7W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]Most of the enforcement of EC Regulation 2037/2000 is carried out by agencies during the normal course of their duties. There are no estimates available of costs specifically related to this. The Environment Agency does not monitor the costs of implementing individual regulations. Charges are levied for applications and subsistence on waste management licences for storage and treatment sites and the Agency seeks to recover relevant costs, including site supervision.

  However, with respect to waste implications of the Regulation, the principal public costs have fallen on local authorities. Local authorities in England received £40 million to assist with the costs of storing and processing refrigerators and freezers in 2002–03. This was in addition to £6 million provided for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002. Spending Review 2002 included future funding within the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block which will be distributed through Formula Standard Shares (FSAs).

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether local authorities are permitted to offer contracts for the purpose of compliance with EU Regulation 2037/2000 on Ozone Depleting Substances to licensed facilities whose recycling plants have not passed validation tests. [133305]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]This issue is regulated through the duty of care under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which requires that the holder of waste:(a) may only pass it on to an authorised person such as a waste management licence holder or a person authorised for transport purposes, for example a registered carrier of controlled waste, and (b) should take all reasonable measures to prevent the fly tipping of waste or the escape of the waste from his control or that of any other person.

  Generally, a fridge recycler cannot treat fridges until the recycling plant has been licensed and validated. However, the recycler or another party might properly store such fridges at a licensed storage site, pending treatment. Up until October 2002, the Environment Agency allowed operators to make applications and store fridges pending their determination. A local authority, for instance, could lawfully establish contracts with such operators in the expectation that their fridges would not be treated immediately.

  Parrett Catchment Project
  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the level of capital funding from central government for the Parrett sluice is in 2003–04; and what role the Parrett catchment project has in the Parrett sluice. [136354]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides funding to operating authorities for capital flood defence schemes and related studies that meet set criteria and achieve an appropriate priority score. No applications have been received for capital works on the Parrett Sluice, but I understand the Environment Agency will be seeking grant on related studies in 2003–04.
  8W
  Defra has provided funding to the Environment Agency for both the preparation of a Catchment Flood Management Plan for the River Parrett and strategic studies for the Lower Parrett and Tone. I understand that the Agency are consulting on the outcome of those studies, and that the Parrett Sluice is one of the options being considered. However the flood management strategy for the Lower Parrett and Tone has yet to be submitted formally to Defra for consideration, and it would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on the options at this stage.

  The Parrett Catchment Project is a partnership of all stakeholders with an interest on Flood Risk Management in the area, and will therefore be key to forming proposals which will be prepared by the Environment Agency.

  Pesticides
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many pesticides are approved for use in the UK; and how many have(a) full approval and (b) provisional approval. [137262]

  Alun Michael
  A total of 4,096 pesticides are approved for use in the UK. Of these, 2,783 hold full approval and 1,313 are provisionally approved.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment the Pesticides Safety Directorate has made of the safety of the use of pesticides in school grounds and playing fields. [137263]

  Alun Michael
  The assessment of the safety of the use of pesticides in school grounds and playing fields is covered by the specific assessments carried out by the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) when evaluating risks to human health prior to any decision to grant approval for the marketing and use of a pesticide.

  There are an extensive range of legislative and administrative controls over the approval, storage, marketing and use of pesticides. Applicants for pesticide approvals must show that their products are effective, humane, and pose no unacceptable risks to human beings, non-target species, or the wider environment before approval will be granted. All pesticide manufacturers are required to provide a wide range of scientific data that are evaluated by scientific experts in the PSD or the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). These evaluations are then scrutinised by the independent experts of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), who make recommendations to Ministers. Only when the Ministers responsible for pesticides, are satisfied on the basis of this expert advice that a pesticide can be used without unacceptable risk to people, animals, and the environment, will approval be given to put it on the market.

  As part of the risk assessment process, the exposure of bystanders and persons re-entering the treated area is considered. Specific estimates of potential dermal and inhalation exposure are made and the risk assessed directly.
  9W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many of the pesticides in use in the United Kingdom which have only provisional approval have had this status for(a) one to three years, (b) three to five years and (c) more than five years; and if she will make a statement. [137264]

  Alun Michael
  As at 5 November 2003, of the pesticides currently holding provisional approval status in the UK.

  (a) 450 have been provisionally approved for periods of one to three years;

  (b) 308 have been provisionally approved for periods of three to five years;

  (c) 344 have been provisionally approved for more than five years.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the amounts of pesticides used in grain stores in the United Kingdom. [137266]

  Alun Michael
  Assessments of the amounts of pesticides used in grain stores are carried out every four years, as a part of the Government's regular programme of surveys of pesticide use.

  The most recent published results relate to grain harvested in 1998 and stored in the 1998–99 season. In total 13.31 tonnes of pesticides were used to treat the fabric of buildings, and 10.95 tonnes were used to treat stored grain.

  The survey has been repeated for grain harvested in 2002 and stored in the 2002–03 season. Data from this survey are currently being assessed and it is expected that the results will be published early in 2004.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures her Department has for monitoring the use of pesticides in food produce entering the United Kingdom. [137268]

  Alun Michael
  Pesticide residues in both imported and domestically-produced food are controlled through UK Regulations, which lay down Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for pesticide/commodity combinations covering the components of the UK diet.

  The Government's monitoring programme for pesticide residues in both home produced and imported food is overseen by the independent Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC), Some 4,105 food samples were analysed in 2002 for a wide range of pesticides with the result that the number of individual pesticide/commodity combinations analysed was in excess of 180,000. The proportion of imports in each survey varies depending on the balance of imports and domestic produce on the market. Overall in 2002, 52 per cent. of the samples tested were imports.

  All the monitoring results are published on a website: www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc. htm

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which EU countries impose a pesticide tax; and at what levels. [137286]
  10W
  Alun Michael
  We are aware of pesticide taxes in Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway and Sweden. To the best of our knowledge, the current tax rates applied are:

  Belgium:

  Two hundred and forty eight euros per kg of active ingredient for non-agricultural uses of pesticides containing atrazine, diuron, isoproturon, simazine and pentachlorophenol.

  Denmark:

  Tax levied as a percentage of retail price excluding VAT. Insecticides attract a 54 per cent. tax, herbicides 33 per cent. and non-agricultural pesticides 3 per cent.

  France:

  Seven tax bands for different active ingredients. Tax rate ranges from zero to about €1.68 euros per kg.

  Norway:

  Basic rate is NOK 15 per treated hectare multiplied by a banding factor of 0.5, 1,4 or 8.

  Sweden:

  SEK 20 per kg of active ingredient.

  Printer Cartridges
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the change in waste to UK landfills of excluding printer cartridges from the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive; and if she will make a statement. [135888]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have not undertaken an assessment on the change in waste to UK landfills as a result of not including printer cartridges in the scope of the WEEE Directive. The Directive applies to whole products placed on to the market and not to individual components, sub-assemblies or consumables, such as printer cartridges.

  There are currently a large number of businesses which refill printer cartridges, and the Government would like to see this continue. Further, cartridges which are in a printer at the time it is discarded will have to be reused or recycled.

  Recycling Plants
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether licences have been issued to recycling plants before validation of plants has been completed. [133306]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]Yes. Licences for all such plant are issued before validation, so that the plant may store fridges at the site, and abide by the duty of care. However, validation is required before the plant can begin fridge reprocessing.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reviews have been undertaken in each of the last three years of renewable energy schemes in Cambridgeshire; and what the associated cost to public funds was of the reviews. [134871]
  11W
  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  During 1999, Government Offices were asked to facilitate the production of studies into the potential for generation of renewable energy in their region. For the East of England, the findings were made available towards the end of 2000. The cost of professional assistance for the Region as a whole was about £50,000, but it is not realistic to apportion this across the six counties concerned.

  Subsequently, Government Offices were invited to bid for monies for a two year period from March 2002 to raise awareness and activity on renewable energy generation with special reference to the planning system. For the East of England, the sum involved is around £250,000, with other matched funds, but again this cannot be taken down to county level.

  Rural Services
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when Lord Haskins' report on reform of Government delivery of rural services will be made public; and if she will make a statement. [137120]

  Alun Michael
  Lord Haskins was asked to review the way the Government delivers its rural policy. We have recently received his report and are considering his recommendations carefully. We intend to publish the report, and the Government's interim response to it, shortly.

  Sewerage
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she has taken to introduce first time sewerage schemes in rural areas. [136279]

  Mr. Morley
  Sewerage undertakers have a statutory duty to provide, improve and extend their public sewer network. It is a matter for each sewerage company to decide on its programme of work in relation to this duty.

  Companies have submitted their draft business plans for 2005–10 to the Office of Water Services (Ofwat). It was open to companies to include costed proposals to extend or improve their sewerage network, these could also include first time sewerage schemes. Ofwat will examine their plans, and decide the appropriate revenue requirement, having taken advice from other stakeholders, particularly the Environment Agency, for companies when it sets price limits in 2004.

  Ofwat have published a summary of companies' proposals and the issues that arise from these plans. It will publish its draft determination in July 2004 for consultation before making its final decisions in November 2004.

  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from Hambledon and Wormley residents concerning recent statements by Southern Water on first time sewerage schemes. [136280]
  12W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department has received no recent representations from Hambledon and Wormley residents concerning recent statements by Southern Water on first time sewerage schemes.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many live sheep have been exported from the United Kingdom since 1 February for(a) slaughter and (b) further fattening. [135929]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The total number of live sheep certified for export from Great Britain since 1 February 2003 is shown in the following table. These figures are derived from the computer system used to issue export health certificates and are subject to updating and amendment. The figures for sheep certified for export from Northern Ireland will follow shortly.

  Country of destination

  Breeding

  Fattening

  Slaughter

  Belgium

  22

  0

  0

  Denmark

  3

  0

  0

  France

  912

  16,664

  0

  Germany

  28

  24

  0

  Ireland

  54

  0

  0

  Netherlands

  72

  5,506

  0

  Sweden

  1

  0

  0

  Isle of Man

  100

  0

  0

  Oman

  1

  0

  0

  St. Helena

  6

  0

  0

  Total

  1,199

  22,194

  0

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to reject the draft Regulation on the Transportation of Animals unless it allows the United Kingdom,(a) to continue to enforce the Minimum Values legislation and (b) to refuse to permit live equines to be exported for slaughter; and if she will make a statement. [136106]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra are playing a full role in the discussions in Brussels on the draft proposals on the transport of animals. We are reviewing the options available to us to achieve controls that are similar in effect to those in our current rules.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress the Government have made in ensuring that the welfare of(a) equines and (b) livestock will be improved in the Regulation on the Transportation of Animals. [136109]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are playing a full role in the discussion in Brussels on these draft proposals which are likely to come before the Council of Ministers in December.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the changes in the overall environmental impact of water consumption by(a) consumers and (b) industry since 1997; and what measures are being taken to reduce consumption. [136113]
  13W
  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has a duty to secure the proper use of water resources, ensuring that a balance is maintained between the needs of water consumers and the environment. Between 1997 and 2003, household water use remained fairly stable at about 8,600 Megalitres per day, whilst non-household use fell from 4320 to 3823 Megalitres per day. The Government undertakes a range of activities to encourage sustainable water use. The Water Supply (Water Fittings) Regulations were introduced in 1999 and set the maximum water consumption of certain domestic fittings and appliances. The Envirowise programme provides practical environmental advice to businesses to help reduce their water consumption, and the Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme has recently been extended to include designated water efficient technologies. Water companies have been set annual leakage targets since 1998 and are also under a statutory duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers.

  Wild Birds (Imports)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) on how many occasions the importation of wild caught birds has been stopped and enforcement action taken in the last five years; [135819]

  (2) how many people have been successfully prosecuted under existing (a) international and (b) UK regulations for the illegal importation of wild caught (i) parrots and (ii) other birds in the last five years for which figures are available. [135821]

  Mr. Morley
  For the period in question, one person has been successfully prosecuted for the illegal importation of parrots, and two people for the illegal importation of birds of prey. The prosecutions were for international import offences under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister which Department will answer the letter from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to him of 21 October concerning the proposed closure of the Holehird Leonard Cheshire home for the disabled in Windermere; and when it will do so. [137920]

  The Prime Minister
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will be replying to the letter this week.

  GM Trials
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Prime Minister what response he has made to the letter sent to him by 114 United Kingdom scientists relating to GM trials. [137703]

  The Prime Minister
  I strongly believe that science and technology are vital to our country's future prosperity. As a government, we need to ensure that the UK continues to be one of the top countries in the world for scientific research.
  14W
  I read the letter from Professor Burke and others with interest. In light of this, I have responded to the letter re-iterating that this government's approach is to make decisions on GM crops on the basis of sound science. The reason why we have not yet made a formal response to the results of the farm-scale evaluations is that we are waiting to hear the assessment of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which we expect to receive around the end of this year.

  Government Prospectus
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when the Government will publish a prospectus setting out its progress and the challenges facing the country; [134538]

  (2) what arrangements the Government proposes for consultation on its progress and response to challenges; and what resources it will commit to this exercise. [134539]

  The Prime Minister
  The prospectus will be a Labour Party publication. Individual departments account for their progress annually and regularly publish consultation documents on policy issues that are funded by those departments.

  Kenny Richey
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to make representations for clemency to the President of the United States in the event that the appeal on behalf of Mr. Kenny Richey to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is unsuccessful. [136816]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave him today.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reasons the Serious Fraud Office did not initiate an investigation into whether payments made by a firm whose name has been communicated to her were authorised in the UK. [135892]

  The Solicitor-General
  If the hon. Member will write to me, outlining in full his concerns, I should be happy to provide him with a substantive reply.

TRANSPORT

  Foreign-registered Lorries
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign-registered lorries used British roads in the last 12 months. [136187]

  Mr. Jamieson
  During the 12 months ending June 2003, the latest period for which figures are available, foreign-registered lorries made 1.4 million trips to Great Britain. However, the number of vehicles was much less than this because individual lorries may make more than one trip.

  Lime Street Station
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the negotiations on Network Rail taking operational control of Lime Street station to be concluded. [137113]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is an operational matter for Network Rail. At this stage there is nothing further I can add to my answer of 4 November 2003,Official Report, column 540W, to my hon. Friend.

  Montreal Convention
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the Montreal Convention by substituting(a) incident for accident and (b) personal injury for bodily injury. [136998]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the terms of the international 1999 Montreal Convention, in the case of death or injury to passengers airlines are strictly liable for claims up to 100,000 SDKs, and may be exonerated only from higher claims if they can prove absence of negligence.

  Within such a regime it would be inappropriate to broaden the scope of airline liability by substituting (a) incident for accident or (b) personal injury for bodily injury, and I have no plans to propose amendments to the Convention.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will press the European Union not to ratify the Montreal Protocol until airline liability is extended to include the health of air passengers. [136999]

  Mr. McNulty
  No. In the interests of airline passengers we look forward to the ratification of the Montreal Convention by the Community and by the member states as soon as possible.

  National Rail Training Centre
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to set up a National Rail Training Centre; and if he will make a statement. [137124]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Centre for Rail Skills was established in July 2003 as the industry-wide training organisation. The CfRS does not itself provide training courses but is responsible for co-ordinating and facilitating them. This training takes place across the whole of the rail industry and throughout the country and is therefore delivered at a wide range of venues rather than from a single location.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statutory investigatory powers the Department has; which ones will be superseded by use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and what plans he has for removing these legacy powers. [136125]
  16W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport is responsible for the following statutory investigatory powers:Sections 179 and 180 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, 76 and 77 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, 129 of the Transport Act 1985 and 128 and 129 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to require production of documents and to call witnesses in the course of an inquiry.1
  Section 180 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to inspect a vehicle that has been involved in a road accident.
  Section 75 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, to obtain information in connection with investigations of air accidents.
  Sections 257 to 260, 267 and 268 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, to require the production of documents and call witnesses under a formal inquiry, and require production of ships' documents and other documents necessary for inspections and examinations.
  Section 119 of the Railways Act 1933, to require the production of information to make directions to railway operators about safety.

  The Department for Transport does not have any statutory investigatory powers that would be superseded by the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or plans to amend or repeal any of its powers to that end. The above powers will continue to be used to compel the necessary and proportionate production of information, other than communications data, for the purposes described above. The draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order would give access to communications data to selected officers of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency for the purposes of protecting public safety and preventing and detecting maritime crime.

  Powers under section 259(2)(k) the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to compel people to assist the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be retained as they are used for other purposes not relating to accessing communications data. If the draft Order is enacted, these powers will not be used or attempted to be used for obtaining communications data.
  1Similar powers exist under sections 249 and 249 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 and section 56 of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, due to legislative changes these provisions will soon be repealed.

  Road Safety
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department(a) has carried out and (b) has collated on the effect on the risk of collision of (i) hand-held and (ii) hands-free mobile phone use when driving. [137182]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department commissioned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to review the relevant research on the use of any mobile phone while driving. The report, was published in 2001 and is available on-line at:

  www.rospa.com/pdfs/road.mobiles/report.pdf.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with representatives of police forces concerning the enforcement of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No 4) Regulations 2003; and if he will make a statement. [137183]
  17W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department consulted representative police organisations prior to making the new regulation introducing an offence of using a hand-held mobile phone when driving. Enforcement will be a matter for the police.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to publicise the new regulations concerning the use of mobile phones when driving. [137184]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department is publicising the new hand-held mobile phone legislation in a number of ways:National radio advertising will begin on 17 November 2003 and run for four weeks.
  National press advertising will appear in late November 2003 and early December 2003.
  Information will be emailed to the top 1,000 UK companies/Central and Local Government Departments in November 2003 encouraging them to cascade messages to employees.
  National press release will be issued on 17 November 2003 and journalists approached to generate national and regional media coverage.
  Variable message signs on motorways will carry messages regarding the new legislation.

  Public relations activity will target relevant HR, business, personnel, office management, legal and auto-fleet magazines in November 2003.
  Promotional materials including posters and leaflets are now available and will be disseminated by Road Safety Officers around the country.
  Detailed information about the new legislation is available on the Think! website www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk and the DfT website.

  The Department is also re-iterating the dangers of driver distraction surrounding the use of all mobiles phones, focusing on the simple message "Switch off before you drive off" in the following ways:
  In January 2004 national radio advertising will run for two weeks.
  National cinema advertising will begin in February 2004 and run for eight weeks.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to publish further guidance regarding the new regulations on the use of mobile phones when driving, in addition to the guidance on the Department for Transport website. [137185]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's advice leaflet on mobile phones and driving has been updated to take account of the new regulations and the text was recently added to the THINK Road Safety site at www. thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/mobile/index.htm. Printed copies (product code T/INF/885) will shortly be available free of charge from the Department's distribution centre, telephone 0870 122 6236.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many children under 16(a) received a serious head injury as a result of a cycling accident and (b) died in each of the last 10 years. [136423]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is shown in the tables.
  18W

  Financial year

  Number of admissions of children under 16

  1995–96

  2,333

  1996–97

  2,781

  1997–98

  3,349

  1998–99

  2,711

  1999–2000

  3,115

  2000–01

  3,489

  2001–02

  3,372

  Due to changes in coding methodology it is only possible to provide the last seven years of data.

  Calendar year

  Deaths from head injuries in cyclists

  All deaths in cyclists

  1993

  19

  30

  1994

  27

  39

  1995

  31

  43

  1996

  34

  47

  1997

  25

  35

  1998

  18

  29

  1999

  20

  32

  2000

  14

  24

  2001

  12

  19

  2002

  10

  19

  Data for 2001 and 2002 may not be directly comparable to those for previous years, due to changes in coding methodology in 2001. The figures should therefore be interpreted with caution.

  South Coast Study
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish his response to the Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study. [137624]

  Mr. McNulty
  The study is yet to be completed, but it is anticipated that the final report will be finished by the end of this month. The South West Regional Assembly has indicated that they wish to comment on the report, in particular regarding the de-trunking issue which gave rise to the study being commissioned.

  Following receipt of the study report and comments from the Regional Assembly, I will be in a position to make a response.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consumer Debt
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with(a) the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, (b) representatives of high street banks and building societies and (c) the Financial Services Authority on the issue of consumer debt [136756]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My officials and I have had a number of meetings with Citizens Advice, representatives of high street banks and building societies (including trade associations such as the British Banking Association and the Finance and Leasing Association) and the Financial Services Authority to discuss the issue of consumer debt.
  19W
  These discussions have covered a number of areas, including how to enshrine responsible landing, joining up Government policy on over-indebtedness, improving access to and the quality of debt advice etc. Government proposals on these issues will be laid out in the White Paper on Consumer Credit.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to agree voluntarily to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections as provided for in the Additional Protocol; and if she will make a statement. [136699]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The protocol additional to the UK/ Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement was approved by the IAEA Board of Governors in June 1998 and was signed by the UK Governor and the European Commission on 22 September 1998. The legislation necessary to implement the protocol in the UK, the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000, will enter into force when the European Commission has confirmed that it is ready to implement the protocol. Voluntary declarations of the type of information that the UK will be required to provide under Article 2 of the protocol have been provided to the IAEA since 1999. We have also indicated our willingness to allow complementary access visits to locations in the UK, as provided for in our protocol, on a voluntary basis. Prior to entry into force of the Nuclear Safeguards Act, any such access will require the agreement of those responsible for the location concerned.

  London Development Agency
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will require the London Development Agency to(a) set an annual target for increasing the total of start-up units in London and (b) publish an annual register showing where such business premises are located. [136617]

  Jacqui Smith
  The London Development Agency currently has an annual target for creating or attracting new businesses in London, set at 900 for the current year. The LDA Corporate Plan 2003–06 envisages this annual target being increased to 950 in 2005–06. The Agency also monitors the number of VAT registrations in London's most deprived wards.

  The Government does not publish figures relating to the number of business start-ups or closures, and there are no plans to do so. VAT registrations and de-registrations are the best official guide to the pattern of business start-up and closure, and are published by the Small Business Service and Office for National Statistics on an annual basis.

  Arms Fairs
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to support arms fairs in the future. [136300]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department represents the interests of UK-based defence manufacturers in their legitimate manufacturing and export interests. My Department also has no plans to change its long-standing arrangement whereby Ministers and Officials will attend 20W
  exhibitions and fairs where armaments may be displayed and promoted. UK Trade & Investment (UKTI), through the Defence Manufacturers Association, supports the presence of UK companies at overseas exhibitions, seminars and in outward missions.

  Details of grants provided by UKTI to DMA were given to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith), on 20 October 2003, Official Report, column 439W.

  British Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library the Government's responses to each of the submissions from interested parties to the European Commission regarding the British Energy restructuring application. [137021]

  Mr. Timms
  No. Correspondence between the United Kingdom and the European Commission concerning current state aid cases, and that relating to specific undertakings, is confidential in accordance with the terms of Exemption 1(c) information received in confidence from international organisations of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Broadband
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to provide extra funds to allow access to broadband for rural areas of(a) England and (b) Cumbria. [137123]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government intends spending £1 billion on broadband connectivity for the public sector between 2003–2006. The Broadband Aggregation Project will set up nine Regional Aggregation Bodies (RABs), which will aggregate and procure public sector demand for broadband. Each RAB will work closely with stakeholders in their region to develop an appropriate regional strategy that will offer best value for money and the widest availability to surrounding communities.

  The North West Regional Development Agency Corporate Plan has allocated £106 million between 2003–06 to promote a comprehensive broadband infrastructure throughout the region and maximise its usage. A project to procure broadband services for Cumbrian residents and businesses is currently awaiting approval by the Capital Projects Review Group and HM Treasury.

  Business Support Schemes
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many business support schemes are in existence; and if she will list the schemes that have been closed down by her Department since November 2002. [135900]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]The DTI funds 52 schemes that are currently open to new business. In addition two other schemes, the Broadband Fund and the Regional Innovation Fund have had funding provision re-allocated from DTI to the Regional Development Agencies. The Department is in the process of closing all schemes in order to replace them with 10 business support products by April 2004.
  21W
  Since 30 November 2002, 39 schemes have closed to new business. Eight of these schemes have closed down completely and 31 have closed to new business but have a tail of activities to which the department has made legal commitments.

  Schemes that have closed down completely

  Partnership in Plastics Programme

  Waste Management Resources

  Partners in Innovation Fast Track

  Financial Advisory Service

  Business Incubation Service

  Coal Operating Aid

  Manufacturing in IST

  Corn-met

  Schemes that have closed to new business but have successor schemes or a tail of activities to which the department has made legal commitments

  Acorn

  Work-Life Balance

  Genetic Knowledge Parks

  Automotive College

  Smart

  Teaching Company Scheme

  ITEC Skills

  Partners in Innovation

  Partnership for Process Competitiveness Chemicals

  Biotechnology Exploitation Programme

  Recycling Programme

  Biotechnology Mentoring

  Building Research Establishment Framework

  Manufacturing for Bio-technology

  Bio-wise

  Building up Bio-materials

  Local Partnership Fund

  s@tcom Programme

  MOSAIC

  Service Mission Support

  NEWTON (New Observing Technologies)

  GIFTSS (Government Information for space sector)

  CPP (Customer Partnership Programme)

  MEP (Market Entry Programme)

  ICP2 (International Co-operation Programme)

  GMES (Global Monitoring for Environmental Security)

  Electronics Design Programme

  Digital Broadcasting Test Bed

  ICT Carrier

  NESTA Industry Placement Scheme

  Internet Incubator Fund

  Coal Production (Scotland)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much(a) deep mined coal and (b) open cast coal was produced in Scotland in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2002–03. [137128]

  Mr. Timms
  The information available on the amount of deep mined and opencast coal produced in Scotland, relates to financial years and, in millions of tonnes, is as follows.
  22W

  Deep Mine

  Opencast

  2000–01

  0.7

  7.1

  2001–02

  0.8

  8.1

  2002–03

  0

  7.1

  Source:

  Coal Authority data as published in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 2003 (The Stationery Office), which is accessible through the DTI website. Output is the tonnage declared by operators to the Coal Authority, including estimated tonnages.

  Cold Calling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulatory framework protects the public from cold callers; and what plans the Government has for further regulation of the practice of cold calling. [136598]

  Mr. Timms
  The regulatory framework for unsolicited direct marketing by phone currently gives individual subscribers the right to opt-out of sales calls if they do not wish to receive them. Under the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 (which will shortly be replaced by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003), no-one may make a sales call to a subscriber who has previously notified them that they do not wish to receive such calls from them, or who has been registered with the Telephone Preference Service for twenty-eight days or more.

  Both the Distance Selling Regulations and the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations provide rights to consumers over distance and doorstep selling. The Distance Selling Regulations require that consumers are provided with clear, comprehensible information about the goods or services offered. Where a business uses cold calling by telephone to sell to consumers, the caller must clearly identify the business they represent and the commercial purpose of the call at the start of a conversation. The Regulations also provide for a seven-day cooling off period (except for certain goods and services which are excluded) in which to withdraw from any contract.

  The Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations, commonly known as the "doorstep selling regulations" provide the right to a seven day cooling-off period during which an agreement to buy goods or services worth more than £35 from a trader whose visit is unsolicited may by cancelled, and the same right where a visit by a trader follows an unsolicited doorstep or telephone approach.

  The Office of Fair Trading is currently investigating the doorstep selling market under powers provided by the Enterprise Act 2002. The OFT expect to report on their investigation early in the New Year. All recommendations will be carefully considered.

  Concorde
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what role she has in determining the final destinations for each of the Concorde aircraft; and if she will make a statement; [135331]
  23W
  (2) what estimate she has made of the final public cost of the project to (a) develop, (b) produce and (c) maintain, while in public ownership, the Concorde aircraft since 1973; and if she will make a statement. [135333]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answers 5 November 2003]Total UK Government expenditure in support of Concorde was £1,358 million gross, £1,062 million net of receipts in prices of the day. These data were compiled from information taken from the appropriation accounts over the period 1956–57 to 1986–87.

  Public ownership ceased in 1984 when British Airways became the owner and operator of the UK Concorde fleet. The Government is therefore not in a position to make a decision on the final destinations for each of the Concorde aircraft. That remains a decision for British Airways, the legal owner of the UK Concorde fleet.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policies she is following to ensure an adequate supply of skilled construction engineers; and if she will make a statement on the effect of current employment legislation on training of the under-18s. [134239]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government provide approximately £35 million to the Construction Industry Training Board in respect of various contracts and schemes administered by them. £3 million support their role as a Sector Skills Council and sponsors events like National Construction Week to encourage young people to make construction a first choice career.

  The DTI also works closely with the Department for Education and Skills to take forward actions arising from the recent Skills White Paper, and Work Permits UK, which administers the work permits regime. The Government are fully committed to Modern Apprenticeships as a means of preparing young people for an economy based on high-level skills.

  The Department for Education and Skills on the matter of training for the under-18s, which is a matter primarily for them.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action she will take to amend consumer credit law to stop shopping vouchers being used as a first contact for those selling doorstep loans; [136290]

  (2) what representations she has received about loan companies using shopping vouchers as a means of avoiding consumer credit legislation which forbids unsolicited selling of loans; [136291]

  (3) what discussions she has had with (a)high street stores and (b) trading standards departments to stop loan companies using store discount vouchers to avoid the consumer credit legislation which forbids unsolicited selling of loans. [136292]
  24W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  As you are no doubt aware, my Department is currently undertaking a major review of the Consumer Credit Act to bring it up to date so that it continues to provide appropriate consumer protection. A major aspect of this will be the publication in December 2003 of a Consumer Credit White Paper.

  The review has been characterised by consultation, and decisions on the content and focus of the White Paper have been made after comprehensive discussions with key stakeholders—industry, consumer groups and enforcement agencies—including the Office of Fair Trading, which has responsibility for monitoring social and commercial developments in the provision of credit.

  In addition, my Department has also received comments and opinions during the course of the review from many organisations and individuals—including on the issue of doorstep lending techniques—that have contributed to the development of the proposals that will be set out in the White Paper.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking in(a) the review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and (b) the preparation of the forthcoming Credit White Paper to require companies to make more accessible the language used in their (i) promotional and (ii) contractual material. [136631]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my Department is nearing the conclusion of its review of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I have announced that a Consumer Credit White Paper, outlining our proposals will be published in December of this year.

  Among other things, the White Paper, will set out proposals for reform in two key areas where clear and accessible information for consumers is required, the advertising of consumer credit products and the form and content of credit agreements. Alongside the White Paper we will publish consultation draft legislation to reform the law in these areas.

  Estate Agents
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the protection given to consumers and their right to financial compensation under(a) the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991, (b) the Estate Agents Act 1979 and (c) other legislation governing housing transactions. [136797]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]The Estate Agents Act 1979 regulates the conduct of estate agents in the buying and selling of property and seeks to ensure that consumers as either buyers or sellers are treated honestly and fairly. The Office of Fair Trading can, if satisfied that a person is unfit to carry on estate agency work, make an order prohibiting that person from carrying on estate agency work. Under the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991 it is a criminal offence to make a false or misleading statement about a number of specified matters concerning a property in either written or verbal communication with a prospective client.
  25W
  Neither of these Acts provides directly for the payment of compensation to consumers. However, those who suffer a financial loss as a result of malpractice by estate agents or misdescriptions of property may be able to make a claim for compensation in the civil courts. If the estate agent is a member of the Ombudsman for Estate Agents Scheme, consumers may also be able to make a claim for compensation to the ombudsman.

  The Department is not responsible for any other legislation specifically governing housing transactions.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will respond to the letter of 2 September from the honourable Member for Totnes concerning Mr. Trevor Sams of Scope Communications UK Ltd. Totnes. [136971]

  Ms Hewitt
  My office has no record of the hon. Member's letter. If he writes to me again I will ensure that the letter will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

  Departmental Expenditure (Official Residencies)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much the Department spent on(a) maintenance, (b) renovation, (c) council tax and (d) running costs of residential properties used by ministers and officials in each year since 1997. [134698]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has not had any costs relating to Government-owned official residences used by DTI Ministers since 1998. Information about the costs for previous financial years is already in the public domain.

  Direct Payment
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which financial institutions have committed to providing a universal banking service through post office branches; how much each institution has committed to pay towards the cost of the Post Office card account; how much remains to be paid; and what the deadline is for payment. [137022]

  Mr. Timms
  The financial institutions supporting universal banking are Barclays, Lloyds TSB Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland/Nat West, HSBC, Abbey National, HBOS, Alliance and Leicester, NAG, the Cooperative Bank, First Trust, the Bank of Ireland and the Nationwide Building Society. They are each making a basic bank account accessible at post offices, and together they are contributing £180 million to the costs of the Post Office card account. Individual contributions and the schedule of payments are matters of commercial confidentiality.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much(a) electricity and (b) other energy her Department has used in each year since 1997 (i) in total and (ii) per square metre; what the projected use is for each of the following years for which forecasts are made; what plans she has to reduce usage; and if she will make a statement. [135058]
  26W
  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has answered part A and B on 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 404W. The Government's strategy with regard to long term carbon dioxide emissions is set out in the Energy White Paper published in February 2003. The Department of Trade and Industry will play its full part in delivering through its own operations the energy efficiency and carob reduction aims set out in the white paper. Forecasts of energy use for future years are not available, but we have committed to reducing CO2 emissions by at least 1 per cent. per annum. From 1 November all new DTI contracts will meet minimum energy efficiency standards, as well as value for money in line with the commitments laid out in the Energy White Paper.

  On top of this the Department purchases electricity from renewables sources equating to almost 30 per cent. of its HQ estate requirement compared to a target of 5 per cent. The Department is also continuing to work toward the Sustainable Development in Government green energy targets, which are to be published by the end of this year.

  European Union
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes have taken place in the balance of trade in manufactures with the EU since the UK joined the organisation. [134097]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]The UK's trade with the EU has grown steadily since UK membership in 1973. The value of the deficit in trade of manufacturers with the EU in 1973 was 0.3 per cent. of GDP. This grew to 3.0 per cent of GDP in 1989. In 2002 the deficit was 2.1 per cent. of GDP.

  These changes since 1973 in the balance of trade with the EU are smaller than those seen with non-EU countries. Over the same period the trade of manufacturers with non-EU countries has gone from a surplus of 2.3 per cent. in 1973, to a deficit of 1.8 per cent. of GDP in 2002.

  The UK's membership and increasing economic integration with the EU has generated considerable opportunities for UK businesses and contributed positively to UK prosperity. This has helped drive the twenty fold increase in UK trade in goods with the EU since 1973, compared to the twelve fold rise in trade in goods with non-EU countries.

  Gas Act Order
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry why there is no requirement that changes to the Gas Act Order go on the public register before they come into force. [136173]

  Mr. Timms
  The requirements in the Gas Act for Ofgem to keep a Public Register are expressed in broad terms. I understand that it is Ofgem's intention to place a wide range of relevant information on the Public Register once such information is in final form.

  Generators
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many generators burn biomass and wood residues in the United Kingdom; and what her forecast is for the number so doing in(a) 2006, (b) 2010 and (c) 2012. [137096]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2002, there were eight generating stations in the United Kingdom that burned biomass or wood residues. Figures are not yet available for 2003 but we are aware that up to 17 more biomass schemes could generate electricity in 2003. Forecasts of future electricity generation are not made at this level of detail.

  International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on a United Kingdom bid to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. [136156]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]There has been no research commissioned or evaluated on such a United Kingdom bid and no such bid has ever been made. The previous Government decided not to bid for ITER on cost grounds and on the basis that the United Kingdom currently hosts the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion experiment and would be very unlikely to win a bid to host its successor.

  Appendix A: List of contracts won by UK firms in Iraq

  Who

  What

  Olive Security

  Contract for providing Security Services to Bechtel, Great Lakes Dredging, Titan Salvage, SSA and GE.

  ArmorGroup (Global risk management company)

  Contracted by Bechtel to guard construction sites and deal with unexploded ordinance

  Crown Agents Washington based company Crown Agents Consultancy Inc. (CACI)

  International Resources Group (IRG), acting as United states Agency for International Development (USAID) prime contractor CACI, to assist with the procurement, transport and warehouse management of a wide range of goods and materials in support of the setting up of the USAID mission in Kuwait and, as the situation develops, in Iraq.

  Aggreko International

  Contracted by Bechtel to supply and install generators for temporary at Umm Qasr.Other possible contracts but no details available.

  Halcrow

  Bechtel have awarded them two contracts so far:

  1. to provide marine engineering services at Umm Qasr

  2. to provide miscellaneous civil engineering services such as damage assessment of bridges.

  Cummins Uk

  Contracted by Bechtel to provide generators for Baghdad International airport and other facilities in Iraq.

  Weir Group

  Have picked up a small contract from Kellog Brown Root doing assessments for oil field rehabilitation. They hope that this will position them for when actual contacts for the work are let.

  Mowlem

  Believed to have won a £3 million contract to refurbish a hotel in Basra for use by troops (Source: Building magazine).

  Mott MacDonald

  Secured undisclosed contract in Iraq (Source: Building magazine).

  Baker Wilkins

  Secured undisclosed contract in Iraq (Source: Building magazine).

  European Land Solutions

  Contract for the provision of EOD services to Bechtel country-wide Contract for the provision of clearance diving and EOD services to Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company at Umm Qasr Contract for munitions clearance for the United Nations in Northern Iraq

  Siemens (UK)

  Contract to provide a 22 MW power plant for the refinery in Basra

  Solace Enterprises Ltd.

  Appointed by RTI (USAID prime contractor) as the sole UK subcontractor providing practitioners to the USAID funded-project to support the development of local institutions in Iraq.

  Standard Chartered

  Part of consortium that was awarded the contract to run the new Trade Bank in Iraq.

  De La Rue Currency

  Contract for printing of new Iraqi Dinar

  Erinys

  Oilfield Security

  Datasat

  Working on several projects all around data and voice communications infrastructure and services

  Kroll Associates

  Security for USAID

  Internet
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many guidance booklets produced by her Department are only accessible via the internet; and if she will make a statement. [137303]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have understood a guidance booklet to be a publication produced by my Department to give information to the general public. To distinguish the guidance booklets from other DTI publications could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Of 3,306 publications currently available, and notified to my Department's Publications Unit, 847 (25.6 per cent.) are accessible only via the internet. These include publications previously available in hard copy but now out of print.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value of contracts awarded for the reconstruction of Iraq to date is; what outstanding contracts remain to be awarded; and to which countries contracts have been awarded, broken down by(a) value and (b) type of contract. [135343]

  Ms Hewitt
  Contracts for the reconstruction in Iraq are awarded by a number of different agencies. We have information on many of the contracts awarded, (see appendix A) but there is no comprehensive breakdown giving the details requested. We continue to monitor the issuing and awarding of contracts to alert UK companies as appropriate.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on manufacturing industry in(a) the North West and (b) Lancashire. [136917]

  Jacqui Smith
  Manufacturing in the North West℄and especially in Lancashire℄remains vitally important to the regional and national economy. It contributes around £19 billion to the region's GDP, accounts for some £14 billion worth of exports and employs around 500,000 people, and its importance is reflected in the Regional Economic Strategy and Manufacturing Strategy. North West manufacturers have identified a number of key issues, including the need for more skilled personnel, greater availability of financial support for business start-ups and better product and process development. The North West Development Agency (NWDA) is piloting closer working with the Small Business Service and the Local Learning and Skills Councils to better address these issues. I recently announced an expansion of the successful Manufacturing Advisory Service in the region. This is an £18 million project supported by an initial investment of £5 million from the NWDA, and aims to deliver assistance to an additional 2,500 businesses in the region, and to achieve productivity increases of £50 million. In addition to benefiting from these initiatives, businesses in Lancashire have access to the services provided by the Lancashire West Partnership Productivity Centre, which helps companies, particularly Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, to achieve significant productivity improvements.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions her Department has held with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about recycling mobile phones; and what steps are being taken to encourage such recycling. [136810]

  Mr. Timms
  The recycling of mobile phones is covered by the EC Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment. The Directive is currently being transposed into UK legislation and this work is being overseen by an inter Departmental team, which includes officials from Defra. Although the recycling of mobile phones has not been discussed specifically, we are aware of a number of initiatives around the UK that take back, refurbish and reuse mobile phones or that recycle them.

  The Department welcomes the reuse and recycling of mobile phones through these initiatives, as a useful contribution to sustainable consumption and production, but does not operate a promotional programme specifically aimed at encouraging mobile phone reuse or recycling. We believe that the WEEE Directive will offer the incentive for more schemes of this type to be established, especially since mobile phones contain potentially high value materials such as precious metals and chips.
  30W

  National Minimum Wage
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) men and (b) women in (i) York unitary authority area and (ii) the City of York parliamentary constituency benefited from the national minimum wage in the last year for which figures are available. [135938]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the York unitary authority area or for the City of York parliamentary constituency. However, based on the Office for National Statistics'Low Pay data for 2003, the DTI estimates that between 110,000 and 140,000 people in Yorkshire and the Humber are expected to benefit from the increase in minimum wage rates in October 2003.

  It is not possible to provide a gender breakdown for Yorkshire and the Humber. For the UK as a whole, around 70 per cent. of those who are expected to benefit from the October 2003 uprating are women.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of people in(a) Leeds and (b) Leeds, West who will gain from the latest minimum wage increase. [136056]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for Leeds or for Leeds, West. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data for 2003, the DTI estimates that between 110,000 and 140,000 people in Yorkshire and the Humber are expected to benefit from the increase in minimum wage rates in October 2003.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that Post Office Limited follows the procedures agreed with Postwatch to integrate consideration of proposals to close branch offices with area network reinvention plans. [136498]

  Mr. Timms
  Proposals for post office closures under the urban network reinvention programme are put out to public consultation in accordance with the code of practice agreed with Postwatch. Final decisions on closure, after consideration of representations received, are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Property Rights
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 18 September,Official Report, column 880W, on property rights in developing countries, if she will make such an assessment. [135111]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have no plans to make such a formal assessment but we are willing to consider any proposals the hon. Member may wish to make on the feasibility of doing so.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to(a) retain access to the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee website from DEFRA's site if RWMAC is wound up and (b) arrange for pre-2000 RWMAC reports to be posted on the RWMAC website as an accessible archive. [135625]

  Mr. Morley
  Whatever decision is taken concerning its future, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) component of the Defra website will continue to operate to provide access to the committee's post-2000 advice. The current arrangement is for the copies of the pre-2000 advice to be supplied upon written request if they are still available. Again, this arrangement will be maintained.

  SBX Project
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many UK companies have been involved in the bidding process for the Boeing Company's Sea-Based Test X-Band Radar (SBX) project; what assistance her department(a) offered and (b) gave to each company; and if she will make a statement. [136932]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number and identification of any UK companies bidding for Boeing's Sea-Based Test X-Band Radar (SBX) project would of course be a commercial matter between Boeing and the specific companies involved. I am not aware of any approach for assistance in relation to this programme. The lead on UK defence export activities is the responsibility of MoD's Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO).

  Textiles
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many textile and clothing companies there are in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [137352]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of VAT based local units in the textile and clothing industry in March 2003 was:

  Local Units

  Textiles1

  Clothing2

  United Kingdom of which

  5,210

  4,840

  Scotland

  480

  215

  1 Standard Industrial Classification division 17

  2 Standard Industrial Classification division 18

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics Size Analysis of UK Businesses PA 1003. All figures rounded to the nearest 5. Local units give a better indication of regional distribution as enterprises would be classified by head office location.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in the textile industry in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [137353]

  Jacqui Smith
  In December 2001 there were 124,000 employee jobs in the textile industry in the United Kingdom, of which 12,000 were in Scotland.
  32W
  Source:

  Office for National Statistics Annual Business Inquiry and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Northern Ireland Quarterly Employment Survey. Textiles as defined by Standard Industrial Classification division 17.

  Trade
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what she is doing to promote trade between Britain and(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Oman, (c) the United Arab Emirates, (d) Qatar and (e) Bahrain. [135513]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UK Trade and Investment sponsors a range of activities to alert UK companies to opportunities in the countries listed. These include a programme of inward and outward trade mission, exhibitions, the provision of market information and tailored assistance to UK companies through our network of posts in the region.

  Trade Links
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to set up trading links that would benefit third world countries in Africa. [135507]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Africa faces many challenges. Nearly half of the 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa live on less than $1 dollar a day. The United Nations estimates that over 14 million people in the region will be dependent on food aid by March 2003.

  Since September 2001 the UK government has committed over £80 million to humanitarian assistance and recovery programmes in Southern Africa. But aid also is not the answer.

  We also provide assistance to British companies wishing to trade with Africa through services available from UK Trade and Investment and our network of posts in the region. We also support events in Africa designed to enable UK companies to assess the prospects for trade and investment in African countries.

  This is why we are working hard, with our EU colleagues, to deliver a development round in line with the promises made at Doha. All countries will benefit, but the poorest stand to gain the most.

  Unmanned Air Vehicles
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which UK companies produce(a) unmanned air vehicles and (b) components for unmanned air vehicles; and if she will make a statement. [136933]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are a wide number companies engaged in the development, production and support of un-manned air vehicles (UAVs) and their components in the UK. This Department does not however maintain an exhaustive listing of such companies. Such data is readily available through commercial sources.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had in 2003 with UK companies interested in participating in future
  33W
  bidding processes for US requirement contracts for unmanned air vehicle projects; and if she will make a statement. [136934]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have had no specific discussions with UK companies in relation to the bidding process for the US requirement contracts for unmanned air vehicles (UAVs). UK Trade and Investment did however support, through the outward missions scheme, in May of this year a Society of British Aerospace Companies (SB AC) industry mission to the US and this included UAV technology within its remit. The lead on UK defence export activities is the responsibility of MoD's Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO).

TREASURY

  Cross-border Payments
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of compliance by banks in the United Kingdom with the Cross-Border Payments Regulation adopted by the United Kingdom on 1 July 2002. [136660]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Cross-Border Payments in Euro Regulations 2003 provide for civil proceedings and create criminal offences for breaches of the Regulation on cross-border payments in euro. The Association for Payment Clearing Services has produced compliance guidelines for the banking industry. My officials will contribute to the report on the impact of the Regulation which the European Commission is required to produce by 1 July 2004.

  Advisers and Consultants
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much(a) HM Treasury, (b) Customs and Excise and (c) the Inland Revenue spent on (i) advisers and (ii) consultants in the last financial year; and if he will make a statement. [134223]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury expenditure in 2002–03 on consultants was £2.8 million (excluding VAT). Inland Revenue had in place four framework agreements, through which it obtained a range of advisory and consultancy services including on IT, human resources, market research, social and economic research, and learning services. Departmental spend on these services for 2002–03 was in the region of £35 million (excluding VAT). Customs and Excise expenditure for consultants and advisors was £29.3 million (excluding VAT).

  Banking Ombudsman
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases were considered by the Banking Ombudsman in the last year for which figures are available; how many cases were(a) upheld and (b) rejected; what was the average time taken to consider cases; and what the average cost was per case. [137193]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Ombudsman Service tell me that in the financial year ending 31 March 2000, the Office of the Banking Ombudsman received a total of 4,375 cases.
  34W
  The table shows a breakdown of the outcome of all cases resolved during the period:

  Breakdown of cases—year ended 31 March 2000

  Outcome of cases

  Percentage

  Resolved by mediation or conciliation

  66

  Resolved after investigation by an adjudicator of which

  20

  In favour of the consumer

  50

  In favour of the firm

  50

  Resolved by final decision of an ombudsman of which

  14

  In favour of the consumer

  50

  In favour of the firm

  50

  The average time taken to resolve cases in the year ending 31 March 2000 was 162 days.

  The unit cost per case (calculated by dividing the total expenditure—less financing costs by the number of cases closed) for the year ending 31 March 2000 was £730, the average unit cost per cases across all of the predecessor schemes.

  Creative Industries/Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of(a) the United Kingdom's and (b) London's GDP was generated by (i) creative tourism and (ii) the tourism industry in 2002–03. [135835]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  (i) The term 'creative tourism' is not recognised.

  (ii) (a) Tourism was estimated to have accounted for 4.4 per cent. of UK GDP in 2002.

  (b) The Greater London Authority is currently leading a review of methodologies used to estimate London's tourism GDP in order to produce an agreed estimate.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross domestic product was generated by the tourism industry in(a) the south east, (b) the south west, (c) the west Midlands, (d) the east Midlands, (e) the north west, (f) the north east and (g) Wales in 2002–03. [135837]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  (a)-(f) Reliable estimates of tourism GDP are not currently available for the English Regions. There is one exception, namely the north east. The report Tourism Impact–A pilot study for the North East estimated tourism to account for 3.5 per cent. of the north-east's GDP in 2000.

  Plans for a Tourism Satellite Account project for the English regions are currently being considered. This will develop methodologies to calculate tourism figures, including GDP. It is being conducted on behalf of, and being jointly funded by, all Regional Development Agencies in England, and it is anticipated that it will report in late 2004.

  (g) Currently there are no official data available on the contribution of the tourist industry to Welsh GDP. The National Assembly for Wales is involved

  35W
  in Tourism Satellite Account development work, including a UK development project which is being coordinated by the Department, and which will report in Summer 2004.

  Economy (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual per capita GDP for York unitary authority area was in each year since 1995. [135948]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 10 November 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on annual per capita GDP for York unitary authority. I am replying in his absence. (135948)
  The latest available data on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for York unitary authority were published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in April 2001 and relate to the period up to 1998 and the area of York on the "NUTS3" area classification.
  ONS published estimates of Gross Value Added (GVA) for the larger "NUTS2" area of North Yorkshire, of which York is a part, for the period 1995 to 2001, in October 2003. Both sets of estimates are shown in the table.

  GDP per head in York and GVA per head in North Yorkshire At current basic prices, £ per head of population

  GDP per head in York(NUTS3 area)

  GVA per head in North Yorkshire(NUTS2 area)

  1995

  11,750

  *10,077

  1996

  12,565

  *10,622

  1997

  13,742

  11,192

  1998

  14,305

  11,719

  1999

  —

  12,119

  2000

  —

  12,585

  2001

  —

  13,031

  Notes:

  1. All estimates are provisional except where indicated with an asterisk.

  2. Estimates of workplace based GVA allocate income to the region in which commuters work.

  3. GVA estimates are calculated using a five-period moving average.

  4. GDP = GVA + taxes on products—subsidies on products.

  Estimates of NUTS3 GVA, including for York, for the period 1995—01 are planned for publication by ONS in December 2003.

  ECOFIN
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN held on 7 October; and if he will place in the Library the Government's position on the issues discussed, including its voting record. [137633]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the Chairmen of the European Scrutiny Committees in both Houses on 20 October informing them of the outcome of the 7 October ECOFIN. Copies of the Chief Secretary's letter were deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN held on 12 and 13 September; and if he will place in the Library the Government's position on the issues discussed, including its voting record. [137634]
  36W
  Ruth Kelly
  The ECOFIN on 12–13 September was an informal meeting. No formal conclusions or notes were taken and there were no votes taken.

  Employment (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) private sector jobs broken down by (i) agricultural, (ii) manufacturing and (iii) service sector and (b) public sector jobs there were in London in each year since 1997. [135163]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Simon Hughes, dated 10 November 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about jobs in London. (135163)

  Statistics of private sector jobs in the United Kingdom were published in the September 2003 issue of Labour Market Trends. However on a consistent basis figures for London are not available.

  The Workforce Jobs series can provide a regional breakdown of jobs by industry. Table 1 shows jobs in agriculture, manufacturing and service industries in London for the three months to December of each year between 1997 and 2002. These figures include both public and private sector jobs.

  The Labour Force Survey is an alternative source of information on public sector employment, although the public sector classification of employment is based on respondents'own perceptions and is not necessarily consistent with the official classification of the organisations they work for.

  Table 2 shows the numbers of people in employment in the public sector in London for the Autumn quarters (September to November) of each year from 1997 to 2002. The figures are not directly comparable with those in Table 1.

  Table 1: Jobs in London by industry sector

  Thousand1

  Agriculture

  Manufacturing

  Services

  1997

  4

  297

  3,203

  1998

  4

  284

  3,362

  1999

  3

  296

  3,538

  2000

  5

  288

  3,635

  2001

  4

  263

  3.615

  2002

  4

  256

  3,613

  1 Not seasonally adjusted.

  Notes:

  1. Industrial classifications are defined in the Standard Industrial Classification of Economic Activities UK SIC(92).

  2. Agriculture is defined as sections A and B of SIC(92), Manufacturing as section D, and Services as sections G to Q.

  Source:

  Workforce Jobs

  Table 2: Public sector employment in London

  Thousand1

  Date2

  Public sector employment

  September 1997 to August 1998

  840

  September 1998 to August 1999

  855

  September 1999 to August 2000

  849

  September 2000 to August 2001

  856

  September 2001 to August 2002

  886

  September 2002 to August 2003

  857

  1 Not seasonally adjusted.

  2Data is averaged over four consecutive quarters.

  Source:

  Labour force survey.
  37W

  Housing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic instruments he has available to him to moderate the rise in house prices; and if he will make a statement. [137572]

  Ruth Kelly
  Developments in the housing market are part of the overall assessment in setting economic policy. In particular, the 2003 Budget announced the establishment of the Barker and Miles reviews to consider issues on housing supply and finance respectively. Both reviews will submit interim reports at the time of the pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the resources available for the expansion of the housing market renewal initiatives, with particular reference to initiatives in west Yorkshire. [136413]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 5 November 2003, Official Report, column 679W.

  Insurance Ombudsman
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases were considered by the Insurance Ombudsman in the last year for which figures are available; how many cases were(a) upheld and (b) rejected; what the average time taken was to consider cases; and the average cost per case. [137198]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Ombudsman Service tell me that for the year ending 31 December 1999, the last year for which figures are recorded against it as a separate scheme, the Insurance Bureau received a total of 7,061 cases.

  The table shows a breakdown of the outcome of all cases resolved during the period:

  Breakdown of cases—year ended 31 December 1999

  Outcome of cases

  Percentage

  Resolved by mediation or conciliation

  26

  Resolved after investigation by an adjudicator of which

  59

  In favour of the consumer

  31

  In favour of the firm

  69

  Resolved by final decision of an ombudsman of which

  15

  In favour of the consumer

  47

  In favour of the firm

  53

  The average time taken to resolve cases in the year ending 31 December 1999 was 140 days.

  The unit cost per case (calculated by dividing the total expenditure—less financing costs—by the number of cases closed) for the year ending 31 March 2000 was £730, the average unit cost per case across all of the predecessor schemes.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to improve the 38W
  procedure for (a) consumers and (b) businesses wishing to make a complaint against the Financial Services Authority. [137424]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is required to establish a scheme to handle complaints against it and to specify the procedures to be followed when complaints are made. The FSA is also required to appoint an independent person, whose appointment or dismissal requires Treasury approval, to investigate complaints.

  The FSA is reviewing the effectiveness of its complaints scheme including the scheme's procedures. The FSA is required to consult publicly on any proposed alterations to the scheme. I welcome the FSA's review.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Brian White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statutory investigatory powers the Department has; which ones will be superseded by use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and what plans he has for removing these legacy powers. [1361161]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Revenue Departments (Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise) have a wide range of investigatory powers to access communications data, as defined by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, (RIPA) Pt 1, Chapter 2, Section 21(4), within the following legislation: Taxes Management Act 1970, Drugs Trafficking Act 1994, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, VAT Act 1994, Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 and Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002. The Treasury does not itself have investigatory powers to access communications data.

  When Part One Chapter Two of RIPA, 2000 is implemented, the Revenue Departments expect in line with Home Office policy to use only powers contained in that Act to access communications data. The powers currently used are not exclusive to communications data and the Revenue Departments do not propose to seek their repeal.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Iraq
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to prevent tensions arising between Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq. [136583]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government and Coalition Provisional Authority officials have had regular meetings with representatives of many Iraqi political and religious groups, including the Sunni and Shia communities, to hear their views and to encourage dialogue between them. The Iraqi Governing Council contains representatives from both communities.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations took place between Her Majesty's Government and(a) the UN, (b) the United States and

  39W
  (c) the Coalition Provisional Authority prior to the signing of Order 39 by Mr.Paul Bremer in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [136578]

  Mr. Straw
  Order 39 of the Coalition Provisional Authority is the product of consultations between the Government and the Coalition Provisional Authority, relevant Departments of the US Administration, the United Nations Secretary General's Special Representative, the International Financial Institutions and the Iraqi Governing Council. Such consultations, called for under the terms of UNSCR 1483, are a necessary and normal part of the preparation of legislation by the coalition.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the(a) name, (b) rank and (c) role of the senior British personnel employed by the Coalition Provisional Authority; and if he will make a statement. [136579]

  Mr. Straw
  The senior British personnel seconded to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) are: Andy Bearpark, Director of Operations and Infrastructure (formerly United Nations Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General and Representative of the EU/EC, Kosovo); Sir Hilary Synnott, Regional Coordinator, CPA South (formerly High Commissioner, Pakistan); John Tesh, Senior Advisor to the Iraqi Defence Support Agency (formerly Director Balkans, MOD); Jim Daniell, Senior Advisor to the Ministry of Interior (formerly Director of Crime Reduction and Policing Policy, Home Office); Deputy Chief Constable Douglas Brand, Senior Police Advisor to the Ministry of Interior; Deputy Chief Constable Steve White, Senior Advisor. Law and Order, CPA South; Brigadier John Riley, Deputy Commanding General, Coalition Military Advisory Training Team (CMATT); and Brigadier Bruce Brealey, Senior Military Advisor, CPA South.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the remit of the UK's special envoy to Iraq. [136580]

  Mr. Straw
  As the British Government's Special Representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, is the senior British official there. In that independent capacity, he is working with, and in full support of, ambassador Bremer to facilitate a political process aimed at the swiftest possible establishment of a sovereign, stable, respresentative and internationally recognised Iraqi government; and to ensure the interim administration, assistance and reconstruction which are necessary for that goal.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 28 October 2003,Official Report, column 186W, on the Iraq Survey Group, what role the Government played in (a) setting up and (b) drawing up the mandate of the Iraq Survey Group; and if he will make a statement. [136813]

  Mr. Straw
  Government officials were consulted from the outset on the establishment of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). We were able to respond positively to a request for the United Kingdom to provide the Group's second in command.
  40W
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking, other than through the work of the Iraq Survey Group, to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; whether the Government's assessment of Iraq's weapons programmes differs from that contained in the report of the Group; and if he will make a statement. [136814]

  Mr. Straw
  The function of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is to conduct the post-conflict audit of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. All the UK's effort on the audit of Iraq's WMD programmes is directed into support for the ISG, including by providing personnel in the field in Iraq. All UK elements in the coalition support the search for WMD as required.

  Since the work of the ISG is ongoing, it would not be appropriate for the Government to make a full assessment of the interim results presented so far.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports his Department has received on whether Rwandan troops remain in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [136381]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since the withdrawal of the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF) from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in October 2002 we have received several unconfirmed reports from a variety of sources about the continued presence of RDF personnel in eastern DRC. The UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC) has investigated these reports but has found no compelling evidence to support them. The Rwandan government, with whom we have raised these allegations, have denied they have forces in the DRC.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) of 28 October 2003,Official Report, column 184W, on the Democratic Republic of Congo, what reports his Department has received of Rwandan (a) military, (b) financial and (c) political support for armed groups operating within the DRC; and if he will make a statement. [136401]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since the withdrawal of the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF) from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in October 2002 we have received several unconfirmed reports from a variety of sources alleging continued presence of RDF personnel in eastern DRC and military and financial support for some armed groups there. The UN Mission in the DRC (MONUC) has found no compelling evidence to support such reports. The Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratic, RCD-G, were politically allied to Rwanda during the conflict in DRC which preceded the formation of the Transitional National Government in Kinshasa.

  Toni Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms are available to(a) the Government and (b) the EU to put pressure on Uganda and Rwanda to stop their involvement in the internal affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement. [136402]
  41W
  Mr. Mullin
  From the outset of the conflict we urged all parties to bring an immediate end to hostilities and called for an immediate ceasefire. These calls were incorporated in Security Council Resolutions, EU statements and the EU Common Position on the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Ugandan and Rwandan Defence Force personnel were withdrawn from DRC in May/June 2003 and October 2002 respectively.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support(a) the Government and (b) the EU is providing to the Transitional National Government in Kinshasa to enable them effectively to (i) disarm and (ii) demobilise the (A) Interahamwe militia and (B) ex-Forces Armées Rwandaises. [136403]

  Mr. Mullin
  Disarmament, demobilisation, repatriation, resettlement and reintegration (DDR RR) of the ex-FAR/Interahamwe is crucial to the future peace and stability of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Great Lakes region and is one of the key tasks of the UN Mission in DRC (MONUC). The UK is contributing $25million over five years to the World Bank's Multi-Country Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme, as well as supporting a wide range of other DDRRR-related and peace-building projects in the DRC, and the Demobilisation and Reintegration Programme in Rwanda.

  The UK also supports diplomatic efforts to improve relations between the Governments of DRC and Rwanda, which include looking at how they can work together on tackling the problem caused to both countries by the ex-FAR/Interahamwe. This will help move DDRRR forward.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on extensions of co-decision in the draft Constitutional Treaty in articles concerning the European Union's budget. [136538]

  Mr. Straw
  As we set out in our White Paper on the IGC, we will seek to ensure value for money for UK taxpayers by working to strengthen discipline and proper accountability in spending from the EU Budget. In this regard, we welcome the European Convention's proposals for a legally binding Multi-Annual Financial Framework and a streamlined annual budget procedure. We also welcome the consensus proposals by ECOFIN Ministers regarding the budgetary provisions of the draft constitutional treaty and we will support these proposals in the IGC.

  Kenny Richey
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department intends to make to(a) the Governor of Ohio, (b) the President of the United States and (c) other US authorities in the event that the appeal on behalf of Mr.Kenny Richey to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is unsuccessful.[136815]
  42W
  Mr. Mullin
  The Government are opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances. The Ohio authorities are well aware of this. The Governor of the State of Ohio has the sole authority to grant clemency in death penalty cases in Ohio. The President has no role in the legal proceedings in Ohio. We are in touch with Mr. Richey's lawyers both in the USA and the UK. as well as with Ohio state officials. We continue to monitor his case closely to determine what representations we might make on his behalf, and we will do all we properly can to try to prevent his execution.

  Richard and Enid Eyeington
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has(a) offered and (b) given to the Government of Somaliland in their investigation into the murder of Richard and Enid Eyeington; and if he will make a statement. [134723]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our consular staff in London, Addis Ababa and Nairobi are providing all proper consular assistance to the Eyeington family after this outrageous attack. Staff are also in contact with SOS Kindersdorf International. Our thoughts and condolences are with the family.

  We welcome the commitment of the Somaliland authorities to track down the killers. We cannot undertake any direct investigatory work abroad. However, we are discussing with the Somaliland authorities the possibility of a visit by Scotland Yard detectives to assist with the investigation.

  St Helena
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the Government provide air surveillance of St.Helena's 200 mile exclusive fishing zone to determine the number of fishing vessels fishing(a) legally and (b) illegally in this zone. [136972]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government do not provide any air surveillance of St. Helena's fishing zone. Both the Government and St.Helena are looking at other methods of control of illegal fishing, including the possibility of using satellite surveillance to identify individual vessels within the 200 mile zone.

  United Nations
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the remarks by Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock on identifying terrorism. [135464]

  Mr. MacShane
  During his address to the UN General Assembly debate on 1 October 2001 our then Permanent Representative, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, remarked that "what looks, smells and kills like terrorism is terrorism". An internationally agreed definition of terrorism would be beneficial and we are working in the UN to achieve one. But so deep is the controversy surrounding certain groups, an internationally agreed definition does not seem possible in the short term. Sir Jeremy Greenstock's formulation
  43W
  was a means to unite UN members—at a vital time— around practical steps to counter the threat, rather than on debating the definition of terrorism.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  British-Irish/North-South Ministerial Councils
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of the(a) British-Irish Council and (b) North-South Ministerial Council have taken place since they were established; and what additional meetings of each have taken place in other sectoral formats. [121089]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The total number of meetings is as follows:

  Institution

  Type of meeting

  Number of meetings

  British-Irish Council

  Summit

  4

  Sectoral

  6

  North/South Ministerial Council

  Plenary

  4

  Institutional

  1

  Sectoral

  60

  The following sectoral meetings have taken place:

  Institution Sector

  Number of meetings

  BIC

  Drugs

  2

  Environment

  3

  Transport

  1

  NSMC

  Agriculture

  7

  Education

  4

  Environment

  6

  Food safety and Health

  5

  Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission

  8

  Inland Waterways

  5

  Language

  4

  Special EU Programmes

  7

  Tourism

  5

  Trade and Business Development

  7

  Transport

  2

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed in the secretariat of the(a) North-South Ministerial Council, (b) British-Irish Council and (c) Civic Forum; and what the costs are in respect of such staff. [100724]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is as follows:

  (a) North-South Ministerial Council:

  There are 25.5 whole time equivalent staff employed in the Joint Secretariat of the North-South Ministerial Council drawn from the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Irish Civil Service. The North-South Ministerial Council cannot meet during suspension. The staff employed in the Joint Secretariat are currently engaged in providing administrative support associated with the care and maintenance of the North-South Implementation Bodies, and a range of other duties.

  The costs in respect of the staff drawn from the Northern Ireland Civil Service for 2002–03 were £412,929 (latest available figure). This figure includes salaries, travel and subsistence costs.
  44W
  (b) British-Irish Council:
  The British and Irish Governments provide the Secretariat for the British-Irish Council in co-ordination with officials from each of the other members. In addition to servicing the work of the Council, the officials are involved in carrying out a range of other duties. It is therefore not possible to identify detailed staff numbers and costings in respect of those functions which relate to the Secretariat.

  (c) Civic Forum:

  Funding for the Civic Forum ceased during suspension. As a result staff in the Civic Forum Secretariat have been redeployed on other duties. At the latest date for which costs are available, the figure for the staff costs of Civic Forum Secretariat for 2002–03 were £158,526. This figure includes salaries and travel costs.

  Euro
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent in each year by his Department in preparing for UK entry to the euro; how much his Department plans to spend on preparations for UK entry to the euro for each year from the current financial year up to and including 2005–06; and what estimates he has made of the total costs to his Department of changeover to the European Single Currency. [131590]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the response given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 142W.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the review of Museums and Galleries Northern Ireland's business management strategy. [137670]

  Angela Smith
  A report on the way the Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland (MAGNI) conducts its business is currently with the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure for consideration. It would not be appropriate for me to make a statement about the outcome of the Review at this time.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average time taken in the last 12 months was to process assessments on low income pensioners' entitlements to an alternative to coal fired heating; and what plans he has to introduce targets to speed up the assessment process. [137663]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Warm Homes Plus Scheme provides the free installation of an oil or natural gas central heating system for low-income people over 60 years of age, living in owner occupied or privately rented accommodation, and who are entitled to certain passport benefits. In the last 12 months, the assessment process (from initial referral, to survey of the property) has taken, on average 31 days. This process is continually kept under review to ensure the optimum response time to the large number of applications for assistance from the Scheme.
  45W
  The Housing Executive's heating replacement programme for its housing stock does not involve an assessment of the tenants' entitlements; work is carried out on the basis of the age and condition of the appliance which is to be upgraded.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost was of(a) setting, (b) monitoring and (c) measuring the performance targets for his Department in 2002–03; and how many and what grades of civil servants monitor these targets. [137954]

  Jane Kennedy
  Performance targets for the department were agreed as part of Spending Review 2002. The monitoring and measurement of PS A targets forms part of departmental performance management. Performance management is an integral part of the day to day running of the department, and as such it is not possible to separate the specific costs out. The monitoring of progress towards, and performance against, the department's PS A targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

  Scottish Television
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to introduce more Scottish television in Northern Ireland on the same basis as his commitment to help introduce greater availability in Northern Ireland of Irish language programmes. [134270]

  Estelle Morris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The BBC Scotland television service and ITV Scottish, Grampian and Border services are already available to those consumers in Northern Ireland with digital satellite receiving equipment. The extension of Scottish region television services to other areas in the UK is not possible on terrestrial television because of technical and licensing constraints.

DEFENCE

  Allenby Private Finance Initiative Project
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requirements he proposes setting for the energy efficiency standards of homes to be constructed within the Allenby Private Finance Initiative project; and what penalties will be incurred by contractors should there be non-compliance with these standards. [136985]

  Mr. Caplin
  Project Allenby/Connaught will deliver major redevelopment of the Army estate on Salisbury Plain and at Aldershot, and includes the provision of around 11,000 single en-suite bed spaces for personnel living in barracks. These bed spaces will be provided through new and converted accommodation. The contract requires assessment of this accommodation in accordance with the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). This system scores a building against a wide range of sustainability criteria, including those relating to energy efficiency and results in a BREEAM grading for the 46W
  building. The contract will require the highest grading, 'Excellent', for new accommodation and the next highest grading, 'Very Good', for the converted buildings. If these grades are not achieved the contractor's monthly payments for the accommodation will be abated throughout the life of the contract.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many women officers there are in the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Royal Air Force, broken down by rank;[137340]

  (2) how many women other ranks there are in the (a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Royal Air Force, broken down by rank. [137341]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Tri-Service Publication 9 'UK Regular Forces Rank Structure', a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last published the armed forces monthly manning state; and when it will next be published. [137729]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to Tri-Service Publication (TSP) 1: "UK Regular Forces Strengths and Changes", and Tri-Service Publication (TSP) 3: "UK Armed Forces Strengths and Requirements".

  These are both available in the House of Commons Library and are updated on a monthly basis.

  TSP 1 and 3 for 1 September 2003 were published on 10 October 2003. The 1 October 2003 issues are due for publication between 6 and 20 November 2003.

  Breathalyser Tests
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what breathalyser equipment is issued to military police in Scotland; when the adequacy of this equipment was last reviewed; and if he will make a statement. [135799]

  Mr. Caplin
  Breathalyser equipment is not issued to the Service police in Scotland.

  Chinook
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to relocate the Chinook helicopter fleet away from RAF Odiham. [137003]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to relocate the Chinook helicopter fleet away from RAF Odiham.

  Colombia
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) of 16 October 2003,Official Report, column 322W, what the mechanisms are for checking that UK military units are not implicated in human rights violations, internal repression or collusion with paramilitary organisations. [136306]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government use the best information available at the time to assure themselves that Colombian military units benefiting from United
  47W
  Kingdom assistance are not engaged in activities that violate human rights, in internal repression or in collusion with paramilitary organisations.

  Commonwealth Recruits
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were recruited from Commonwealth countries into each of the three services in each year since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [136733]

  Mr. Caplin
  For the last five years, the intake of personnel from Commonwealth countries (excluding United Kingdom and UK dependent territories) into the Army was as follows:

  Financial year

  Number

  1998–99

  140

  1999–2000

  445

  2000–01

  715

  2001–02

  1,115

  2002–03

  1,960

  Figures for the Naval Service and Royal Air Force are not available, as this information is not held centrally.

  Conventional Weapons
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his Department's aims are at the Convention on Conventional Weapons negotiations in November; and if he will make a statement; [135859]

  (2) whether his Department's representatives at the Convention on Conventional Weapons negotiations in November will seek agreement on a mandate for future negotiations on cluster munitions. [135860]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 4 November 2003,Official Report, columns 541–42W, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Dean Hill SSSI
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions Defence Estates has had with(a) the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust and (b) the Hampshire Wildlife Trust about the future of the Dean Hill site of special scientific interest. [137462]

  Mr. Caplin
  English Nature have nominated the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust as a potential purchaser of land of high conservation value, including that part of Defence Munitions Dean Hill, which falls within the Brickworth Down and Dean Hill SSSI. Ministry of Defence officials have therefore had preliminary discussions with it and not with the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust.

  Defence Budget (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence budget was spent in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available(a) in actual terms and (b) as a percentage of the total defence budget; and if he will make a statement.[137310]
  48W
  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Export Contracts
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence export contracts have been approved to each of the member states of the Economic Community of Central African States in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [136636]

  Mr. Ingram
  Government approval is not required for defence export contracts.

  The Government do, however, control the transfer overseas of defence related goods through the export licensing system. Licence applications by country are reported in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. Reports covering the period from May 1997 to December 2002 are available in the Library of the House.

  Defence Fire Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the future of the Defence Fire Service; and if he will make a statement. [136729]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have received a number of representations about the future of the Defence Fire Service from Members of Parliament, trade unions and members of the Defence Fire Service. These have been in the form of an Adjournment debate, an early-day motion, parliamentary questions, letters and face to face meetings. The future of the Defence Fire Service will be determined by the outcome of the Airfield Support Services Project and the recommendations of Fire Study 2000.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's budget was in the(a) 1998–99 financial year and (b) 2003–04 financial year at 1998–99 prices, excluding expenditure from the contingency reserve. [136740]

  Mr. Ingram
  The figure for 1998–99 is £22,240 million. That is a cash figure as the Department was controlled on a cash basis until the end of financial year 2000–01.

  From 2001–02 onwards, Resource Accounting and Budgeting became the basis for planning and controlling public expenditure. From that year the Defence budget has been set on a Resource basis, which includes accrued costs rather than cash. The Budget figures for 2003–04 are therefore set on a completely different basis to those for 1998–99, and the two sets of figures are not directly comparable. The 2003–04 Budget consists of two separate elements, a Net Resource Cost budget of £31,903 billion and a Capital budget of £6,128 billion.

  These figures are at current prices as there is little merit in providing them at the 1998–99 price base.

  Figures for both years are exclusive of Armed Forces Pension Scheme amounts.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much(a) electricity and (b) other energy his Department has used in each year since 1997 (i) in total and (ii) per square metre; what the projected use is for each of the following years for which forecasts are made; what plans he has to reduce usage; and if he will make a statement. [135050]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 3 November 2003,Official Report, columns 403–08W, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.

  The current cross-government target is an on-going one per cent. per annum reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, expressed in terms of carbon saving. Since the target was introduced in 2000, the MOD has exceeded the target year on year and I expect this trend to continue. New targets for energy use on the Government Estate are being developed under the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. Once the new targets have been agreed, the MOD will publish an energy strategy outlining how they will be met.

  Medical Discharges
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many female members of the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force received early discharges on medical grounds in each of the last five years; how many complained of sexual harassment or assault; what (i) pension and (ii) benefit they received on discharge: and if he will make a statement. [136514]

  Mr. Caplin
  Medical discharges for female members of the armed forces (both trained and untrained United Kingdom regular personnel) in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Female medical discharges in the armed forces, 1998–2002

  Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  1998

  39

  222

  20

  281

  1999

  52

  259

  35

  346

  2000

  61

  183

  36

  280

  2001

  52

  160

  29

  241

  20021

  56

  130

  28

  214

  1 Figures for 2002 have not yet been finalised and may be subject to alteration.

  Information on whether any of the individuals complained of sexual harassment or assault is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Members of the armed forces who are medically discharged after at least two years' Service for reasons not attributable to their Service are awarded a Service Invaliding Pension (SIP) and a lump sum payment. Where the Veterans Agency accept the reasons for discharge as attributable to Service and pay a War Disablement Pension (WDP) under the War Pensions Scheme, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) separately considers whether the injury or condition is due to Service. If this is accepted by the AFPS, the SIP
  50W
  is replaced by an enhanced Service Attributable Pension and an attributable lump sum is paid. These benefits are paid in addition to the Veterans Agency's WDP.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the adjustments to in-year expenditure to remain within his Department's expenditure limits for the current year, showing in each case(a) what action is being taken and (b) what savings will be made. [137724]

  Mr. Ingram
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in the debate on Defence Policy on 16 October 2003, Departments have to deal with fluctuating financial pressures while living within their budgets. This year the Ministry of Defence is facing, among other factors, better than expected recruiting and adverse exchange rate movements. The introduction this year of full Resource Accounting and Budgeting has also raised new issues. We are therefore making a range of mostly relatively small adjustments to previous expenditure plans across the Ministry of Defence's budgetary areas. These include reduction in training activities where this is not essential to sustain operations, and re-profiling some spending on new equipments and equipment support. These adjustments do not affect our commitment to operations in Iraq and elsewhere, the net additional costs of which are funded separately.

  Halliburton (Contracts)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts(a) awarded to and (b) carried out by Halliburton since 1997, stating in each case (i) the nature of the work, (ii) the value of the contract and (iii) the duration; and if he will make a statement. [136576]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]The Ministry of Defence's business dealings have been with the Halliburton Brown and Root part of this company. Excluding a low value contract for the short-term lease of equipment, MOD has placed the following direct contract since 1997:

  Contract No. CSVHC/04

  Nature of Work: Provision of Heavy Equipment Transporter (HET) Services.

  Duration: 2001 to 2021

  Value: £290 million

  In addition, the Halliburton company also performs a substantial amount of work for the MOD under joint venture arrangements, most notable are the operation of the Devonport Royal Dockyard and the multi activity contract at RAF Valley, Anglesey in North Wales.

  Humanitarian Emergencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what programmes his Department is(a) running and (b) supporting aimed at (i) introducing the humanitarian community to the military and security technology available and (ii) familiarising the technology community with the scope and problems of those dealing

  51W
  with complex humanitarian emergencies and international refugee crises; how long these programmes have been running; and if he will make a statement. [136665]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence research and technology programme is geared towards providing the UK armed forces with battle-winning technology. A number of technologies developed under the auspices of this programme may have humanitarian applications, though the development of the technology for humanitarian purposes would fall to the Department for International Development (DfID).

  Where possible the MOD aims to make the results of its research available to industry, through technology transfer and technology spin-out, where commercial development of the technology is best carried out.

  International Military Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the arbitration case involving International Military Services has been going on; and when he expects it to reach a conclusion. [137369]

  Mr. Hoon
  Proceedings in the arbitration case involving International Military Services Ltd. commenced in late 1992 and, depending on the appeals process, may not be concluded for about four years.

  Iraq
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what amendments he will make to the Strategic Defence Review following operations in Iraq. [136768]

  Mr. Hoon
  The White Paper that I intend to publish later this year will build on the Strategic Defence Review (and the New Chapter to it published in 2002) and provide an updated statement of defence policy in light of operational experience since 1998.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how regularly he holds discussions with the US Defense Secretary on the activities of coalition forces in Iraq. [132126]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am in frequent contact with the US Defense Secretary on Iraq and other matters.

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military exercises which have been cancelled in this financial year, setting out the(a) date, (b) purpose and (c) reason for cancellation in each case. [137728]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence's Defence Exercise Programme lists some 350 planned exercises each year. These exercises range from smaller scale unit exercises, through to larger events involving joint inter-Service and/or international involvement. Inevitably, a larger number of those planned exercises have been cancelled so far this year than is usual: 72 per cent. owing to increased level operational activity, predominantly Operations Telic and Fresco, and 11 per cent. owing to decisions by host nations (other than the UK). A further 11 per cent. have been cancelled after being subsumed into other exercises or re-scheduled for the next financial year.
  52W
  Information on tactical training exercises organised by the Front Line Commands, the Permanent Joint HQ, the Defence Logistic Organisation HQ and by individual units is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Exports
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the highest value deals of military exports from the UK were that were concluded and delivered in 2003; what the(a) manufacturer, (b) name of the export company, (c) official buyer and (d) equipment involved was in each case; whether any of the deals included offset arrangements; and if he will make a statement [136307]

  Mr. Ingram
  The highest value contract for military exports from the United Kingdom signed so far this year is in respect of the sale of Typhoon to Austria. The aircraft is manufactured by the Eurofighter GmbH consortium, with the UK element contributed by BAE Systems. No delivery has yet taken place under the contract. Offset will be included.

  The highest value delivery made this year of which the Ministry of Defence is aware, against a contract signed in the same year, is the Government-to-Government sale to Chile of the former HMS Sheffield. Regeneration work was undertaken by DML Plymouth on the ship built by Swan-Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd. No offset is associated with the contract.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list ministerial visits to Chorley in each of the last five years. [135808]

  Mr. Caplin
  From available information. Ministers have made no visits on official business to Chorley.

  Munitions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which countries munitions have been procured in the last five years, broken down by amounts paid. [135807]

  Mr. Ingram
  During Financial Year's 1998–99 to 2002–03 inclusive, munitions have been procured from the following countries at the values shown. It should be noted that complete data for Financial Year 1998–99 is not available. Consequently, these figures do not show the complete spend on munitions during the period.
  53W

  Country

  £million

  Austria

  2.834

  Belgium

  0.979

  Canada

  6.463

  Germany

  3.382

  Israel

  6.802

  Italy

  4.594

  Netherlands

  4.228

  Singapore

  0.431

  Spain

  0.353

  South Africa

  1.408

  Sweden

  300.949

  Switzerland

  2.069

  Norway

  3.287

  United Kingdom

  2,476.321

  United States

  530.401

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the future size of the British Army garrison in Northern Ireland; and what plans he has to reduce the number of army personnel in Northern Ireland. [135394]

  Mr. Ingram
  As envisioned in the Joint Declaration, military force levels in Northern Ireland are dependent on the evolving, enabling security environment.

  Pension/Compensation Schemes
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the level of in-Service death benefits is in the new Armed Forces(a) Pension Scheme and (b) Compensation Scheme. [135823]

  Mr. Caplin
  For those members that choose to join the new Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) and for new entrants after the date of its initial implementation, in-Service death benefits will be:a death-in-service lump sum of four times pensionable pay to member's nominee;
  a widow(er)'s (including partners in a substantial relationship) non-attributable pension normally worth 62.5 per cent. of the member's pension and paid for life, irrespective of marriage or cohabitation; and
  all dependent children will be eligible for a non-attributable pension below the age of 17 or until they complete full-time education.

  For all in-Service deaths that are due to Service and caused after the date of the introduction of the new Compensation Scheme, benefits will be:
  a Guaranteed Income Stream (GIS) for widow(er)s (including partners in a substantial relationship) payable for life and equating to 60 per cent. of the GIS calculation for the deceased, abated by 75 per cent. of any non-attributable pension (to avoid double compensation);
  a GIS will also be payable to dependent children (abated by non-attributable pension); and
  a bereavement grant (currently set at £20,000) will be paid to those whose partner remained in the current AFPS, as they would not benefit from the improved death in-Service benefit under the new AFPS. However, there will be a bereavement grant guarantee set so that if three times pensionable pay and £20,000 is greater than the new AFPS death in-Service lump sum, the Compensation Scheme will pay the balance.
  54W
  A non-attributable pension is the pension paid where a death is not caused or significantly hastened by Service.

  Suez Canal Zone Medals
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Suez Canal Zone medals will have been issued in time for this year's Remembrance Day services; how many applications have been made for the medal; when he expects that all will have been issued; and if he will make a statement. [135412]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 417W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Ms Moffatt).

  It is not possible to estimate when all the medals will have been issued because this will depend entirely on when veterans and their families decide to apply.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army troops have refused to serve after being called up since 1 January; and if he will make a statement.[136608]

  Mr. Ingram
  No members of the Territorial Army have refused to serve after being called up since 1 January.

  Members of the TA can appeal against their call-out order and the Reserve Forces Act 1996 provides the right to both Reservists and employers to seek revocation, exemption from or deferral of mobilisation. Where appeals have not been approved, no member of the TA has refused to serve.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations from employers he has received expressing concern about how often members of the Territorial Army and the Reserves are called up for military service; and what reports he has received of employers refusing to employ such people. [137725]

  Mr. Caplin
  To date, the Ministry of Defence has only received one representation from an employer expressing concern about how often members of the Reserve Forces are called-out for military service.

  Our experience of Operation Telic has shown that employers are very supportive of the Reserve Forces. Only a very small number of employers have stated that they would not wish to employ reservists. Indeed, as a result of the call-out of reservists to support Operation Telic, the Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers campaign team continues to be contacted by employers who wish to register as a supportive employer.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) where each unit of each(a) regular and (b) Territorial Army Royal Engineer Regiment is (i) based and (ii) deployed; and if he will make a statement; [136637]

  (2) if he will list the units deployed in Iraq of each (a)regular and (b) Territorial Army Royal Engineer Regiment; where in Iraq they are deployed; what their mission goals are; and if he will make a statement. [136638]
  55W
  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Unmanned Air Vehicles
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the future role of unmanned air vehicles in the UK armed forces; and if he will make a statement.[136938]

  Mr. Ingram
  We currently expect unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to contribute significantly to future military capability in a number of areas. The WATCHKEEPER programme is on track to deliver a tactical UAV capability from 2006 which will provide UK commanders with accurate, timely and high quality imagery and support Network Enabled Capability. To explore the wider operational utility of UAV systems in the joint battlespace, we have established the Joint UAV Experimentation Programme (JUEP). Under the Future Offensive Air System programme, which is currently in its Concept Phase, we expect to look at a potential mix of platforms, including Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs), to meet our future strike capability from around the end of the next decade.

  War Widows
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been for each year since 1997 of widows' pensions to war widows who became widows in(a) the Second World War, (b) from 1946 to 1973 and (c) since 1973. [136822]

  Mr. Caplin
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  A range of statistics on War Pensions, including an analysis by age of the numbers of widows receiving war widows' pensions, is published quarterly. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the security of people in Afghanistan; in what ways it is proposed that the rebels' opposition will be prevented; and if he will make a statement. [136557]

  Hilary Benn
  The security situation in Afghanistan continues to he a concern for both Afghans and the international community. There has been an increase in activity from Taliban insurgents in large areas of the south and east of the country, activity which the international coalition forces continue to counter.

  On 13 October 2003, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1510, authorising expansion, as resources permit, of the ISAF beyond Kabul. Additionally, there is an active programme of Security Sector Reform, including a new Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) Programme, which commenced with a pilot project in Kunduz on
  56W
  24 October. Coupled with the four existing Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), and the additional four or five due to deploy in the coming months, these measures form a coherent package by which the international community is helping the Afghan people secure a stable and peaceful country for themselves.

  Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Process Conference, Cameroon
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the African Forest Law Enforcement and Government Ministerial Conference recently held in Cameroon. [136632]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I represented the UK at the Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Conference which took place in Yaounde, Cameroon, from 13 to 16 October. Officials from DFID, Defra and the FCO also attended. The UK private sector and British NGOs sent strong delegations.

  The purpose of the Conference was to build commitment to improve governance and strengthen law enforcement capacity. There was a particular focus on illegal logging, associated trade and bushmeat.

  Ministers from 40 countries adopted a Declaration that commits governments from Africa and those of trading and development partners to work together to address these problems. The Declaration contains a series of indicative actions to be taken forward by these governments together with the private sector and NGOs. Independent monitoring of forestry operations and greater transparency in the allocation of forest resources were identified as critical elements for improving governance and countering corruption. Participants concerned with wildlife and the trade in bushmeat were pleased with the attention given to this subject and acknowledged that it cannot he disassociated from wider concerns about the livelihoods of poor people.

  There was considerable interest in the EU Action Plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade that the European Council endorsed on 13 October. Several African countries are keen to discuss the development of voluntary partnership agreements with the EU. Officials from my Department, Defra and FCO will now take this up with colleagues from the EC, other Member States and the African countries concerned.

  Child/Maternal Mortality
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in meeting the Millennium Development Goal targets for reducing(a) child and (b) maternal mortality. [137657]

  Hilary Benn
  Assuming progress continues at the same rate as over the 1990s, the Millennium Development Goals 2015 targets of reductions in child and maternal mortality will not be met.

  Child mortality is declining but on current trends will have fallen by only one quarter by 2015, far short of the two thirds reduction aimed for. There is considerable regional variation. Latin America is expected to meet

  57W
  the target but there has been much slower progress in south Asia and the Arab states, and virtually no progress in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Maternal mortality is difficult to measure but the available data suggest that little progress has been made in reducing mortality in recent years, and show an increase in maternal mortality in parts of Africa. In developing countries the coverage of the proxy indicator, the proportion of women who give birth with the assistance of a skilled health worker, increased from 42 per cent. in 1990 to 52 per cent. by 2000. Coverage in east and south east Asia. and northern Africa rose significantly. Coverage is highest in Latin America, at 85 per cent. In contrast, there was little progress in sub-Saharan Africa.

  DFID has put the achievement of the MDGs at the heart of its work, and is working with its partners to do all it can to meet these targets. The MDG targets for child and maternal mortality in Africa and Asia form part of DFIDs Public Service Agreement. Supporting progress in sub-Saharan Africa is a particular priority for DFID.

  A more comprehensive assessment of progress towards the goals is provided in the UN Secretary General's 2003 report on the implementation of the Millennium Declaration: http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NO3/481/57/PDF/NO348157.pdf?OpenElement.

  Conventional Weapons
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his Department's aims are at the Convention on Conventional Weapons negotiations in November; and if he will make a statement. [135851]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member the answer given by my right hon. friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 4 November 2003,Official Report, column 542W.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department's representative at the Convention on Conventional Weapons negotiations in November will seek agreement on a mandate for future negotiations on cluster munitions. [135852]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member the answer given by my right hon. friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 4 November 2003,Official Report, column 542W.

  Deforestation
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to assist the Brazilian Government in preventing deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. [136663]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is an active member of the G7 Pilot Programme for the Conservation of the Brazilian Rain Forests (a joint undertaking of the Brazilian Government, Brazil's civil society and the international community). DFID's currently is helping to:strengthen the capacity of the indigenous movement to protect themselves from illegal logging through land demarcation and support to pursue sustainable livelihoods;
  58W
  enhance the sustainable management of the Amazon Floodplains by local communicates and government;

  enhance the Ministry of Environment's research on how to improve the economic and regulatory environment for sustainable forestry management;

  design the transition of this Pilot Phase to a Programme that is more mainstreamed and rooted in Brazilian policies for the region.

  The total contribution of DFID to the Pilot Programme for the Conservation of the Amazon Rain Forest is £16 million out of a total budget of US$410 million for the Pilot Programme.

  DFID also supports other activities outside the G7 Programme including:
  strengthening the ability of the Brazilian Agriculture Research Institute (EMBRAPA) to examine ways of improving sustainable forest management relevant to forest users and to improve the understanding by small farmers and disadvantaged groups of the benefits of sustainable forestry management; and
  giving a greater emphasis to forestry management for small scale farmers in agricultural extension courses provided by the Federal Agricultural University of Para.

  Many of these programmes are scheduled to end in 2004–05. The future of those planned to continue into 2005–06 will have to be reviewed in the light of the reallocation of DFID resources within middle income countries for that year.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions have been held with the Governments of(a) Rwanda and (b) Uganda concerning their involvement in the future of the Democratic Republic of Congo. [136344]

  Hilary Benn
  We have maintained a close dialogue with the Governments of Rwanda and Uganda, and indeed with the former government and now the Transitional National Government (TNG) in Kinshasa, on the need for good neighbourly relations as the basis for national and regional stability. We continue to do so.

  Both Rwanda and Uganda have taken positive steps recently to normalise their relations with the TNG in DRC, including mutual ministerial visits and the signing in New York on 25 September 2003 of a Good Neighbourly Pact, which included commitments that all support for armed groups should end and that there should be no illegal exploitation of natural resources of the DRC.

  Ghana
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made with the privatisation of water supplies in Ghana. [136204]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Lady to my answer of 3 June 2003 Official Report column. 270W. The Government of Ghana has made no further announcement in respect of private sector participation in urban water supply.

  Guinea Bissau
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the recent flooding in the eastern regions of Guinea Bissau. [136528]

  Hilary Benn
  I understand that wide-spread flooding caused by very heavy rainfall (the wettest rainy season in the Sahel for 30 years) has destroyed vast areas of cropland in the east of Guinea-Bissau. Up to 80 per cent. of Guinea-Bissau's peasant farmers may have been affected. Large areas of rice planted along the banks of the Geba river have been destroyed. Elsewhere in Bafata and Gabu provinces fields of maize and beans were rotting underwater. The Guinea-Bissau Agricultural Minister is quoted as saying that an extra 60,000 tonnes of rice will need to be imported to make up for the expected shortfall in local food production.

  A team from the UN World Food Programme (WFP) is evaluating the situation and preparing a response.

  Iraq
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans the Government have to aid the rebuilding of the Iraqi education system. [136589]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is funding two education advisers who will assist the Coalition Provisional Authority southern regional office and three governorates assess educational needs in the south of the country, and to

  Mines

  Unexploded ordnance

  Cluster bomb submunitions

  Totals

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  June 1999-December 2000

  35

  227

  6

  10

  51

  106

  1476

  2001

  2

  3

  4

  10

  3

  0

  9

  13

  2002

  0

  1

  5

  7

  3

  0

  8

  8

  2003 (1 January-30September

  0

  3

  1

  9

  2

  0

  3

  12

  1Collection of statistics began in 2000 and was backdated to June 1999. It is known that 101 persons were killed and 375 were injured between June 1999 and December 2000. However, of these 476 deaths or injuries, only 435, shown in the appropriate columns, can be attributed with certainty to a particular type of weapon, the remaining 13 deaths and 28 injuries having been caused by an unknown type. One deminer was killed by a cluster bomb submunition and 36 injured by mines between 1999 and 2001.

  Lesotho
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the impact of the current drought on the humanitarian situation in Lesotho; and if he will make a statement. [136526]

  Hilary Benn
  The 2003 winter cropping season has been seriously affected by drought. It is clear that vulnerable groups will continue to require humanitarian assistance. DFID will continue to work closely with the World Food Programme and other donors, and has already committed £3 million in assistance for feeding programmes and for agricultural recovery in Lesotho.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development, when he intends to re-negotiate the present three-year aid package for St. Helena; and when the last three-year package expired. [137226]
  60W
  plan an appropriate response. DFID has also supported the recovery of the education system through assistance to UNICEF and the NGO Muslim Hands.

  DFID is currently preparing an interim Country Assistance Plan. As part of this process we will explore how best to help the Iraqis meet their human development needs, taking into account the recent sector assessments prepared by the UN/World bank and the results of the donor conference in Madrid.

  Kosovo
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) casualties and (b) injuries in Kosovo were directly attributable to (i) mines, (ii) de-mining activities and (iii) cluster bomb submunition in each year since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [131794]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do not keep detailed records of this type of information. The figures in the following table have been provided by the UN Mine Action Co-ordination Centre (UNMACC) in Kosovo.

  The UK was the first country to have de-miners on the ground in Kosovo. Their de-mining activities have included clearance of unexploded munitions such as cluster bomb submunitions. The Government have spent over £10 million on de-mining activities in the Balkans, over £5 million of which was spent in 1999–2000 on de-mining in Kosovo.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Officials will visit St. Helena for this purpose early next year. The previous three-year aid package, which provided St. Helena with some £29 million, expired last March. This is being supplemented in the current (2003–04) Financial Year with further provision of over £10.5 million.

  Mr. Anthony Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development, if he will make a statement on the progress with building the airport in St. Helena. [137228]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Evaluation is continuing of the four expressions of interest, in response to the international invitation issued in April of this year, concerning possible private sector participation and potential investment in developing air access for St. Helena. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my written statement to this House on 16 September 2003,Official Report, column 43WS.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to make an
  61W
  official visit to St. Helena in 2004; and when a Minister from his Department last made a visit. [136974]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I have no plans at present to visit St. Helena, and St. Helena has never had a visit by a DFID Minister. But DFID staff visit regularly; and official visitors from the island are always welcome at DFID. For example, in addition to several calls this year by officials from St. Helena, I have held two meetings since June with representatives of St. Helena's Executive and Legislative Councils. I am expecting to host another such meeting next month, when our colleagues from the Overseas Territories gather in London for the annual Overseas Territories Consultative Council.

  Sudan
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to help the refugees of the civil war in Sudan who have fled into Chad. [136582]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 23 October 2003 to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson),Official Report, column 691 W.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions(a) he, (b) members of his Department and (c) other representatives of the United Kingdom government have had with non-governmental organisations since the beginning of October concerning the humanitarian situation in West Darfur in Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [136642]

  Hilary Benn
  The British Embassy in Khartoum, which includes DFID staff, continues to liaise closely with non-governmental organisations operational throughout Darfur—including those in West Darfur, such as Medair. DFID staff in London have also been in contact with non-governmental organisations working in this region.

  The situation in West Darfur, as across the region, is of paramount concern to the international community.

  We continue to support the work of key humanitarian agencies throughout the region—including UN, Red Cross and NGOs—and to raise the issue of access and security for humanitarian workers throughout Darfur with the Government of Sudan.

  WTO Ministerial Conference
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when he will reply to the letter dated 6 October from the Member for Banff and Buchan regarding the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference. [137581]

  Hilary Benn
  Unfortunately, the Department has no record of having received this letter of 6 October. If the hon. Member would kindly re-send the letter I will ensure that he receives a prompt reply.

  Zimbabwe
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement 62W
  on the (a) effectiveness and (b) outcomes of the additional fund of emergency support to Zimbabwe announced on 23 October 2003. [136560]

  Hilary Benn
  On 23 October DFID pledged a further £5 million for food assistance in Zimbabwe, through the World Food Programme (WFP), and £1.88 million for essential childhood vaccines, through UNICEF. These pledges bring British Government assistance in addressing the current humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe to over £62 million since September 2001.

  I am confident that our financial assistance is being used effectively. The WFP has agreed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Zimbabwe which clearly sets out the humanitarian principles governing the identification of beneficiaries for WFP's ongoing emergency operation. Distribution procedures have been agreed with Government which give WFP's implementing partners (NGOs) a clear role in ensuring that donor-funded food aid reaches only those for whom it is intended. UNICEF has similarly robust procedures for ensuring that vaccines are used effectively for protecting vulnerable children from potentially fatal diseases, including tuberculosis, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus, diphtheria, polio and measles.

  The DFID team based in Zimbabwe is closely monitoring both the effectiveness and the outcomes of UK humanitarian support. The UK's recent contribution to WFP includes a provision of £0.5 million to strengthen WFP's monitoring systems for donor-funded food distribution. This will enable WFP to produce comprehensive monthly reports on the processes and the impact of all food aid distributed by them, as well as providing a basis upon which to improve the design of future operations.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the outcome was of the contract awarded to Oxford Policy Management Ltd. for a Zimbabwe Trade Policy Capacity Project; and what action he took to ensure that none of this money went to the Government of Zimbabwe and its officials. [137732]

  Hilary Benn
  The contract was terminated in July 2001 due to the political situation in Zimbabwe. The total spend was £10,100, paid to Oxford Policy Management Ltd.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Television
  10. Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has had with the Treasury concerning the free provision of the new viewing card to former Solus card users aged 75 and over. [137032]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department has had no such discussions with the Treasury. While the Government appreciate the importance of television to many pensioners. the provision of a Solus "viewing card" is a matter for the broadcasters.

  Film Initiatives (Schools and Colleges)
  11. John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support her Department is giving to film initiatives in schools and colleges. [137033]

  Estelle Morris
  The UK Film Council, charged by the Government to support education about, and access to, film culture, runs the First Light initiative to help young people in schools and colleges make short films. The Creative Partnerships Programme has also run a number of film projects in schools, some in partnership with First Light.

  The British Film Institute, funded by the UK Film Council, runs a number of education projects in schools and colleges across the UK about film and the moving image.

  Amateur Sport
  12. Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when amateur sporting clubs will be able to access rate relief. [137034]

  Mr. Caborn
  Clubs may register with the Inland Revenue for Community Amateur Sport Club status immediately. Registered clubs will receive mandatory rate relief from 1 April 2004.

  Monuments (Preferential Charging)
  13. Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the number of cultural and historical monuments which set preferential charges for(a) local residents and (b) UK nationals; and whether it is her policy to continue to permit such preferences. [137035]

  Estelle Morris
  If such preferential charges exist at cultural and historic sites owned by or managed on behalf of the state, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not permit their continuance as this would be in breach of EU law.

  Casinos
  14. Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department will put in place to limit the proliferation of gaming in the planned liberalisation of casinos. [137036]

  Tessa Jowell
  Liberalisation of casinos must be controlled and balanced. We consulted about our proposals in August. We see real possibilities of using large resort casinos to secure regeneration benefits, but we do not want to see the proliferation of small casinos.

  The consultation ended recently. We are considering the responses.

  Tourism
  15. Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many press releases her Department has issued since April that relate directly to tourism. [137037]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has issued four press releases since April relating directly to tourism.64W
  We have also issued three press releases on the reform of the licensing system, which impacts directly on the tourism and hospitality sector.

  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans her Department has to improve the skills base in the tourism industry. [136653]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Hospitality, Leisure, Travel and Tourism sectors are working with my Department and the Sector Skills Development Agency to set up a Sector Skills Council (SSC) for the industry. The SSC will be industry led and will co-ordinate the sectors approach to reducing the skills gaps and shortages and anticipate future needs. It will provide a one-stop shop for advice on learning and skills and sign post employers to other sources of help. The SSC will investigate the needs of both large and small employers and develop tailored support to help them achieve business objectives.

  BBC
  17. Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Office of Fair Trading report on independent productions transmitted by the BBC. [137039]

  Tessa Jowell
  I was very disappointed that the BBC failed to meet its 25 per cent. independent production quota for 2002–03. I take this extremely seriously and have written to the BBC Chairman, Gavyn Davies, to say so. In future, it will be a matter for Ofcom to enforce this quota and they will have powers to fine in cases of non-compliance.

  20. Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the BBC on using the licence fee to fund the future development of its on-line services. [137042]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have had no recent discussions with the BBC on this matter. The BBC's online service is currently the subject of an independent review by Philip Graf. The findings of this review will feed into the forthcoming review of the BBC's Charter, and as such, will have a bearing on the funding arrangements for the future developments of BBC online services.

  School Sport
  18. Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Department for Education and Skills about widening the range of(a) competitive and (b) non-competitive sports in schools. [137040]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets regularly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discuss issues of mutual concern. These include the Public Service Agreement target, shared by both departments, to increase the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport—both competitive and non-competitive—within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  Regional Theatre
  19. Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she has taken to
  65W
  ensure that small theatres in the regions of England receive a larger share of support from funding organisations; and if she will make a statement. [137041]

  Estelle Morris
  As a consequence of the theatre review in 2001, Arts Council England is allocating substantially more funding to regional theatre across England. From April this year the total budget for theatre is, £100 million and will increase further by 2005–06. This is exceptionally good news and will lead to more and better theatre for audiences across the country.

  Tote
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her plans to change the status of the Tote. [137038]

  Tessa Jowell
  We intend to bring forward legislative proposals when parliamentary time allows. These proposals will enable the Tote to be sold to a horse racing trust.

  Lottery Grant (Telford)
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what level of Lottery grant money has been provided to organisations in Telford since 1997. [136882]

  Estelle Morris
  Since 1 January 1997, £14,163,229 has been allocated to 194 projects in the constituency of Telford.

  This is derived from the Department's Awards Database, which is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what resources have been raised by the National Lottery for charitable purposes in Telford; and what money has been allocated to local projects there. [136883]

  Estelle Morris
  Since the start of the Lottery, £16,889,359 has been allocated to 214 projects in the constituency of Telford.

  This is derived from the Department's Awards Database, which is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  Information about National Lottery ticket sales is not broken down by constituency, but the National Lottery Commission is able to provide information about sales broken down by postcode area. I shall write to my hon. Friend with it as soon as possible, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries both Houses.

  There is only an indirect link between ticket sales and money available for charitable purposes. Unclaimed prizes and interest earned are two factors that influence the overall amount of money available to the good causes. For this reason it is not possible to specify money for good causes as having come from particular area, geographical or otherwise.

  Overseas Visitors
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many overseas visitors she estimates visited(a) the North West, (b) Lancashire and (c)Chorley in the last 12 months. [136908]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to the North West Tourist Board, in 2002, an estimated 1.62 million overseas visitors visited the North West which includes Cumbria; an estimated 0.23 million overseas visits were made to Lancashire and approximately 6,380 overseas visits were made to Chorley.

  Note:

  The figures have been supplied by the North West Tourist Board and are based on a visit Britain survey of overseas visits called the International Passenger Survey which collates information at national level.

  Racing
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has had with racing authorities about the preliminary conclusion by the Office of Fair Trading on British racing; and if she will make a statement. [137138]

  Mr. Caborn
  I met representatives of the Jockey Club on 5 November and will be meeting British Horseracing Board representatives on 11 November. Previously, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed the matter with the racing industry at a seminar organised by the Department in July. Both the Jockey Club and the BHB have briefed my Department about the submissions which they have made to the Office of Fair Trading in response to the Rule 14 notice; but I cannot comment on a matter which is subject to a statutory process, yet to be completed, between the competition authorities and the parties.

  School Sports Co-ordinator
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make a statement on the School Sports Co-ordinator programme; [136644]

  (2) how many school sports co-ordinators are in post; [136645]

  (3) what steps she is taking to improve school sports facilities; [136646]

  (4) what steps her Department is taking in conjunction with local authorities to strengthen school sports; [136647]

  (5) if she will make a statement on recent progress in highlighting the importance of sport in schools. [136655]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government is investing more than £1 billion in England to transform PE and school sport. This funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared by DCMS and DfES, to increase the percentage of school children who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  Spearheading action is a massive expansion of the School Sport Co-ordinator programme. There are currently some 1,200 School Sport Co-ordinators and 6,000 Primary and Special School Link Teachers. This

  67W
  means that 30 per cent. of all schools in England now belong to one of the 222 School Sport Partnerships. We are working closely with local education authorities to ensure a continued strategic roll-out of this element of the national strategy for PE, school sport and club links.

  The investment also includes expenditure of £581 million from the New Opportunities Fund over the period 2002–03 to 2005–06 to bring about a step change in the provision of sports facilities for young people and the community generally; £130 million from the Space for Sport and Arts programme since 2000–01 for new or modernised sports and arts facilities in primary schools in 65 deprived LEAs; and £10 million from the Sporting Playgrounds programme to enhance primary school playgrounds in 27 deprived LEAs.

  Sports (One Stop Planning)
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the sports that will be given specific One Stop Planning support; and what criteria were used in selecting the sports. [137074]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following sports will be accorded UK-wide One Stop Planning support:

  athletics

  canoeing

  cycling

  equestrianism

  gymnastics/trampolining

  judo

  rowing

  sailing

  swimming/diving

  triathlon

  The primary criteria against which UK Sport selected these sports were: potential to deliver medals at the 2008 Olympic and Paralympic Games, track record of delivery against targets at previous Games, and capacity to provide high quality support for athletes. UK Sport's secondary criteria were public profile, and significance in contributing to wider sports participation targets. These criteria were agreed with the Home Nations Sports Councils.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of Freeview is paid for by the television licence fee. [135270]

  Estelle Morris
  Under the terms of the shareholder agreement which established Freeview (DTVS Ltd.), the BBC, BSkyB and Crown Castle each pay one third of the company's costs. These costs cover marketing and customer support for Freeview including the cost of liaising with manufacturers and retailers. In common with other broadcasters on the digital terrestrial platform, the BBC must also, separately, pay for the technical costs of broadcasting its channels, and make payments to the ITC for its multiplex licence, but these payments are not made to or through Freeview (DTVS Ltd.).

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many cases of work related stress have been reported in her Department in each of the last three years; how much compensation has been paid to employees; how many work days have been lost due to work related stress, and at what cost; what procedures have been put in place to reduce work related stress, and at what cost; and if she will make a statement. [136856]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS does not hold data which separately identifies work-related sickness absence. DCMS has a legal obligation to provide a safe working environment for employees.

  The Department is committed to meeting targets for reducing the number of working days lost generally due to sickness absence and due to work related injuries and illness arising from the Government's Revitalising Health and Safety initiative. Guidance is available for all staff on how to manage stress effectively.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Sure Start
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Sure Start programmes are running; and how many children are involved. [133908]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are now 521 Sure Start programmes up and running, providing services to around 390,000 children aged under four and their families in the most disadvantaged areas of the country.

  Universal Children's Day
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to accept UN Resolution 836 and establish and promote a Universal Children's day in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [133731]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Government's commitment to children and young people has been demonstrated by the creation of the post of Minister for Children, Young People and Families, the pulling together within DfES, from across Government of a range of services for children and families, and the publication of the green paper "Every Child Matters", which sets out a comprehensive programme of reform and improvement for the care of children.

  Both the Minister and officials work closely with children and young people themselves. A special edition of the Green Paper specifically aimed at children has been issued, and 50 separate consultation events are being held with children as a part in the consultation process, which lasts until 1 December.

  We consider that these measures are likely to be of greater value to children and young people than a Universal Children's Day.

  Breakfast Clubs
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in the UK provide breakfast clubs, broken down by education authority. [136208]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not keep a record of the number of breakfast clubs operating in any given area of the country. Breakfast clubs are available in a number of schools, and may form part of a school's study support or childcare provision for which Government funding is available. They can not only provide learning opportunities for pupils, but also help support the needs of working parents by offering food in a safe and stimulating environment for their children.

  CAFCASS
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reform the management and organisation of CAFCASS. [137479]

  Margaret Hodge
  In response to one of the recommendations of the Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department in their report on the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) (HC 614–1), I appointed Professor Sir Clive Booth to carry out a review of the skills required by the CAFCASS Board. I will consider his report before taking any decisions on the organisation of the Board.

  Child Protection
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what response he has made to the letter of 3 November from the Chief Executive of Southend Borough Council relating to child protection. [137770]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Secretary of State has not received this letter.

  Children and Young People's Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual budget was for(a) staffing and (b) administering the Children and Young People's Unit in each year since it was established; and how much funding has been allocated by the CYPU to projects referred by the Children's Fund over the same period, broken down by region.[135028]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]The information requested is as follows.

  Staffing/Admin

  The Children's and Young People's Unit had a combined staffing and administration budget over financial years 2001–2, 2002–03 & 2003–04 of:

  Financial year 2001–02: £2.66 million

  Financial year 2002–03: £4.43 million

  Financial year 2003–04: £4.40 million

  This equates to approximately 2.6 per cent. of the Unit's overall budget.
  70W
  Children's Fund

  There are 149 Children's Fund partnership areas in England and individual partnership allocations were based on a formula derived from the number of children in households claiming means-tested benefit/allowance (as defined by Income Support, income-based Jobseekers Allowance, Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance).

  The Children's Fund was rolled out across England in three waves. £67.65 million was allocated to partnerships in 2001–02; £121.37 million in 2002–03; and £166.78 million in 2003–04. The attached table lists each of the 149 partnerships and their annual allocation since each partnership was implemented. Partnership allocations are the same for SR2000 and SR2002. Wave 1 partnerships began operating from 1 July 2001. Wave 2 partnerships began operating from 1 April 2002. Wave 3 partnerships began operating from 1 April 2003.

  Partnership (Wave 1)

  Annual allocation(£)

  Birmingham

  6,000,000.00

  Blackburn with Darwen

  900,000.00

  Blackpool

  600,000.00

  Bolton

  1,200,000.00

  Bradford

  2,750,000.00

  Bristol

  1,610,000.00

  Camden

  800,000.00

  Cornwall

  1,770,000.00

  Doncaster

  1,350,000.00

  Gateshead

  800,000.00

  Greenwich

  1,290,000.00

  Hackney

  1,400,000.00

  Halton

  600,000.00

  Haringey

  1,410,000.00

  Hartlepool

  500,000.00

  Islington

  900,000.00

  Kent

  3,700,000.00

  Kingston upon Hull

  1,550,000.00

  Knowsley

  1,050,000.00

  Lancashire

  4,000,000.00

  Leeds

  2,650,000.00

  Leicester

  1,600,000.00

  Lincolnshire

  1,750,000.00

  Liverpool

  2,800,000.00

  Manchester

  2,960,000.00

  Middlesbrough

  850,000.00

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,250,000.00

  Newham

  1,900,000.00

  Norfolk

  2,100,000.00

  Nottingham

  1,700,000.00

  Oldham*

  1,370,000.00

  Portsmouth

  1,010,000.00

  Rochdale

  1,330,000.00

  Salford

  1,100,000.00

  Sandwell

  1,610,000.00

  Sheffield

  2,060,000.00

  Southwark

  1,450,000.00

  Stockton-on-Tees

  750,000.00

  Sunderland

  1,530.000.00

  Tower Hamlets

  1,700,000.00

  Total

  67,650,000.00

  Partnership (Wave 2)

  Average annual allocation (£)

  Barking and Dagenham

  800,000.00

  Barnsley

  900,000.00

  Bournemouth

  400,000.00

  Brent

  1,250,000.00

  Brighton

  1,010,000.00

  71W

  Partnership (Wave 2)

  Average annual allocation (£)

  Calderdale

  700,000.00

  Cheshire

  1,600,000.00

  County Durham

  1,890,000.00

  Coventry

  1,200,000.00

  Cumbria

  1,300,000.00

  Darlington

  407,000.00

  Derby

  1,000,000.00

  Derbyshire

  1,900,000.00

  Devon

  1,800,000.00

  East Sussex

  1,300,000.00

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,008,006.00

  Isle of Wight

  400,000.00

  Kirklees

  1,600,000.00

  Lambeth

  1,300,000.00

  Lewisham

  1,100,000.00

  Luton

  1,090,000.00

  Medway

  800,000.00

  North East Lincolnshire

  700,000.00

  North Lincolnshire

  500,000.00

  North Tyneside

  700,000.00

  North Yorkshire

  1,410,000.00

  Northamptonshire

  1,810,000.00

  Northumberland

  900,000.00

  Nottinghamshire

  2,200,000.00

  Peterborough

  700,000.00

  Plymouth

  900,000.00

  Redcar and Cleveland

  600,000.00

  Rotherham

  1,100,000.00

  Sefton

  1,000,000.00

  Solihull

  850,000.00

  South Tyneside

  700,000.00

  Southampton

  800,000.00

  St. Helens

  700,000.00

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,100,000.00

  Suffolk

  1,730,000.00

  Tameside

  900,000.00

  Telford and Wrekin

  600,000.00

  Torbay

  400,000.00

  Trafford

  600,000.00

  Walsall

  1,200,000.00

  Waltham Forest

  1,000,000.00

  Wandsworth

  700,000.00

  Westminster

  500,000.00

  Wirral

  1,570,000.00

  Wolverhampton

  1,100,000.00

  Total

  53,725,006.00

  Partnership (Wave 3)

  Average annual allocation (£)

  Barnet

  700,000.00

  Bath and North East Somerset

  360,000.00

  Bedfordshire

  800,000.00

  Bexley

  500,000.00

  Bracknell Forest

  194,000.00

  Bromley

  600,000.00

  Buckinghamshire

  800,000.00

  Bury

  600,000.00

  Cambridgeshire

  1,000,000.00

  City of London

  35,000.00

  Croydon

  1,100,000.00

  Dorset

  800,000.00

  Dudley

  900,000.00

  Ealing

  1,000,000.00

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  700,000.00

  Enfield

  900,000.00

  Essex

  3,100,000.00

  Gloucestershire

  1,200,000.00

  Hampshire

  2,400,000.00

  Harrow

  479,000.00

  Havering

  500,000.00

  Herefordshire

  448,000.00

  Hertfordshire

  2,000,000.00

  72W

  Partnership (Wave 3)

  Average annual allocation (£)

  Hillingdon

  600,000.00

  Hounslow

  700,000.00

  Kensington and Chelsea*

  360,000.00

  Kingston upon Thames

  236,000.00

  Leicestershire

  1,100,000.00

  Merton

  488.000.00

  Milton Keynes

  600,000.00

  North Somerset

  398,000.00

  Oxfordshire

  1,100,000.00

  Poole

  355,000.00

  Reading

  445,000.00

  Redbridge

  700,000.00

  Richmond uponThames

  222,000.00

  Rutland

  40,000.00

  Shropshire

  600,000.00

  Slough

  443,000.00

  Somerset

  1,200,000.00

  Southend-on-Sea

  500,000.00

  South Gloucestershire

  461,000.00

  Staffordshire

  2,000,000.00

  Stockport

  800,000.00

  Surrey

  1,300,000.00

  Sutton

  400,000.00

  Swindon

  494,000.00

  Thurrock

  451,000.00

  Wakefield

  1,200,000.00

  Warrington

  500,000.00

  Warwickshire

  1,100,000.00

  West Sussex

  1,400,000.00

  West Berkshire

  224,000.00

  Wigan

  1,000,000.00

  Wiltshire

  800,000.00

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  187,000.00

  Wokingham

  144,000.00

  Worcestershire

  1,300,000.00

  York

  450,000.00

  Total

  45,414,000.00

  Child Protection
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the(a) need for and (b) costs of enabling children's services in refuges to meet the national standards for under eights day care; and if he will make a statement. [136394]

  Margaret Hodge
  Where refuges offer day care they will need to be registered and inspected by Ofsted, and the national standards for under eights day care would apply. Under an agreed protocol between Ofsted and the Women's Aid Federation of England (WAFE), the unique position of women's refuges is recognised and Ofsted's guidance to its child care inspectors indicates that their special circumstances should be taken into account in applying the national standards.

  Local authorities are funded to promote growth in the number of child care places generally and to provide information, training and advice to providers to help them meet the national standards. They work in partnership with refuges where appropriate.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what checks are carried out into private companies who run children's homes. [136545]

  Margaret Hodge
  The requirements of the Children's Homes Regulations 2001 and the Children's Homes National Minimum Standards must be complied with
  73W
  before an organisation can be registered with the National Care Standards Commission. A copy of the Children's Homes Regulations 2001 and the National Minimum Standards have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what role social services departments have in setting up children's homes. [136546]

  Margaret Hodge
  Social Services departments no longer register and inspect children's homes in their area. Any residential children's homes that are provided by local authorities are registered and inspected by the National Care Standards Commission in the same way as any other private or voluntary organisation providing residential children's homes. Each service provider must comply with the Children's Homes Regulations 2001 and Children's Homes National Minimum Standards.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what consultation in the local area is required to be carried out for a proposed children's home for three or fewer children. [136547]

  Margaret Hodge
  There is no requirement for the consultation of local residents in relation to a proposed children's home. The NCSC does not distinguish between small children's homes and large children's homes for the purpose of registration.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were in privately-run children's homes in Somerset in the last year for which figures are available. [136548]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is not available.
  The National Care Standards Commission's records show that as of 3 November 2003 there are places for 229 children in total in privately run children's homes in Somerset.

  Condover Hall School
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions his Department has had with the Royal National Institute for the Blind on the closure of Condover Hall School; [134358]

  (2) if he will list the schools in England which provide the same education services as Condover Hall School for multisensory-disabled children; [134359]

  (3) what discussion his Department has had with Shropshire county council LEA regarding the closure of Condover Hall School; [134360]

  (4) how many children are taught at Condover Hall School; [134361]

  (5) how many teachers he estimates will lose their jobs when Condover Hall School closes;[134362]

  (6) what provision is being made to continue the education of the children taught at Condover Hall School when it closes. [134363]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are many schools in England, approved to make provision for pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties and severe learning 74W
  difficulties which are able to provide services for multi-disabled pupils. We understand from the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) that its school, Rushton Hall, provides education services very similar to those provided at Condover Hall. Other schools which provide services for mulit-sensory disabled children, but with different patterns of residential provision are: St. David's Unit at the West of England School, Exeter; and the Royal School for the Blind in Liverpool. Liden Lodge School in the London borough of Wandsworth is also developing support for multi-sensory disabled children.

  Official at the DfES have had no discussions to date with Shropshire county council about the closure of Condover Hall School. We do of course stand ready to discuss the matter with any interested party, including local education authorities which currently make use of the school, if asked to do so.

  Officials have however asked the RNIB to clarify its plans for the closure of Condover Hall School, and in particular to explain how the RNIB intends to ensure that appropriate and realistic plans for the placement of children currently attending the school are in place. We are currently awaiting a response.

  Condover Hall School currently has 34 pupils of statutory school age. There are no primary age pupils. Six pupils are in year 13 and are due to leave school at the end of the summer term 2004. In addition there are 12 young adults, aged from 19–24, in the Adult Education Centre at Condover Hall School.

  Condover Hall School currently has 11 teachers, including the Principal and Deputy Headteacher. Nine teachers are employed in the main school and two in the Adult Education Centre. RNIB has stated its intention of exploring opportunities for redeployment of staff currently employed at Condover Hall.

  It will be for the home LEA of each child currently placed at Condover Hall to decide, based on the special educational needs of that child, the most suitable placement for them following the closure of the school.

  Connexions
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Connexions personal advisers were allocated to(a) information and advice in schools and colleges, (b) targeted preventative work in schools and colleges and (c) information and advice to those not engaged in education or training in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04, in each Connexions region; and if he will make a statement.[134110]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 23 October 2003]Statistics relating to the specific areas listed in this question are not available from Connexions partnerships. Partnerships are required to show the percentages of total expenditure on both pre-16 and post-16 work. These figures include staff as well as other costs and give some indication of the balance of expenditure on young people during compulsory education and beyond. It can be assumed that the majority of pre-16 expenditure is devoted to young people wholly engaged in learning.
  75W
  The role of the personal adviser is very broad, covering initial information and advice through to more in-depth support. The specific roles of personal advisers within schools and colleges are determined via a partnership agreement signed between each institution and the partnership. This is a further reason why it is not possible to supply information in the forms requested.

  Analysis of Connexions grant spend

  Percentage of grant spent by age group

  April 2002–March 2003

  April 2003– June 20031

  Partnership

  13–16s

  16–19s

  13–16s

  16–19s

  Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire and Buckingamshire

  46

  54

  49

  51

  Berkshire

  46

  54

  47

  53

  Surrey

  52

  48

  52

  48

  Kent and Medway2

  56

  44

  –

  –

  Sussex

  58

  42

  51

  49

  South Central

  51

  49

  53

  47

  London

  ;

  West London

  44

  56

  47

  53

  Central London

  32

  68

  42

  58

  North London

  46

  54

  51

  49

  East London

  51

  49

  51

  49

  South London

  38

  62

  38

  62

  East of England

  Norfolk

  58

  42

  58

  42

  Cambridge and Peterborough

  57

  43

  50

  50

  Suffolk

  42

  58

  40

  60

  Bedfordshire and Luton

  46

  54

  46

  54

  Hertfordshire

  53

  47

  53

  47

  Essex, Southend and Thurrock

  49

  51

  52

  48

  South West

  Gloucestershire

  51

  49

  42

  58

  Wiltshire and Swindon

  40

  60

  48

  52

  West of England

  62

  38

  57

  43

  Somerset

  45

  55

  50

  50

  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole

  54

  46

  53

  47

  Cornwall and Devon

  41

  59

  43

  57

  West Midlands

  Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

  65

  35

  65

  35

  Stafforshire

  48

  52

  42

  58

  Black Country

  40

  60

  46

  54

  Birmingham and Solihull

  47

  53

  48

  52

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  63

  37

  63

  37

  Hereford and Worcester

  54

  46

  54

  46

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  62

  38

  62

  38

  Nottingamshire

  60

  40

  54

  46

  Lincolnshire and Rutland

  42

  58

  40

  60

  Leicestershire

  45

  55

  45

  55

  Northamptonshire

  36

  64

  50

  50

  Yorks and the Humber

  York an North Yorkshire

  55

  45

  54

  46

  West Yorkshire

  53

  47

  53

  47

  Humber

  45

  55

  44

  56

  South Yorkshire

  45

  55

  45

  55

  North West

  Cumbria

  41

  59

  41

  59

  Lancashier

  54

  46

  52

  48

  Great Manchester

  50

  50

  50

  50

  Greater Merseyside

  44

  56

  45

  55

  Cheshire and Warrrington

  58

  42

  58

  42

  76W

  Analysis of Connexions grant spend

  Percentage of grant spent by age group

  April 2002–March 2003

  April 2003–June 20031

  Partnership

  13–16s

  16–19s

  13–16s

  16–19s

  North East Northumberland (started 1 April 2003)

  0

  0

  49

  51

  Tyne and Wear

  45

  55

  45

  55

  County Durham

  57

  43

  56

  44

  Tees Valley

  44

  56

  44

  56

  England total

  49

  51

  50

  50

  1The latest available information

  2Details not available for Q1 2003–04

  Source:

  Partnerships' Income and Expenditure Tables

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much(a) electricity and (b) other energy his Department has used in each year since 1997 (i) in total and (ii) per square metre; what the projected use is for each of the following years for which forecasts are made; what plans he has to reduce usage; and if he will make a statement. [135051]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In response to parts(a) and (b) parts (i) and (ii) of this question, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by Defra on 3 November 2003 (Official Report column 404W). Targets for future energy use on the Government Estate are being developed under the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  Recent and planned changes to our estate due to the rationalisation of the use of our headquarters buildings have meant that we cannot accurately predict our energy consumption in the near future. My Department remains committed to reducing energy use as part of our own sustainable development plan, and as part of the government-wide programme to improve performance in this area.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to ensure that the findings of the Government's "Safety and Justice" consultation on domestic violence are included in the outcome of the "Every Child Matters" consultation process. [134911]

  Margaret Hodge
  Responses to "Safety and Justice: The Government's Proposals on Domestic Violence" are currently being analysed and will be considered by Ministers shortly. I shall ask for details of those responses to "Safety and Justice" which have a bearing on our proposals for improving services to children and young people, as set out in the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", to be considered together with the responses received to that Green Paper.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether issues relating to domestic violence will be included in the remit of the proposed Commissioner for Children. [134998]
  77W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]The Government set out in the Green Paper 'Every Child Matters' our intention to legislate for the appointment of a Children's Commissioner as a new voice for all children and young people, especially the disadvantaged. The Commissioner would ensure that the views of children and young people are heard, and report to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on progress against the outcomes for children set out in the Green Paper. Further details on the remit and responsibilities of the Commissioner will be made available in the light of the consultation which runs until 1 December.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how cross-departmental policy implementation on issues relating to children and domestic violence will be organised. [135007]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]Cross-departmental issues relating to domestic violence, including those affecting children and young people, are overseen by the Inter-Ministerial Group for Domestic Violence chaired by Baroness Scotland of Asthal. Baroness Ashton of Upholland represents the Department for Education and Skills on the Inter-Ministerial Group.

  When necessary, issues relating to domestic violence and children and young people will be considered by the children, young people and family services Cabinet Committee MISC9 chaired by the Chancellor. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has Cabinet-level responsibility for both policy and delivery of services for children and young people and is a member of MISC9. He is also chair of the Cabinet sub-Committee MISC9(D) which is responsible for ordinating the delivery of services to children, young people and families. I am a member of both MISC9 and MISC9(D).

  Edexcel
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on(a) the role of coursework in the GCSE examination and (b) the International GCSE qualification developed by Edexcel exam board. [136709]

  Mr. Miliband
  Coursework can be a valuable way of assessing achievement that cannot readily be demonstrated in an examination. The setting and assessment of coursework can help teaching and learning processes by measuring and encouraging the development of important skills not easily tested in timed written examinations, like the ability to tackle extended pieces of written work. The 14–19 Reform Group is considering the place of coursework in the 14–19 curriculum.

  The concept of an IGCSE is not a new one. The University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate has offered this type of examination since 1986. IGSEs
  78W
  have been designed as qualifications primarily for overseas candidates, with some take up in the independent sector. Unlike GCSEs they are not approved for use in maintained schools and are not subject to any regulatory mechanisms.

  Education Formula Spending
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in annex D of his Department's policy guidance note, School and local education authority funding in 2003–04, what increase in the education formula spending was indicated for local education authority budget forecasters to use for 2004–05; and how this was determined. [136886]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department's guidance note, sent to local education authorities on 10 December 2003, included advice to authorities to help them in forecasting their budget over the period 2003–04 to 2005–06, so they could set indicative three-year budgets for schools.

  Based on the outcome of the 2002 Spending Review, the guidance noted that Education Formula Spending was planned to increase between 2003–04 and 2004–05 by 5.5 per cent. in cash, and approximately 6.0 per cent. per pupil, based on pupil number estimates from the Department's pupil projection model. It also noted that the floor and ceiling arrangements, introduced in 2003–04, would continue to operate in future years.

  The guidance explicitly recognised that the Department is unable to provide firm estimates of EFSS increases for future years for each authority.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes he has made to the work of educational psychologists in schools by grouping schools together; and if he will make a statement. [134991]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Educational psychologists are employed by local education authorities. Decisions on their deployment and use are therefore matters for LEAs to determine in the light of local circumstances and available resources. The grouping of schools in federations should not significantly affect the role or responsibilities of educational psychologists.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many educational psychologists are employed by each local education authority in London; and(a) how many were employed by, (b) how many retired (c) how many were recruited in and (d) what the vacancy rates were in each local authority in London for each of the last six years. [135149]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The latest available information on the number of educational psychologists employed by local education authorities in London, and the number of vacant posts is given in the following table:
  79W

  Educational psychologists (full-time equivalent) London

  Vacancies

  In Service

  LEA

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2001

  2002

  2003

  City of London

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.0

  0.3

  0.3

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  7.5

  7.5

  10.9

  12.0

  11.2

  13.0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenwich

  16.9

  15.9

  12.9

  14.5

  15.5

  20.8

  1

  0

  0

  Hackney

  10.0

  10.5

  11.7

  12.5

  11.5

  11.0

  1

  2

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7.5

  9.3

  7.5

  5.9

  8.4

  10.1

  1

  0

  0

  Islington

  13.0

  12.3

  14.1

  12.0

  10.3

  9.3

  0

  0

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10.0

  8.0

  8.0

  6.0

  7.0

  6.5

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth

  8.0

  10.7

  13.4

  15.1

  14.8

  14.3

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham

  13.5

  12.5

  12.5

  13.5

  14.0

  12.0

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark

  11.1

  12.3

  12.3

  11.7

  13.3

  11.7

  2

  3

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  29.6

  15.7

  15.3

  14.4

  13.0

  13.0

  0

  1

  2

  Wandsworth

  11.6

  10.7

  11.3

  11.0

  12.4

  11.7

  0

  1

  1

  City of Westminster

  7.0

  7.0

  7.0

  9.4

  8.8

  8.8

  0

  1

  1

  Barking and Dagenham

  10.9

  11.9

  14.0

  11.9

  13.2

  12.7

  3

  2

  2

  Barnet

  15.5

  15.5

  14.4

  15.5

  12.0

  15.7

  1

  4

  0

  Bexley

  10.0

  11.0

  10.6

  10.1

  9.0

  8.8

  0

  0

  0

  Brent

  10.0

  9.4

  10.0

  11.0

  12.0

  11.0

  0

  0

  3

  Bromley

  12.0

  12.0

  11.0

  11.5

  10.0

  10.0

  1

  2

  0

  Croydon

  14.6

  13.9

  13.4

  11.6

  14.4

  12.1

  1

  0

  0

  Ealing

  13.8

  23.8

  14.7

  13.7

  16.2

  11.7

  1

  0

  2

  Enfield

  12.7

  17.6

  20.6

  19.2

  21.0

  16.5

  3

  1

  3

  Haringey

  13.3

  15.0

  14.1

  11.6

  10.3

  10.1

  2

  2

  3

  Harrow

  4.6

  8.7

  10.3

  10.9

  9.6

  9.3

  1

  1

  1

  Havering

  9.6

  9.5

  9.5

  9.5

  9.5

  10.5

  0

  0

  0

  Hillingdon

  13.8

  15.3

  14.2

  15.5

  14.1

  15.6

  0

  0

  0

  Hounslow

  10.5

  10.0

  10.5

  10.5

  9.8

  8.4

  0

  0

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  6.9

  5.7

  6.8

  5.4

  7.6

  7.6

  1

  0

  0

  Merton

  6.5

  6.5

  6.8

  9.6

  9.9

  6.9

  0

  0

  1

  Newham

  12.8

  15.5

  19.0

  17.7

  16.0

  12.5

  4

  5

  9

  Redbridge

  8.2

  10.0

  10.4

  7.4

  10.2

  9.8

  2

  0

  0

  Richmond upon Thames

  7.6

  7.6

  7.1

  6.1

  0.0

  6.1

  1

  0

  1

  Sutton

  5.0

  6.5

  8.9

  10.8

  8.7

  8.2

  0

  0

  1

  Waltham Forest 13.0

  13.0

  13.0

  8.3

  11.5

  17.5

  1

  0

  0

  Total London

  357.1

  370.9

  376.4

  366.0

  365.5

  363.5

  27

  25

  35

  Source:

  Annual form 618G surveys of teachers in service and teacher vacancies.

  The Department does not collect information on the number of new recruits or retirements in any given period. Manpower planning issues fall to local education authorities, as employers, to determine in light of local circumstances and available resources. Data on vacancy rates are only available from 2001.

  First Aid
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will amend the OFSTED requirements of the first aid training standard for pre-school and nursery settings to ensure that there is a paediatric component in first aid courses; [136600]

  (2) if he will set out for each setting inspected by OFSTED (a) the published standard for first aid training,(b) the length of training required and (c) the areas to be covered by the training. [136602]

  Margaret Hodge
  Ofsted registers and inspects pre-schools, day nurseries and childminders having regard to national standards set by the Department for Education and Skills. Revised national standards for under eights day care and childminding came into force in September 2003. For pre-school and nursery settings the standards specify that there is at least one member of staff with a current first aid training certificate on the premises or on outings at any one time, and that the first aid qualification includes training in first aid for infants and young children. The revisions make it clear that this training has to be consistent with any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to local authorities, who are responsible for making training available to settings.
  80W
  We will issue guidance shortly, and this will include advice on the length of training and areas to be covered.

  Foster Carers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to allow for short break provision to be granted to foster carers; what additional support can be given in cases where foster parents have allegations made against them: and if he will make a statement. [133124]

  Margaret Hodge
  Foster carers can already receive "short breaks" and the Fostering Services National Minimum Standards (March 2002) require the provision of independent support to foster carers during an investigation. The Green Paper, "Every Child Matters" contains a number of proposals to improve the recruitment and retention of foster carers. These include improving support for carers facing allegations and improved short break provision. The Green Paper is now out for consultation until 1 December 2003.

  Graduate Tax
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) for what reason it was stated in his circular, The Government's Higher Education Proposals Explained, of 5 November, that the proceeds of a graduate tax cannot be earmarked by statute for use in the funding of higher education alone; [137748]
  81W
  (2) for what reason it was stated in his circular, The Government's Higher Education Proposals Explained, of 5 November, that a graduate tax is necessarily payable throughout a graduate's life; [137749]

  (3) for what reason it was stated in his circular, The Government's Higher Education Proposals Explained, of 5 November, that a graduate tax would necessarily not have an earnings threshold below which no repayments are made; [137750]

  (4) for what reason it was stated in his circular, The Government's Higher Education Proposals Explained, of 5 November, that a graduate tax would necessarily not recover the money for higher education funding for at least 20 years; [137751]

  (5) for what reason it was stated that a graduate tax would have to run alongside the student loan system in his circular, The Government's Higher Education Proposals Explained, of 5 November. [137752]

  Alan Johnson
  The circular referred to is a party political document. I will write to my hon. Friend separately.

  Licensed Deficit Arrangements
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on how he estimates the granting of additional transitional funds to a local education authority will affect its obligations under the licensed deficit arrangements. [136888]

  Mr. Miliband
  Local education authorities which allow licensed deficits for schools have various obligations specified in their schemes, including the maintenance of limits on the repayment periods and adherence to a maximum proportion of total school balances used to underwrite the deficits. None of these obligations will be directly affected by transitional support grant announced on 29 October, except insofar as use of such grant is likely to produce less pressure on local resources since the transitional grant is to be targeted specifically at those schools facing the greatest difficulty in bringing their budgets back into balance, on the basis of costed plans produced by those schools.

  National Healthy School Award
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the costs have been of setting up the National Healthy School Award; [136209]

  (2) how many schools have signed up to the Healthy Schools programme; and how many of those schools have been accredited with the National Healthy School Standards, broken down by local education authority. [136210]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The table shows the level of direct financial support for the National Healthy Schools Standard (NHSS) from central Government sources since its launch in 1999–2000. Information on any additional support from the local NHSS or from Local Education Authorities is not held centrally.
  82W

  £ million

  Year(allocations)

  From the Department of Health

  From the Department for Education and Skills

  Total

  1999–2000

  2

  2

  4

  2000–01

  6

  2

  8

  2001–02

  5.8

  2

  7.8

  2002–03

  5.5

  2

  7.5

  2003–04

  5.5

  2

  7.5

  Over 14,000 schools have signed up to the Healthy Schools programme of which we expect 9,482 to be accredited as working at the most intensive level of involvement of level 3 by March 2004. The table attached shows the number of schools accredited with the standard and the breakdown by each local education authority.

  Ofsted
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people have been employed by OFSTED on a(a) part-time, (b) full-time and (c) contractual basis in each year since 1997. [137170]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for OFSTED. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Retained Funding
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his assessment of whether its proposed levels of retained funding for 2004–05 will leave local education authorities with sufficient funds to meet their obligations to provide universal support for all three-year-olds from April 2004. [136891]

  Mr. Miliband
  Draft Regulations placing limits on the sums that local education authorities can retain for central expenditure within their Schools Budget in 2004–05 were published, for consultation, on 29 October. A copy of the draft Regulations has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The draft Regulations recognise that some authorities will need to increase their central expenditure in order to deliver universal three year-old nursery provision, and, in placing limits on central expenditure, specifically allow for such increases.

  School Meals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that the content and quality of school meals is regularly monitored and evaluated. [136735]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  It is the responsibility of the local education authority or, where a budgetary element for school meals has been delegated to them, a school's governing body to ensure that the statutory nutritional standards for school lunches are met. The Department for Education and Skills, in partnership with the Food Standards Agency, has commissioned research by Kings College London to assess whether food provided for and consumed during school lunches in a sample of
  83W
  maintained secondary schools in England complies with statutory nutritional standards and associated guidance. We expect that the findings of this survey will be available in spring 2004.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make it his policy to prevent school meals providers from advertising or promoting food or drink with a high fat or sugar content; and if he will make a statement. [136736]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  It is the responsibility of the governing body to decide what food and drink products should be available or promoted on school premises.

  The Department in conjunction with the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the National Consumers'Association has published 'Commercial Activities in Schools: best Practice Principles'. The purpose of this guidance is to identify best practice and to ensure that educational benefits are not compromised by commercial considerations.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what training is provided for school governors on(a) their responsibility for ensuring that school meals meet the required standards and (b) the methods to be used for evaluating the quality of school meals. [136737]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has produced the 'Healthy School Guidance' to help governors and caterers implement the nutritional standards.

  The October 2002 newsletter for governors contains a section on nutrition and further information on food related programmes operated by this Department and other organisations. A copy of the governors newsletter can be viewed on the website—www.dfes.gov.uk/governor.

  In the publication 'A Guide to the Law for School Governors', chapter five contains information on support and training for governors. This can also be viewed on the website.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to promote the use of new technology to provide a menu assessment tool for primary school meals. [136738]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department for Education and Skills has no plans to introduce a menu assessment tool for school meals.

  In the Department's Healthy School Lunches guidance for school caterers on implementing the national minimum nutritional standards, there is an example of a self monitoring checklist for compulsory requirements. The guidance includes enough information to monitor the nutritional standards. The guidance can be viewed on the Department's website—www.dfes.gov.uk/schoollunches.

  School Funding
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his policy to adhere to the 2002 spending review increase in the national control total for 2004–05.[134671]

  Mr. Miliband
  Yes.

  Skills for Life Survey
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the finding in the recent Skills for Life survey carried out by his Department that the expansion to access in higher education has not led to marked improvements in literacy and numeracy. [136716]

  Alan Johnson
  The Skills for Life survey shows that education is highly correlated with literacy and numeracy skills—both in terms of age of completing full time education and the highest qualification. The vast majority of those with degrees have Level 2 or higher literacy and numeracy, and the converse is true for those with low level or no qualifications.

  The survey provides the first national profile of adult literacy and numeracy skills and demonstrates the need for the Government to continue its sustained drive to improve adult basic skills training and school standards. To date over 1.8 million adults have started basic skills courses as part of the Government's 'Skills for Life' programme.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much will be spent by his Department on maintenance grants for students at university in financial years(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06. [137164]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Grant is being introduced for new students starting in the 2004/05 academic year and the cost will build up cohort by cohort. We estimate that the cost will be between £63–£75 million in the 2004–05 financial year and £146–£177 million in the 2005–06 financial year, depending on the actual number of students entering higher education in those years and their precise income distribution. We expect the steady state cost of the higher education grant to be around £300 million.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the average income from part-time or full-time work of students studying in higher education. [137201]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has conducted a Student Income and Expenditure Survey (SIES) for the 2002–3 academic year. It will provide up-to-date information on students'employment patterns and their income from paid work in the 2002–03 academic year for full-time, young, single, childless, English and Welsh domiciled students who are undertaking an undergraduate degree at publicly funded Higher Education Institutions in England and Wales in 2002–3.

  The Department will announce a date for publication once the research report has been finalised. Once published, the Department will use the data for further analysis of students'income and employment.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research has been conducted into the cost of the morning-after pill and its
  85W
  affordability in (a) disadvantaged areas and (b) areas where the incidence of teenage pregnancy is higher than average. [134642]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]Research into the affordability of emergency contraception is unnecessary because it is available free to all women from a number of services including General Practice, community family planning clinics, youth advisory clinics and community pharmacists working to Patient Group Direction's under NHS arrangements. All areas are looking at improving the accessibility of free emergency contraception particularly those where the incidence of teenage pregnancy is higher than average. In addition, women age 16 plus can buy emergency contraception as a pharmacy product. The price of emergency contraception is set by the manufacturer.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his policy is on the over the counter provision of the morning-after pill free of charge, in areas where levels of teenage pregnancy are higher than average, to young people who have not received prior counselling on birth control. [134643]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]There are three routes for the supply of emergency contraception: on prescription through a medical practitioner, as a prescription only medicine under a patient group direction (PGD) or as a pharmacy product.

  Emergency contraception is only provided to young people under 16 under medical supervision. This includes the supply by other health professionals, such as school nurses and community pharmacists, working to PGDs. A Patient Group Direction is a written instruction for the supply or administration of medicines to groups of patients without an individualised doctor's prescription.

  All health professionals providing emergency contraception are trained to ensure that young women are informed about and encouraged to visit local services that provide regular forms of contraception and condoms to protect against sexually transmitted infections.

  Services aimed at improving early access to emergency contraception should be seen in the context of a much wider programme of the Government's Teenage Pregnancy and Sexual Health and HIV Strategies. This includes helping young people to resist pressure to have early sex through improved sex and relationship education, improving knowledge of risks of unprotected sex, increasing early uptake of contraceptive and sexual health advice by sexually active young people and involving parents and the wider community.

  Training Links
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to develop stronger(a) links and (b) partnerships between higher education, training providers and the small business community. [136614]

  Alan Johnson
  Our plans for strengthening partnerships between higher education institutions, training providers and industry, including small 86W
  business were set out in The future of higher education'published in January this year and also in '21st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential' published in July.

  Our plans include expanding Foundation Degrees which are designed with employers to meet their needs; support via the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) which includes setting up a network of Knowledge Exchanges to benefit local business communities; and, New Technology Institutes (Nils) to provide advanced technology skills.

  We are also establishing Sector Skills Councils which will address sector skills needs and are also developing stronger arrangements at regional level between Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), business and education and training providers to develop strategies for tackling local and regional skills needs.

  Transitional Funding
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will(a) list the criteria that were used to determine which authorities should receive additional transitional funding for 2004–05, (b) set out the basis on which the amounts were calculated and (c) make a statement on why Lancashire did not receive an allocation of these monies. [136890]

  Mr. Miliband
  Details of the transitional support package for 2004–05, including details of the formula for calculating which local education authorities will be eligible, will be published at the time of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement later this month.

  On 29 October the Government published indicative figures for the targeted grant in 2004–05, which have been placed in the Library of the House. These assumed that grant would be available to authorities whose increase in Education Formula Spending and relevant DfES grant between 2002–03 and 2004–05 would otherwise be less than 12 per cent. per pupil. The increase in Lancashire LEA is expected to be above 12 per cent. per pupil over the relevant period, which means it would not be eligible for the targeted grant.

  However, if Lancashire or any other LEA is able to put forward a compelling case that additional, transitional funds are needed in the short term—above and beyond those already available to the LEA–my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider bringing forward grant payments from my Department, so that the LEA will have funds available in 2004–05 for this purpose, with the expectation of a consequential reduction to what they will receive in future years. The maximum amount that might be made available in this way would be £300,000 per authority, or 0.2 per cent. of the authority's total education resources in 2004–05, if that is higher. For Lancashire, 0.2 per cent. of its education resources would be over –1.2 million.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the indicative allocation of targeted transitional grant 2004–05 is for Surrey. [137525]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, in his statement to the House on 29 October, that targeted transitional grant will be made available to about one third of local education
  87W
  authorities next year. so that the total increase in education resources for every authority, over the two year period between 2002–03 and 2004–05, will be a minimum of 12 per cent. per pupil.

  Final allocations of targeted transitional grant will be announced at the time of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement. The indicative allocations published on 29 October made no allocation to Surrey, whose total increase in education resources between 2002–03 and 2004–05 was estimated to be above 12 per cent. per pupil. A list of indicative allocations has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether after the introduction of variable tuition fees in 2006, those higher education institutions wishing(a) to charge fees not exceeding the current standard flat-rate fees and (b) wishing to charge top-up fees for only some of their courses will be required to conclude a (i) full and (ii) partial access agreement. [136707]

  Alan Johnson
  As we set out in Widening participation in higher education, any higher education provider wishing to charge variable fees for any of its courses above the standard rate from 2006, will need to have an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). Institutions which do not charge fees above the standard rate for any of their courses will not be required to have an access agreement.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the public expenditure impact of including the income of cohabiting partners and new spouses in the assessment of residual income for tuition fee exemption from 2004–05; and what estimate he has made of the net change in the numbers paying full tuition fees which will result from the change. [137134]

  Alan Johnson
  We estimate that the change resulting from including the income of cohabiting partners and spouses will produce steady state savings of approximately £30 million on funding of tuition fees by 2007–08. The change is to be introduced for new students entering HE from 2004–05 onwards.

  This estimate has been derived using income-data from a number of sources and is indicative. Our best indication is that it could account for an increase of approximately three percentage points in the proportion of dependent students paying full tuition fees. We cannot give a precise estimate at this stage since some families will benefit from other aspects of the new household income definition, such as the new –1000 disregard for children financially dependent on the household.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, from (1) how many universities he has received representations on allowing them to charge tuition fees of more than –5,000 per annum; [137158]
  88W
  (2) which universities have indicated they wish to charge tuition fees above £3,000 a year; [137159]

  (3) if he will list the universities which have made representations to him on the level of tuition fees they wish to be free to charge, broken down by level. [137160]

  Alan Johnson
  I have received numerous representations on a number of matters from universities, both by means of formal correspondence and in meetings with Vice Chancellors. The level of fee has been covered in general terms in a number of these discussions.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of the money raised by universities from variable tuition fees he estimates will be invested in(a) teaching, (b) research, (c) bursaries for poorer students and (d) other categories if his proposals are implemented. [137211]

  Alan Johnson
  It will be for universities to decide how to invest their income in teaching and in research. We are considering and discussing how access to higher education can be safeguarded—for example through bursaries for poorer students—at institutions which decide to charge tuition fees above the standard rate.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many universities he estimates will charge the proposed maximum annual tuition fee in respect of courses covering up to(a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 30 per cent., (d) 40 per cent., (e) 50 per cent., (f) 60 per cent., (g) 70 per cent., (h) 80 per cent., (i) 90 per cent. and (j) 100 per cent. of their projected student intake within (i) one year, (ii) two years, (iii) three years and (iv) more than three years of the implementation of his proposals. [137217]

  Alan Johnson
  It will be up to universities themselves to set their fee levels, provided that they have an access agreement approved by the Office for Fair Access.

  University Funding
  Mr. Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the funding gap faced by universities in 2003–04. [137162]

  Alan Johnson
  The White Paper The future of higher education'highlighted studies showing that there was a need for some £8 billion of investment in infrastructure and referred to the continuing concerns about the ability of higher education institutions to recruit, retain and reward the best researchers. The funding announced in the White Paper and in the annual grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England provides annual increases in higher education funding in England of 6 per cent. above inflation in each of the years to 2005–06.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from businesses on their preferred methods of contributing to more funding for teaching in universities. [137298]

  Alan Johnson
  None.

  University Medical Schools
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 502W, on university medical schools, if he will break down the sum of –126,092 by individual institution in receipt of such funding; how many of the full-time medical students were on a course that leads to registration with the General Medical Council and subsequent clinical practice as a
  90W
  doctor; and if he will break down such students on courses leading to registration with the GMC by university. [136730]

  Alan Johnson
  The sum referred to was allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) which does not, as a matter of policy, publish sensitive student data at course level for individual institutions. Of the 480 full-time students under 21 in medical schools, only 81 are on a course that leads to registration with the General Medical Council and subsequent practice as a doctor.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Abuse
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offences of child abuse there were in Romford in each year since 1997; [133479]

  (2) how many muggings there were in Romford in each year since 1997. [133517]

  Paul Goggins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 18W.

  ADD/ADHD
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research his Department has commissioned into ADD/ADHD in young offender institutions; [136229]

  (2) what meetings have been held between his Department and the Departments for Health and Education and Skills on ADD/ADHD among inmates of young offender institutions; [136230]

  (3) what steps his Department has taken to assess the implications on behavioural difficulties of ADD/ADHD in young people in young offender institutions; [136231]

  (4) how many young people were diagnosed with (a) ADD, (b) ADHD and prescribed Ritalin in (i) young offender institutions and (ii) secure training centres in each of the last five years. [136232]

  Paul Goggins
  The Youth Justice Board (YJB) has commissioned Manchester University to undertake research at six sites, four of which are young offenders'institutions, into the prevalence of mental ill health, including Attention Deficit Hyper Activity Disorder (ADHD), and effective mental health practice. The YJB has developed a Mental Health Screening Tool and guidance on effective mental health practice. It is also developing a mental health awareness training pack for use by teams working with young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system.

  Officials in the Home Office and the Department of Health regularly discuss the whole range of health care issues in prisons and young offender institutions. The extent to which Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)/ADHD may be a significant problem in individual prison establishments would be expected to emerge from the regular health needs assessments undertaken jointly by prisons and their national health service partners.

  The Department of Health, the Prison Service and the YJB have created a new post of Programme Manager for Juvenile Health. This post will enable a greater focus on health issues such as ADD/ADHD, which are of potentially great significance in young offender institutions. The Government are investing significant additional resources, rising to around an extra £46 million in England by 2005–06, in prison health services over the next three years. Information is not collected centrally about the number of young people in young offenders'institutions and the juvenile
  92W
  secure estate who have been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD or the particular treatments prescribed for them.

  Administrative Staff (Police)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the budget for personnel within the London borough of Havering Police Force was spent on administrative employees in 2002–03. [136480]

  Ms Blears
  The Commissioner of the Metropolis informs me that £1,630,520 was spent on police staff in Havering in the financial year 2002–03. This was 12 per cent. of the total pay bill for the year.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions there have been between his Department and the Office of the Solicitor General regarding the involvement of the Crown Prosecution Service in local antisocial behaviour strategies. [136165]

  Ms Blears
  My officials have liased directly, and have worked closely with the Crown Prosecution Service on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill and the development of Anti-Social Behaviour Prosecutors.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent meetings he has held with the Association of Chief Police Officers on safeguards for historical child abuse investigations. [136261]

  Ms Blears
  In June 2003, following the debate on the Home Affairs Committee (HAC)'s report on "The Investigation of Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Homes," Discussions should be held between the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Home Office to determine whether further safeguards could be built into the dip sampling process and to reconsider the issue of recording witness statements in video in these cases.

  I am corresponding with ACPO regarding these matters.

  Cognitive Skills Programme (Offenders)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Home Office Research Study on cognitive skills programmes and two-year reconviction rates for offenders. [136259]

  Paul Goggins
  The latest evaluation of prison-based cognitive skills programmes was reported in Home Office Research Finding 206 published in July 2003. The study found no difference in two-year reconviction rates for offenders who participated in programmes and a matched comparison group for the period 1996 to 1998. This study contrasted with Home Office Research Finding 161 published in 2002, which found a statistically significant reduction in two-year

  93W
  reconviction rates for programme participants between 1994 and 1996 compared to a matched comparison group. Both studies involved adult male prisoners.

  The latest findings relate to a period when programmes were rapidly expanded and this may have affected their delivery and outcomes. Further research is needed to determine in greater detail which programmes are suitable for particular offenders. A third Home Office study of cognitive skills programmes in prisons for the period 1998 to 2000 is expected to be published before the end of the year. A Home Office study evaluating cognitive skills programmes in the community between 2000 and 2001 is expected to report reconviction outcomes before the end of 2004.

  Compensation
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much compensation has been paid by(a) the police, (b) the Prison Service and (c) his Department in each year since 1990. [132737]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is set out in the following table. However the information is available only for the last five years because the cost of interrogating records beyond that would be disproportionate.

  The Home Office does not collate and hold information regarding compensation paid by individual police authorities and forces.

  Police

  The Police do not hold detailed information centrally and each area is responsible for its own compensation reporting.

  £

  Prison Service

  2002–03

  9,691,283.06

  2001–02

  12,321,679.28

  2000–01

  15,305,570.11

  1999–2000

  6,498,507.33

  1998–99

  477,497.50

  Home Office total

  2002–03

  238,515,530.61

  2001–02

  243,085,189.62

  2000–01

  220,759,992.63

  1999–2000

  123,274,145.86

  1998–99

  142,423,165.39

  of which:

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  2002–03

  237,264,000.00

  2001–02

  233,264.000.00

  2000–01

  200,500,000.00

  1999–2000

  121,500,000.00

  1998–99

  106,500.000.00

  Corporate Killing
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out his timetable for introducing legislation to tackle corporate killing. [130923]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government has made a commitment to publish firm proposals for reforming the law on corporate manslaughter before the end of the year. A Bill will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the draft Bill on corporate manslaughter; and if he will make a statement. [132581]

  Paul Goggins
  A Bill will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time allows. The Government have made a commitment to publish draft proposals for reforming the law on corporate manslaughter before the end of the year.

  Correspondence
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a copy of a letter dated 25 September from UK Visas, concerning the case of Jaswinder Singh (ECR88274102S); and when he will inform the Foreign Office of the outcome of this case. [134922]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have been asked to reply.

  UK Visas's letter of 25 September was not passed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary since this referred to an entry clearance matter, which is primarily a Foreign and Commonwealth Office matter.

  It is not our practice to disclose details of individual entry clearance cases in a public forum. I am withholding the information requested about the outcome of this case under exemption 5 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, I will shortly write to my hon. Friend with regard to this matter.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Yeovil on 7 October. [136571]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 November 2003]My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) wrote to hon. Member on 4 November 2003.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 2 September from the Member for Banff and Buchan to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston regarding his constituent, Mrs. N. Cook, of Ash Recruitment Services. [136758]

  Beverley Hughes
  I apologise to the hon. Member that he was not kept informed of progress in replying to his letter. Initially it was unclear whether the response should come from the Home Office, or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). However, this letter has since been accepted by the FCO who will reply shortly.
  95W
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 9 September from the Member for Banff and Buchan to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston concerning HIV testing of asylum seekers. 136760]

  Beverley Hughes
  My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) wrote to the hon. Member on 6 November 2003.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of 25 October 2001 and 17 July 2002 from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. [137094]

  Beverley Hughes
  I replied to the hon. Member on 15 August 2002.

  Crime Statistics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for trends in robbery in Nottinghamshire between December 2001 and 2002. [136245]

  Ms Blears
  There was an increase in robbery across England and Wales in 2001–02, which occurred principally in urban areas. Nottinghamshire was one of the areas affected. According to Home Office research, the increase in robbery over this period is attributable to several factors, in particular, the rise in the number of young people robbing other young people allied to the sharp increase in mobile phone ownership providing easy targets for offenders. While Nottinghamshire was not one of the areas that the research drew data from, it aimed to consider a sufficiently large sample to gain an impression of the nature of robbery in different areas of England and Wales. On 14 October 2002, the Home Office published figures for the first six months of the Street Crime Initiative (April to September 2002), which showed that there had been 19 per cent. more robberies in Nottinghamshire in the six-month period April to September 2002 compared to the same period in 2001. By the end of the year, the increase had reduced to 3 per cent. (comparing the 12-month period with the previous year).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what trends there have been in the level of street crime in the areas targeted by the Street Crime Initiative since December 2002. [136246]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly Update to June 2003", published on 16 October 2003, shows that recorded robbery fell by an estimated seven per cent. in April to June 2003 compared with the same period in the previous year. This quarterly update does not give figures for individual forces. Data for individual forces will be available in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin for the financial year 2003–04, expected to be published in the summer of 2004.

  The latest published figures for individual forces relate to 2002–03, published in July. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 16 September 2003, Official Report, column 674W.

  Crime Victims
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to develop a list of services to victims of crime which are available from the(a) probation and (b) prison service. [135489]

  Paul Goggins
  General information about the National Probation Service's (NPS) statutory victim contact scheme is already available on the probation service website at www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk and in the Home Office leaflet: "Release of Prisoners: Information for victims of sexual or other violent offences". The leaflet is free and is available in a range of languages and is given, by the police, to victims who are eligible for the statutory scheme. The leaflet also contains information about the Prison Service Victims'Helpline and the services available from Victim Support. More detailed information about probation service work with victims can be obtained from local probation area offices. There are no plans to develop or publish a separate list of services for victims of crime available from either service as this information is already in the public domain.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 961W. how many disclosures were issued each month; and what the average length of time was it took each month to issue them. [129438]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 September 2003]: The information requested is shown in the table:

  Issued by month and average turnaround times

  Month

  Standard disclosures issued

  Enhanced disclosures issued

  Total disclosures issued

  Average turnaround time

  March 2002

  22

  20

  42

  1—

  April 2002

  409

  2,389

  2,798

  19.91

  May 2002

  2,070

  17,376

  19,446

  25.57

  June 2002

  4,315

  30,585

  34,9000

  33.91

  July 2002

  12,828

  76,258

  89,086

  20.48

  August 2002

  14,116

  96,925

  110,411

  26.22

  September 2002

  16,613

  118,505

  135,118

  31.98

  October 2002

  22,620

  159,226

  181,846

  30.25

  November 2002

  23,257

  159,199

  182,456

  34.22

  December 2002

  22,347

  148,707

  171,054

  34.29

  January 2003

  18,251

  152,442

  170,693

  45.54

  February 2003

  20.816

  142,330

  163,146

  40.45

  March 2003

  21,814

  158,915

  180,729

  33.00

  April 2003

  19,700

  140,259

  159,959

  22.03

  May 2003

  19,535

  139,962

  159,497

  23.54

  June 2003

  23,644

  152,538

  176,007

  25.39

  July 2003

  28,388

  196,538

  224,926

  25.11

  Total

  270,745

  1,891,369

  2,162,114

  29.49

  1 No data

  The figures show the Criminal Records Bureau's steadily improving performance in recent months as regards turnaround times and output. The increase in July's turnaround time figure can be attributed to a surge in applications during the last two weeks in June in advance of the increase in fees taking effect.

  The Criminal Records Bureau received approximately 50,000 more applications than its usual intake during this period. While this increase in applications temporarily

  97W
  increased the turnaround times for applications, the Criminal Records Bureau has continued to meet its standard of service targets.

  Custody (Deaths)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that families whose children have died in custody are informed of developments in investigations; [135788]

  (2) what measures are in place to prevent death of young people in custody. [135790]

  Paul Goggins
  All deaths in prison custody are subject to a police investigation and a coroner's inquest before a jury, in which the family can be involved. The Prison Service conducts an internal investigation and is currently trialling new guidelines designed to incorporate independence and ensure greater participation of the family, for example, by commenting on the terms of reference of the investigation and having discussions with members of the investigatory team.

  In the case of a juvenile death (15–17 year-old) it is the practice to invite the Youth Justice Board (YJB), social services and either the Chief Inspector of Prisons or the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman to advise the investigation. More generally I am considering whether from a future date the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman should provide independent scrutiny of all deaths in prison custody. Families may interact more readily with an independent investigator.

  The Prison Service, in conjunction with the Youth Justice Board, Social Services Inspectorate, the Chief Inspector of Prisons and Social Services has just completed a review of "safeguarding" arrangements within the Juvenile Estate. Safeguarding is an inclusive approach to the care of juveniles in custody and includes suicide prevention and self-harm management anti-bullying, child protection, anti-discrimination and an overall holistic approach to care in custody. This Child Protection and Safeguards Review also considered the role of other statutory agencies in light of the High Court judgement by Lord Justice Munby in November 2002, which judged that the Children's Act 1989 applies to children in custody. The results of the review, which will include considerations and recommendations at strategic and local levels to further improve the service which can offered to juveniles in custody, are to be published in the New Year, and a copy placed in the House Library.

  As you will be aware from my earlier Answer (133050 and 133052), the YJB has fully embraced the Prison Service safer custody strategy (which is applicable to all prisoners, regardless of gender and age). This strategy includes a series of inter-related projects to improve pre-reception, reception and induction arrangements; interagency information exchange; prisoner care; or the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman to advise the investigation. More generally I am considering whether from a future date the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman should provide independent scrutiny of all deaths in prison custody. Families may interact more readily with an independent investigator. The Prison Service, in conjunction with the Youth Justice Board, Social Services Inspectorate, the Chief Inspector of
  98W
  Prisons and Social Services has just completed a review of "safeguarding" arrangements within the Juvenile Estate. Safeguarding is an inclusive approach to the care of juveniles in custody and includes suicide prevention and self-harm management anti-bullying, child protection, anti-discrimination and an overall holistic approach to care in custody. This Child Protection and Safeguards Review also considered the role of other statutory agencies in light of the High Court judgement by Lord Justice Munby in November 2002, which judged that the Children's Act 1989 applies to children in custody. The results of the review, which will include considerations and recommendations at strategic and local levels to further improve the service which can offered to juveniles in custody, are to be published in the New Year, and a copy placed in the House Library.

  As you will be aware from my earlier Answer (133050 and 133052), the YJB has fully embraced the Prison Service safer custody strategy (which is applicable to all prisoners, regardless of gender and age). This strategy includes a series of inter-related projects to improve pre-reception, reception and induction arrangements; inter-agency information exchange; prisoner care; detoxification; prisoner peer support, and the learning from investigations into deaths in custody. There is also a programme piloted in six establishments, including Feltham young offender institution which holds young offenders and juveniles, which has invested £21.69 million over the three year programme from April 2001 on improvements to areas such as reception and induction.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a departmental investigation into each death in custody of a young person in prison in the past ten years. [135789]

  Paul Goggins
  I have no current plans further to review these deaths. More generally I am considering whether from a future date the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman should provide independent scrutiny of all deaths in prison custody.

  All deaths in prison custody are subject to a police investigation and a coroner's inquest before a jury. From August 1998 there has been a mandatory requirement for an internal investigation to be commissioned into all apparent self-inflicted deaths in custody or "non-natural" causes. A clinical audit is undertaken in respect of a natural causes death in custody. It is now the practice in respect of juvenile death (15–17 year olds) in prison to invite the Youth Justice Board and social services to participate in the investigation.

  Custody Plus
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to implement Custody Plus, as outlined in the Criminal Justice Bill. [135996]

  Paul Goggins
  Final decisions about implementation have not been made.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pedal cyclists were
  99W
  prosecuted for failure to stop at traffic signals in the most recent 12 month period for which data are available. [136391]

  Paul Goggins
  There were 38 pedal cyclists proceeded against in England and Wales in 2001 for the offence of neglect of traffic directions (which will include failing to stop at traffic signals).

  David Blaine
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was to(a) the Metropolitan Police and (b) the local authority of policing Mr.David Blaine's recent activities near Tower Bridge; and if he will make a statement. [134096]

  Ms Blears
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that the additional policing cost is currently estimated at £64,135. The final day's costs have still to be calculated. Over half the cost will be offset by income from a television company.

  Southwark Council have informed me that all their costs, for parking, cleaning etc. will be met by income from the television company.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much(a) electricity and (b) other energy his Department has used in each year since 1997 (i) in total and (ii) per square metre; what the projected use is for each of the following years for which forecasts are made; what plans he has to reduce usage; and if he will make a statement. [135055]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 3 November 2003,Official Report, columns. 403W, which answers the first part of the question.

  The Home Office is covered by the Government's target of reducing carbon emissions from buildings on the Government estate by 1 per cent. per annum. However, the prison service is anticipating that its energy consumption will rise over the next few years due to an increase in the prison population with a

  Department

  Funding

  Usage

  Prison Service

  118,117,000

  Detox, Rehab, TCs1, Short Programmes, CARATs2

  Department of Health

  3,500,000

  Improving Clinical Detoxification outcomes

  Home Office

  5,000,000

  CJIP Throughcare and Aftercare of prisoners3

  Youth Justice Board

  10,000,000

  ASSET4, treatment, throughcare, aftercare

  Total

  136,617,000

  1 Therapeutic Communities

  2 Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice &Through-care services—a low-level intervention that provides gateway assessment, referral and support services to prisoners in custody, and establishes through-care links prior to and on release.

  3 Relates to the 25 DATs included in the Criminal Justice Intervention Programme

  4 ASSET: generic assessment tool call to identify the factors that contribute to a young persons offending.

  Drugs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) male and (b) female prisoners have been imprisoned for
  100W
  consequent increase in the size of the estate and the rollout of new IT systems throughout the prison service. They are also anticipating that increased education, training and other regime opportunities for prisoners and more intensive use of existing facilities will also cause consumption to rise.

  Although the prison service is anticipating a rise in total consumption for the reasons outlined above, they are aiming at reducing their consumption per inmate. They have set emission targets for each establishment using benchmarks. Efforts to improve energy efficiency are concentrated on those establishments with the worst benchmarked energy performance with a view to all establishments achieving the best practice benchmark.

  The core Department is currently planning a publicity campaign aimed at encouraging its office based staff to switch off lights, IT and office machinery when not in use. Environmental Management Systems are also being introduced across the estate and these will address issues such as energy efficiency. The new Home Office headquarters building includes a contractual requirement to achieve energy consumption at least 10 per cent. below the best practice benchmark for headquarters buildings in the Government's energy efficient best practice programme energy consumption guide.

  Drug Addiction Treatment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is available for drug addiction treatment of(a) prisoners and (b) ex-prisoners in 2003–04; and what change has been recorded in reoffending rates for those who complete their treatment. [136057]

  Paul Goggins
  In 2003–04 £136,617,000 has been allocated to provide drug treatment for prisoners in England and Wales. It is not possible to differentiate between funding provided to treat ex-prisoners and others who access treatment in the community. The following table details the funding allocations for treating prisoners and those leaving custody. Research evidence shows that intensive drug treatment linked to good aftercare can result in reductions in reoffending of upto 11 per cent. compared with expected levels of offending.

  reoffending for drugs offences on more than three occasions in the last five years. [135654]

  Paul Goggins
  There is no information held centrally by the Home Office.

  Female Rape
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlie the increase in female rape in the year leading up to March 2003. [136243]

  Beverley Hughes
  Sexual offences are significantly under-reported to the authorities. Police and Government action to support the victims of sexual assaults is likely to have increased the number of such incidents being brought to the attention of the police and therefore recorded by them. The introduction of the new National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) for all forces in April 2002 has further increased the recording rate because it requires the police to record all reported offences even if there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Trends in the number of recorded sexual offences does not, therefore, necessarily reflect the real experience of such crimes. The Government are taking action on a variety of fronts to reduce the actual incidence of rape.

  Football (Policing Costs)
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was of policing football matches in the 2002–03 season; and how much of the total cost was paid by football clubs. [135751]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally by the Home Office.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the working group on policing at football matches to report; and if he will list the membership of the working group. [135752]

  Ms Blears
  The working group set up to consider matters associated with the resources deployed, and cost of, policing football is still considering a range of complex issues. The group has met on a number of occasions but has not concluded its deliberations. It would be premature to speculate on the outcome but a final or interim report will be sought early next year.

  The group's core membership is Home Office, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Association of Chief Police Officers, Association of Police Authorities, Football Association. Football League, Premier League and Football Licensing Authority.

  Football Matches (Policing)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost of policing football matches in the 2002–03 season was in Lancashire; and how much of the cost was paid for by football clubs. [136981]

  Ms Blears
  This information is not collected centrally by the Home Office.

  Foreign National Prisoners
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people held in Her Majesty's Prisons(a) are non-EU foreign nationals, (b) are seeking leave to remain in the United Kingdom and (c) have been a United Kingdom resident for less than 10 years. [136425]
  102W
  Paul Goggins
  At 30 April 2003, the population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales who were known to be non-EU nationals was 4,513.

  Information on the number seeking leave to remain in the United Kingdom or the number who have been a United Kingdom resident for less than 10 years is not held centrally.

  Frozen Assets (Charities)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total value is of the accounts frozen by the Charity Commission on the basis of possible links of these charities to terrorist organisations. [136426]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  This is a matter for the Charity Commission as the Department responsible for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. The Chief Charity Commissioner will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Prison Service spent on purchasing and upgrading IT equipment(a) in 2003 and (b) in 2002; and what this cost per prison employee. [135897]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service entered into a contract with EDS in 2000 for the provision of a fully managed information technology and telephony service. Payment is based on the number of personal computers supported under the contract. The cost of the IT element only of the contract, together with the cost of non-IT activities, amounted to £32,094,111 in 2001–02 and £47,471,074 in 2002–2003. This is equivalent to £728 per average full time equivalent employee in 2001–2002 and £1,045 in 2002–2003.

  Staff Vacancies at Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions(YOIs) at 30 June 20031

  Area

  Establishment

  Officers and Senior Operational Managers

  Others

  High Security Prisons

  Belmarsh

  49

  28

  East Midlands(South)

  Durham

  6

  –

  Frankland

  30

  16

  Long Lartin

  25

  2

  Manchester

  14

  27

  Wakefield

  9

  –

  Whitemoor

  52

  22

  Woodhill

  23

  22

  Juvenile

  Huntercombe

  12

  –

  Establishments

  Warren Hill

  10

  7

  Werrington

  6

  8

  Wetherby

  4

  1

  Women's Prisons and YOIs

  Askham Grange

  –

  1

  Brockhill

  1

  5

  Buckley Hall

  4

  –

  Bullwood Hall

  14

  Cookham Wood

  6

  –

  Downview

  18

  6

  Drake Hall

  9

  –

  East Sutton Park

  –

  –

  Eastwood Park

  15

  1

  Foston Hall

  1

  Edmunds Hill

  44

  41

  Holloway

  19

  17

  Low Newton

  –

  –

  Morton Hall

  –

  2

  103W

  Staff Vacancies at Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions(YOIs) at 30 June 20031

  Area

  Establishment

  Officers and Senior Operational Managers

  Others

  New Hall

  -9

  13

  Send

  6

  10

  Styal

  -

  23

  East Midlands (North)

  Lincoln

  11

  -

  North Sea Camp

  2

  -

  Nottingham

  8

  -

  Ranby

  -

  -

  Sudbury

  1

  1

  Whatton

  1

  -

  East Midlands (North)

  Ashwell

  1

  9

  Gartree

  -

  -

  Glen Parva

  -

  -

  Leicester

  -

  -

  Onley

  13

  7

  Stocken

  9

  5

  Wellingborough

  13

  4

  Eastern

  Bedford

  15

  15

  Blundeston

  -

  -

  Chelmsford

  4

  6

  Highpoint

  -

  18

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  1

  Littlehey

  14

  16

  Norwich

  11

  16

  Kent, Surrey and Sussex

  The Mount

  11

  6

  Wayland

  2

  5

  Blantyre House

  1

  -

  Canterbury

  -

  3

  Coldingley

  -

  4

  Dover

  5

  11

  Elmley

  -

  5

  Ford

  3

  6

  High Down

  18

  10

  Lewes

  5

  19

  Maidstone

  4

  -

  Rochester

  11

  8

  Standford Hill

  3

  4

  Swaleside

  12

  -

  London

  Brixton

  22

  23

  Feltham

  31

  15

  Latchmere House

  1

  3

  Pentonville

  11

  27

  Wandsworth

  31

  8

  Wormwood Scrubs

  43

  30

  North East

  Acklington

  3

  -

  Castington

  11

  4

  Deerbolt

  -

  7

  Holme House

  3

  -

  Kirklevington

  -

  -

  Grange

  North West

  Garth

  16

  -

  Haverigg

  2

  3

  Hindley

  45

  18

  Kirkham

  -

  4

  Lancaster

  9

  -

  Lancaster Farms

  35

  -

  Liverpool

  22

  -

  Preston

  15

  -

  Risley

  -

  11

  Thorn Cross

  7

  -

  Wymott

  6

  -

  South West

  Bristol

  36

  28

  Channings wood

  -

  -

  Dartwoor

  7

  -

  Dorchester

  13

  3

  Erlestroke

  16

  3

  Exeter

  -

  6

  Gloucester

  10

  2

  Guys Marsh

  6

  2

  Leyhill

  8

  -

  Portland

  -

  -

  Shepton Mallet

  -

  -

  The Verne

  1

  2

  Weare

  4

  2

  Thames Valley and Hampshire

  Albany

  14

  -

  Aylesbury

  6

  -

  Bullingdon

  40

  16

  Camp Hill

  2

  Grendon

  7

  8

  Haslar

  7

  5

  104W

  Staff Vacancies at Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (YOIs) at 30 June 20031

  Area

  Establishment

  Officers and Senior Operational Managers

  Others

  Wales

  Kingston

  -

  1

  Parkhurst

  10

  11

  Reading

  -

  2

  Winchester

  7

  12

  Cardiff

  7

  13

  Swansea

  3

  -

  Usk/Prescoed

  3

  6

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  99

  5

  Blakenhurst

  -

  -

  Brinsford

  7

  -

  Featherstone

  2

  2

  Hewell Grange

  1

  6

  Shrewsbury

  -

  -

  Stafford

  2

  -

  Stoke Heath

  6

  -

  Swinfen Hall

  -

  -

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Everthorpe

  -

  -

  Hull

  7

  -

  Leeds

  4

  -

  Lindholme

  5

  -

  Moorland

  -

  -

  Northallerton

  -

  1

  Wealstun

  2

  -

  Total:

  1,247

  700

  1 Figures do not take into account new staff who were still in the recruitment process at 30 June 2003

  Inner London Probation Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies there are in the Inner London Probation Service; and if he will make a statement. [136863]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows:

  London Probation Area

  Number of Vacancies1Vacancies as at 30 June2(FTE)

  Senior Probation Officers

  4.00

  Senior Practitioners

  0.00

  Probation Officers

  0.00

  Trainee Probation Officers

  0.00

  Probation Services Officers

  160.00

  Psychologists

  0.50

  Other operational Staff

  0.00

  Total Operational Staff

  164.50

  Deputy Chief Officers/Directors

  0.00

  Assistant Chief Officers or Equivalent

  2.00

  Area/District Managers or Equivalent

  0.00

  Managers—Section or Function Heads

  0.00

  Support Staff—Administration

  0.00

  Support Staff—Others

  0.00

  Other Specialist Workers

  0.00

  Total Support Staff

  2.00

  Total3

  166.50

  1 Figures shown as a Full-time Equivalent (FTE)

  2 Unable to obtain information from 3 (out of 42) Areas in time to make this response.

  3 Figures exclude those employed within and by the National Probation Directorate

  Note:

  The levels of vacancies across Area amount to 5.26 per cent. of the total workforce of the service. This is slightly below the national average of vacancies across the service of 5.23 per cent.

  Lancashire Constabulary
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what central Government spending was on the Lancashire Constabulary in each year since 1992. [134901]

  Ms Blears
  The information available is set out in the tables.

  Government Grant1Thousands

  1992–932

  N/a

  1993–942

  N/a

  1994–952

  N/A

  1995–96

  136,337

  1996–97

  143,926

  1997–98

  146,860

  1998–99

  153,628

  1999–2000

  155,938

  2000–01

  163,676

  2001–023

  172,966

  2002–033

  177,420

  2003–04

  187,365

  1 Government Grant includes Home Office Police grant, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) Revenue Support Grant and national non domestic rates, Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing Grant. Basic Command Unit funding, Community Support Officer funding, DNA Expansion Programme, Street Crime Initiative and Special Priority payments.

  2 Before 1995–96, when most Police Authorities became independent local authorities, revenue support grant and non-national domestic rates were paid as part of respective county council grant funding.

  3 The grant figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 are not directly comparable, as the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service became centrally rather than locally funded from 2002–3. Based on the new arrangements, the comparable grant figure for 2001–02 would have been £168,818,571.

  In addition, Lancashire received the following funding in capital grant, including Airwave and the Premises Improvement Fund.

  Thousands

  1995–96

  4,148

  1996–97

  2,730

  1997–98

  2,208

  1998–99

  2,414

  1999–2000

  2,183

  2000–01

  5,141

  2001–02

  13,395

  2002–03

  6,441

  2003–04

  5,094

  Leyhill Prison
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have been made to the criteria for allocating inmates to HMP Leyhill; and if he will make a statement. [136450]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]:Leyhill prison is an open training prison. Sentenced prisoners may be assessed for categorisation and allocation to open conditions either on initial categorisation following sentencing or during their sentence following a review of their security category.
  106W
  Initial categorisation procedures consider: current offence, sentence length, previous offending, previous escapes or absconds and previous breaches of non-custodial disposals. For prisoners indicated for category D, consideration is also given to issues such as: current drug use: any previous breaches of bail; the circumstances of the offence and vulnerability to bullying or coercion.

  Prisoners have their security category reviewed at regular intervals. Prisoners must be able to demonstrate that their risk is reduced sufficiently to warrant recategorisation to conditions of lower security. Where category D is indicated, consideration is given to any other issues which might suggest that the prisoner is otherwise unsuitable for open conditions.

  Revised initial categorisation and recategorisation forms were introduced in April 2003 and their use is being monitored. However, the procedures detailed above remain unchanged. No changes have been made locally to the acceptance criteria at Leyhill prison.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the visits within the UK made by Ministers in his Department in each of the last five years, broken down by constituency. [136951]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Detailed information for all Ministers in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mobile Phone Theft
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of reported street crime involved the theft of mobile phones in each of the London boroughs in 2002–03. [136473]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office does not centrally collect or collate national statistics on the numbers of mobile phone thefts as mobile phone theft is not a separate crime category. Mobile phone theft crime figures are included within the crime categories of robbery, snatch theft and theft from the person.

  Home Office Research ("Mobile Phone Theft", HORS 235) published in January 2002 estimated that mobile phones were stolen in 28 per cent. of all robberies in 2000–01. The Metropolitan Police Service estimate that around 50 per cent. of street crime in London involved the theft of a mobile phone.

  National Probation Service
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation staff were in post on 30 June, broken down by grade; and how many vacancies there were in the National Probation Service on the same date. [135998]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows.
  107W

  Number of staff in post and vacancies1

  England and Wales

  Staff in post as at 30 June(FTE)

  Vacancies as at 30 June2(FTE)

  Senior Probation Officers

  1,172.90

  36.10

  Senior Practitioners

  279.50

  23.30

  Probation Officers

  5,073.67

  323.20

  Trainee Probation Officers

  1,519.70

  58.20

  Probation Services Officers

  4,925.43

  326.10

  Psychologists

  34.00

  0.50

  Other operational Staff

  735.00

  22.70

  Total Operational Staff

  13,740.70

  790.10

  Deputy Chief Officers/Directors

  41.70

  2.00

  Assistant Chief Officers or Equivalent

  281.20

  7.70

  Area/District Managers or Equivalent

  93.50

  0.60

  Manager—Section or Function Heads

  374.90

  10.90

  Support Staff—Administration

  3,533.30

  199.87

  Support Staff—Others

  363.40

  53.80

  Other Specialist Workers

  194.30

  4.70

  Total Support Staff

  4,882.70

  279.57

  Total3

  18,623.40

  1,069.67

  1 Figures shown as a Full-time Equivalent (FTE)

  2 Unable to obtain information from 3 (out of 42) Areas in time to make this response.

  3 Figures exclude those employed within and by the National Probation Directorate

  Note:

  The levels of vacancies across the National Probation Service (NPS) amount to 5.43 per cent. of the total workforce of the service.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons(a) joined and (b) left the National Probation Service for England and Wales in 2002–03, broken down by grade. [135999]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested
  is as follows:

  England and Wales

  Persons joining the National Probation Service

  Number of leavers and joiners1 persons leaving the National Probation Service

  Deputy Chief Officers

  4

  3

  Assistant Chief Officers2

  30

  13

  Senior Chief Officers

  43

  78

  Probation Officers3

  723

  642

  All other staff

  2,079

  1,670

  Total

  2,879

  2,406

  1 Figures shown in Headcount

  2 Includes area managers

  3 Includes senior practitioners, trainee probation officers, temporary probation officers

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which probation areas in England and Wales expect a budget deficit for the current financial year; and what staffing consequences he expects as a result. [136000]

  Paul Goggins
  The following probation areas in England and Wales are currently forecasting a budget deficit in excess of one per cent. of the budget allocation:

  Cumbria, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, Northamptonshire, Staffordshire, Surrey, Teesside, London and South Wales.

  The National Probation Directorate is currently in discussion with these areas and they are being asked to explain the reasons for the forecast budget deficits in order that action can be taken to reduce or eliminate the deficits.
  108W
  Other areas, which are currently forecasting a deficit below one per cent. of their budget allocation, will be expected to manage their operations in such a way that any deficit is avoided.

  Overall, the probation areas are expected to spend within budget.

  No staffing consequences are expected.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many trainee probation officers were appointed in each of the last five years; and how many left(a) less than 12 months after appointment, (b) between one and two years after appointment and (c) between two and three years after appointment. [136003]

  Paul Goggins
  In the last five years a total of 3,269 trainee probation officers have been appointed with a further 159 due to start in January 2004 as part of the 2003 recruitment process. This will make a total of 3,374.

  A total of 268 trainees were recruited in 1999; 282 in 2000; 931 in 2001; 780 in 2002; 1,113 will be the final total of the 2003 recruitment of which 954 have already commenced training.

  Of the 3,269 trainees who have so far commenced or completed the training a total of 125 (3.8 per cent.) left less than 12 months after appointment and 45 (1.4 per cent.) left between one and two years after appointment.

  Within the past five years a total of 1,481 trainees have completed the programme and become newly qualified officers: the most up to date information shows that of these 35 (2.4 per cent.) left the probation service between two and three years after appointment.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources he will provide to the National Probation Service to help it meet its obligations in the new sentencing plans under the Criminal Justice Bill. [136256]

  Paul Goggins
  Final decisions about both the timing of implementation of the sentencing measures in the Criminal Justice Bill, and the allocation of supporting financial provision to the National Probation Service (NPS) beyond the current financial year, have not yet been made.

  The major resource demand for the NPS will arise from the implementation of custody plus. The NPS has begun recruiting additional trainee probation officers to its two-year training programme. We have allocated £11.5 million in this financial year to support this capacity building.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has obtained funds from the Treasury to enable him to commence the construction of new prisons. [135994]

  Paul Goggins
  The Treasury have provided funding to acquire at least two sites in 2004–05 for the future development of large multi-function prisons.
  109W
  A further 1,290 prison places will also be provided through the new prisons currently under construction at Ashford (near Heathrow) and at Peterborough.

  Passport Charges
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) when it was decided to change the date of the recent increase of passport charges; [136744]

  (2) how many people have complained about the earlier than advertised rise in passport charges; [136745]

  (3) Department how much he estimates will have been generated in extra revenue from the rise in passport charges on 2 October rather than 1 November. [136747]

  (4) how many people he estimates have been affected by the earlier than advertised rise in passport charges. [136748]

  Beverley Hughes
  The new fees that became effective on 2 October 2003 were set by the Consular Fees Order 2003, a statutory instrument which was approved by the Privy Council on 17 July and approved by Parliament on 18 July 2003.

  Since the announcement was made, 774 complaints have been received at United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) Headquarters and the seven Regional Offices via telephone, fax, letter, e-mail and complaint forms submitted at our counters.

  The effect of implementing the rise in passport fees on 2 October as opposed to 1 November is estimated to be £2.6 million additional revenues.

  Unfortunately we have no data which enables us to determine how many people have been affected by the earlier than advertised rise in passport charges;

  Between 2 October 2003 and 2 November 2003, UKPS has issued 407,800 passports. The number of complaints received therefore represent approximately 0.189 per cent. of the total of all passports issued since the fee increase.

  Persistent Offenders
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's initiatives for tackling persistent offenders. [136244]

  Paul Goggins
  The Persistent Offender Scheme came into effect in April 2003. It is an obligatory component of Local Criminal Justice Boards'action plans to increase the number of offences brought to justice, aimed at targeting a small group of prolific offenders who are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime. Areas have devised their own premium service protocols which include elements of proactive policing, improved investigations and case management, priority court listings, and strategies for rehabilitation. As well as targeting core persistent offenders, who are over 18 and have been convicted of six or more recordable offences in the last year, as part of their wider crime reduction strategies areas are also using the scheme flexibly to target persistent offenders defined on the basis of local intelligence.
  110W
  The scheme is supported by an information system which is shared between criminal justice agencies, enabling persistent offenders to be tracked as their cases progress through the criminal justice system, and attrition points in the system to be identified and targeted for intervention.

  In addition, the Government have given the courts new secure remand and tagging powers for 12 to 16-year-olds who repeatedly offend on bail, funded the Youth Justice Board's intensive supervision and surveillance programmes for the most prolific young offenders and renewed its commitment to maintain the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders at or below 71 days.

  Police
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police(a) constables, (b) sergeants and (c) inspectors transferred from the Kent Police Force to the Metropolitan Police Force in 2003–04. [135795]

  Ms Blears
  I am told by the Acting Chief Constable Kent (Mr. Robert Ayling QPM) that, between April and November 2003, 26 constables and two sergeants transferred voluntarily from Kent Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police Service.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent by the police in each of the last three years on(a) stationery and (b) IT equipment.[135869]

  Ms Blears
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Information on police authority stationery purchases is not held centrally.

  (b) Expenditure by police authorities on IT equipment is set out in the following table.

  Capital expenditure on information communication and technology1 (England and Wales)

  £000

  2001–02

  87,655

  2002–03

  241,358

  2003–04

  203,826

  >1 ICT expenditure includes expenditure on the Airwave communications system.

  Sources:

  2001–02 figures—CIPFA Police Statistics 2001–02 Actuals

  2002–03 figures—CIPFA Police Statistics 2002–03 Estimates

  2003–04 figures—CIPFA Police Statistics 2003–04 Estimates

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the budget for Surrey Police for financial year 2004–05. [137119]

  Ms Blears
  I shall announce details of the provisional police funding settlement for 2004–05 later this month. It is for Surrey Police Authority to determine its budget for next year.

  Police
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each basic command unit of Avon and Somerset constabulary in each of the last five years. [134553]
  111W
  Ms Blears
  Avon and Somerset Constabulary had 2,989 officers on 31 March 1997, which has increased by 315 to 3,304 in August this year, a record number.

  Information on police officer numbers for each Basic Command Unit (BCU) is only available for March 2002 and 2003 and is set out in the table.

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary—Number of officers allocated to Basic Command Units

  Basic Command Unit

  March 2002

  March 2003

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  228

  224

  Central Bristol

  367

  378

  North Bristol

  263

  255

  North Somerset

  203

  213

  Somerset East

  255

  257

  Somerset West

  295

  295

  South Bristol

  251

  251

  South Gloucester

  265

  263

  Total BCU Strength

  2,127

  2,136

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what in-service death benefits are payable to members of the Police. [136195]

  Ms Blears
  Death in-service benefits include a lump sum ranging from a death grant for all in-service deaths to a death gratuity for any death as a result of an injury in the execution of duty, where death occurs within one year of the injury. The lump sum death grant is twice the annual value of the officer's pensionable pay. The death grant will be the lesser of either five times the annual value of the officer's pensionable pay or four times his total remuneration during the last 12 months as an officer and his or her total pension contributions for that period.

  These lump sums are payable in addition to a widow or widower's pension and any other dependant's benefits where applicable. The surviving spouse's pension will range from half the officer's pension, had he or she been medically retired and not died in service, to a special award of 45 per cent. of the officer's average pensionable pay where death is as a result of an injury in the execution of duty. The special award will be augmented to 50 per cent. where death occurred in particular circumstances such as in the course of trying to save another's life.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the performance of the police forces that have come bottom of the league tables. [136414]

  Ms Blears
  The police performance monitors, which were published on 21 October 2003 are not league tables, but show performance across key areas of policing for each force in England and Wales, and show a comparison with similar forces.

  Our regular monitoring of police performance enables us to identify those forces whose performance needs to be improved. Her Majesty's Inspector Constabulary (HMIC) and the Police Standards Unit are currently working with a number of forces, whose performance is significantly below the average for their most similar forces, to help them address performance issues. This can involve assistance with performance management systems, improved use of forensics
  112W
  processes across a force, or more targeted assistance. This could take the form of the establishment of a policing priority area, or specific projects targeting an individual crime, such as burglary.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on(a) audio and (b) visual recording of police interviews. [136262]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Section 60 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides for the mandatory (audio) tape recording of interviews of persons suspected of the commission of criminal offences. Code E of the Codes of Practice issued under the above mentioned Act dictates the procedures through which the police should carry out this task. It became mandatory to tape record interviews in police stations in England and Wales using the procedures outlined in Code E on 1 January 1992.

  The Terrorism Act 2000 makes separate provision for a Code of Practice for the tape recording of interviews of those arrested under Section 41 or detained under Schedule 7 of the Act.

  (b) A pilot has been undertaken in five police forces (Metropolitan, Essex, Hampshire, Kent and West Mercia) to test all aspects of visually recording suspects'interviews. The pilot started in May 2002, except in Essex who started in October 2002, and they all finished on 31 October 2003. A team of Evaluators, from London School of Economics (LSE) and the University of Kent, are preparing a report on the project but this will not be with the Home Office till the end of December. However, from 1 November 2003 visual recording may be undertaken on a discretionary basis and it is a matter for each force (including those not involved in the pilot) to decide which types of cases should be recorded in this way. Police officers have been told that regard should still be paid to Code F (Visual Recording of Suspect Interviews) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when such interviews are undertaken.

  Guidance on conducting interviews with vulnerable or intimidated witnesses (VIWs) is set out in 'Achieving Best Evidence: Guidance for Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses, including Children'. This guidance is intended to assist those conducting video recorded interviews with VIWs as well as giving guidance to those who are tasked with preparing and supporting such witnesses throughout the criminal justice process. The document can be found at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/justice/legalprocess/witnesses/index.

  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in(a) England and (b) Nottinghamshire on (i) 1 April 1997, (ii) 1 April 2003 and (iii) 30 September 2003. [135622]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]:On 31 August (latest date for which figures are available) there was record police strength in England of 126,949, an increase of 8,490 since March 1997. Nottinghamshire Constabulary also had record police strength of 2,468, an increase of 145 since March 1997.

  In England and Wales on 31 August there were 136,386 police officers, again a record.
  113W
  In England alone there was also 59,403 police (support) staff on 31 March 2003 (latest date available), an increase of 8,847 since 1997. In Nottinghamshire there was 1,180, an increase of 177 since March 1997. Additionally Nottinghamshire had 10 Community Support Officers (CSO) at the end of August with plans for 45 CSOs by March 2004.

  The table sets out the figures for the years requested.

  England

  Nottinghamshire

  Police officer strength

  Police staff strength

  Police officer strength

  Police staff strength

  31 March 1997

  118,459

  50,556

  2,323

  1,003

  31 March 2003

  124,158

  59,403

  2,41 1

  1,180

  31 August 2003

  126,949

  n/a

  2,468

  n/a

  n/a—not available

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers there were in(a) Avon and Somerset constabulary and (b) Bath and North East Somerset Basic Command Unit in (i) 1997, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003; [136320]

  (2) how many burglaries there were in (a) Avon and Somerset constabulary and (b) Bath and North East Somerset Basic Command Unit in (i) 1997, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003; [136321]

  (3) how many vehicle crimes there were in Avon and Somerset in (a) 1997, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; [136322]

  (4) how many robberies there were in Avon and Somerset in (a) 1997, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; [136323]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available information is given in the tables.

  Number of police officers in Avon and Somerset Police Force Area (PFA) as at 31 March:

  Number

  1997

  12,989

  2002

  3,096

  2003

  3,149

  1 Excludes staff on career breaks or maternity/paternity leave (command with previously published figures).

  Details on the number of police officers at Basic Command Unit (BCU) are not available centrally.

  Number of burglary offences recorded by the police:

  1997

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Avon and Somerset PFA

  Total burglary

  31,220

  32,865

  30,182

  Burglary in a dwelling

  16,466

  15,995

  14,561

  Other burglary

  14,754

  16,870

  15,621

  Bath and North East Somerset BCU

  Burglary in a dwelling

  n/a

  1,563

  1,194

  BCD data are available from the financial year 1999–2000, onwards. Details on the number of total burglary, and other burglary offences, at BCD are not available centrally.
  114W
  Number of vehicle crime1 offences recorded by the police:

  Avon and Somerset PFA

  Number

  1997

  41,715

  2001–02

  40,791

  2002–03

  36,249

  1 Vehicle crime is comprised of theft of a motor vehicle, and theft from a vehicle offences

  Number of robbery offences recorded by the police:

  Avon and Somerset PFA

  Number

  1997

  1,562

  2001–02

  4,889

  2002–03

  3,504

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

  The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was introduced across England and Wales in April 2002. Some police forces adopted the standard prior to this date. Avon and Somerset police force introduced the standard in October 2000. Broadly, the NCRS had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the standard, numbers of recorded crimes are not comparable with previous years.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles are owned and used by the police within the constituency of Romford. [136479]

  Ms Blears
  The Commissioner of the Metropolis informs me that the information requested is not available for solely the constituency of Romford. In the borough of Havering, which covers Romford, the police service has a total of 31 vehicles.

  Prisons
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the number of prisoners who share a cell designed for one person. [133865]

  Paul Goggins
  As at 30 September 2003, 22.5 per cent. of the prisoner population were sharing two to a cell designed for one. This Equates to 16,552 prisoners. The data are provisional and subject to validation by establishments.

  The Prison Service keeps the impact of population pressures—including overcrowding on prisoners in all prisons—under careful review. The Government's programme of building and refurbishment will increase the Prison Service's capacity to 78,700 by 2006, including the provision of around 3,000 additional places in existing prisons by 2006. In addition, a new

  115W
  unit opened recently at Birmingham prison, six months ahead of schedule, and this will offer a further 452 places.

  A further 1,290 places will be provided by the new prisons currently under construction at Ashford (near Heathrow) and Peterborough. scheduled to open in June 2004 and March 2005 respectively.

  The Government's programme of building and refurbishment will increase the Prison Service's capacity to 78,700 by 2006. A new unit opened recently at Birmingham prison, six months ahead of schedule, and this will offer 452 places. A further 1.290 places will be provided by the new prisons currently under construction at Ashford (near Heathrow) and Peterborough, scheduled to open in June 2004 and March 2005 respectively.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were in(a) open and (b) closed prisons in each of the last five years, broken down by sex. [135653]

  Paul Goggins
  The information on the number of prisoners in open and closed prisons in each of the last five years, broken down by sex, is given in the table.

  Total open

  Total closed

  Male prison population as at 30 June

  1999

  3,801

  57,521

  2000

  3,719

  58,120

  2001

  3,490

  59,200

  2002

  4,026

  62,798

  2003

  4,496

  64,566

  Female prison population as at 30 June

  1999

  418

  2,789

  2000

  345

  3,010

  2001

  449

  3,264

  2002

  506

  3,888

  2003

  524

  4,071

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect of the Prison Service's strategies to reduce suicides in reducing the number of self-inflicted deaths. [136257]

  Paul Goggins
  Reducing the rate of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments is an essential part of the Prison Service's decency agenda and a priority for Ministers. The three-year safer custody strategy to develop policies and practices to reduce prisoner suicide and manage self-harm in prisons, implemented from April 2001, is currently under review. Account is being taken of emerging findings from practitioners and in-house and external researchers, and the views of a wide range of practitioners and external interests. I will be announcing the results of this work and next steps in spring 2004.

  A team from the University of Cambridge is measuring the impact of the Safer Locals Programme (essentially in six pilot establishments) on the quality of prison life, and investigating possible links between these measures and rates of suicide and self-harm. Interim results indicate that the focus of the strategy on
  116W
  the early period in custody, on local prisons, on high-risk prisoners with mental health and drug problems in particular, are the right ones.

  A team from Manchester and London Universities is also evaluating elements of the Safer Locals Programme, particularly a workstream called the Care of At-Risk Prisoners project, health care provision, and detoxification services. Additionally, researchers from the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science were commissioned to evaluate the impact of safer cells on suicide and self-harm. The evaluation included observations, interviews and focus groups with prisoners and staff in six prisons. The report, presented in August 2003, concluded that the safer cells programme has much to commend it and recommended that the programme continue.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of reasons other than overcrowding for the suicide rate in prisons. [136258]

  Paul Goggins
  The rate of self-inflicted deaths in prisons was 147.4 per 100,000 prisoners (at the end of 2002–03). This high rate appears to be mainly a product of two factors: greater throughput of prisoners at a time of population increase and greater (but not easily quantifiable) numbers of prisoners in high risk categories. The effects of overcrowding and throughput include more prisoners being located further from home, thereby affecting their access to familial/social support; prisons handling large and variable numbers of prisoners, often arriving late in the day, which reduces the time staff can spend with individual prisoners on care and risk assessment; and an increase in the length of time prisoners are locked in their cells, rather than engaged in purposeful activity.

  Emerging research from the evaluation of the Prison Service's safer custody strategy suggests that the suicide rate in an establishment may correlate with levels of psychological distress. This distress is affected by prisoners' perceptions of safety, their experiences of entering custody and their level of psychological, emotional and physical well-being upon entry to the establishment.

  The general prison population contains a very large number of prisoners who, when they enter custody, are struggling to cope with a wide range of difficult issues, including drug and/or alcohol abuse, family background and relationship problems, social disadvantage or isolation, previous sexual or physical abuse, and mental health problems. Studies suggest that 90 per cent. of all prisoners have shown evidence of at least one of the following: personality disorder, psychosis, neurosis, alcohol misuse and drug dependence. These factors increase their likelihood of self-harm. It has been found that 27 per cent. of men and 44 per cent. of women on remand report having attempted suicide in their lifetime.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated expenditure for the(a) prison and (b) probation services will be for financial year 2004–05. [135995]
  117W
  Paul Goggins
  The budgets for 2004–05 have not yet been finalised. Table two and three in section 6 of the Home Office Annual Departmental Report 2003 provide details of the Home Office resource and capital spending plans, which include figures for both the prison and probation services in 2004–05.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held in the north west in each year since 1992. [134900]

  Paul Goggins
  The population held in Prison Service establishments in the north west region from 1992 to 2003 is given in the following table.

  Total prison population, north west region, as at 30 June

  Number of prisoners

  1992

  5,397

  1993

  5,960

  1994

  6,329

  1995

  6,701

  1996

  7,707

  1997

  8,805

  1998

  9,469

  1999

  9,080

  2000

  9,586

  2001

  9,835

  2002

  10,810

  2003

  11,184

  Prison Service establishments in the north west region are:

  Altcourse

  Forest Bank

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Buckley Hall

  Risley

  Hindley

  Thorn Cross

  Lancaster Farms

  Preston

  Garth

  Haverigg

  Wymott

  Kirkham

  Lancaster

  Styal

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory investigatory powers the Department has; which ones will be superseded by use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; and what plans he has for removing these legacy powers. [136119]

  Beverley Hughes
  Immigration officers have powers of arrest and search under the Immigration Act 1971 as amended by Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. These powers will not be superseded by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) which provides for the regulated use by public authorities of specific 118W
  investigatory powers including the acquisition of communications data (disclosure of information about communications). Subject to approval by Parliament of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) Order 2003 the Immigration Service will use RIPA to acquire communications data.

  Riot (Damages) Act
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what payments were made to each police authority in each year since 1997 under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. [136544]

  Ms Blears
  Liability for payments under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (RDA) rests with police authorities. Police authorities normally pay claims made under the RDA from within their existing resources. Police authorities may request special grant from the Home Office to help meet the cost of payments made under the RDA. There have been no payments of special grant for this purpose since 1997.

  Information about the settlement by police authorities of claims made under the RDA has not been regularly collected centrally. The 'Consultation Document on Options for the Review of the RDA', which was published in July, estimated that £928,000 had been paid by police authorities since 1995. This is not a comprehensive figure as some RDA claims are still under negotiation by police authorities.

  Further details of claims settled since 1995 are set out in Annex A to the Consultation Document, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been of people using a mobile telephone while driving in each year since 1997. [130750]

  Paul Goggins
  Currently there is no specific offence of driving a motor vehicle while using a mobile telephone. Such conduct may however amount or contribute to another offence. In the main prosecutions and convictions in such circumstances are likely to be for driving without due care and attention or not being in proper control of a vehicle.

  From 1 December 2003 the specific offence of driving while using a hand-held mobile telephone will be introduced under a new regulation to be added to the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986.

  Romford Police Station
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers are based at Romford police station; [136482]

  (2) how many administrative workers are employed by the Metropolitan Police within the constituency of Romford. [136483]
  119W
  Ms Blears
  Romford is part of the borough of Havering. I am told by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Sir John Stevens) that at the end of August Havering had 353 police officers and 74 police (support) staff.

  The deployment of police personnel within the borough is an operational matter for the Borough Commander. Information about the number of officers and police staff deployed at Romford police station or the Romford constituency is not collected centrally. Deployment of resources will reflect operational pressures across the borough.

  Rural Policing
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on rural policing in(a) North Yorkshire and (b) New Earswick. [134843]

  Ms Blears
  We need effective policing arrangements in all areas, urban and rural. The annual £30 million Rural Policing Fund has been specifically provided to increase the visibility and accessibility of police in rural areas. North Yorkshire Police receive over £2 million or 6.7 per cent. of the fund. I understand that this has been used to fund 60 additional officers as well as additional scenes of crime staff and support staff. North Yorkshire now has 37 Community Support Officers who patrol across the force area. They help to tackle low-level crime, public disorder and to provide public reassurance in both urban and rural communities.

  The policing of New Earswick is a matter for the Chief Constable. The force have drawn valuable lessons from a recent report evaluating a community policing initiative in New Earswick (Great Expectations: Contracted community policing in New Earswick).

  Sentencing Guidelines Council
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to give directions to the Sentencing Guidelines Council. [136260]

  Paul Goggins
  Subject to the successful passage of the relevant provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill, the Home Secretary of State will have the power, at any time, to propose to the Council that sentencing or allocation guidelines be framed or revised by the Council.

  Special Branch
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Special Branch constables were employed by Humberside police on 1 September in each of the last three years.[136470]

  Ms Blears
  It is not our policy to disclose details of Special Branch deployments at force level in the interests of national security, as to do so could compromise operations.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there are in England and Wales. [136415]
  120W
  Ms Blears
  The latest police service strength figures for the year ending 31 March 2003 were published on 1 October 2003 in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 11/03. The number of special constables in England and Wales was 11,037.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there were in London in each year since 1997. [136523]

  Ms Blears
  The number of special constables in the Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London Special Constabularies since 1997 are set out as follows:

  31 March

  Metropolitan Police Service

  City of London

  Total for both London Forces

  1997

  1,714

  86

  1,800

  1998

  1,282

  76

  1,358

  1999

  1,138

  64

  1,202

  2000

  758

  56

  814

  2001

  774

  43

  817

  2002

  680

  36

  716

  2003

  692

  42

  734

  We are working with stakeholders to increase the size and effectiveness of the Special Constabulary. In particular, we are rolling out Home Office/Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) 'Good Practice Guidance'; we are also arranging a second national specials weekend to help raise the profile of specials and the invaluable work they do; and we are assisting forces to boost their capacity to recruit and manage specials effectively.

  Staff Turnover
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the turnover rate among senior staff within the Department. [136239]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Senior positions in the Home Office are filled through either open competition or internal promotion boards. The Department's policy is to attract, develop and retain good senior staff. That increasingly means providing development opportunities for senior staff within and outside Whitehall. This will increase the turnover of such staff but the overall impact of this policy on the Department's business will be overwhelmingly positive.

  Thames Valley Police
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to provide funding for Thames Valley Police Force to boost retention and recruitment including(a) the offer of free travel and (b) to reduce the pay differential between that force and the Metropolitan Police Force. [136022]

  Ms Blears
  Government policy is to support the recruitment and retention of public servants in the South East through the Communities Plan announced by my right hon. friend the Deputy Prime Minister (John Prescott) on 21 October, with generous provisions for key worker housing.
  121W
  Free travel is a matter for the Thames Valley Police Authority.

  There are no plans to change the system of regional allowances for officers in the South East and London.

  Television Licence/Motor Insurance
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions there were of people resident in(a) Sunderland and (b) Tyne and Wear for (i) non-payment of the television licence fee and (ii) driving without motor insurance in each year since 2000; and what penalties were handed out in each case. [136517]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table.

  Statistics for 2002 will be published in December.

  year

  Absolute/conditional discharge

  Fine

  Community sentence

  Fully suspended sentence

  Immediate custody

  Otherwise dealt with

  Offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 to 1967 (mainly television licence evasion)

  Tyne and Wear

  2000

  138

  4,534

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  90

  5,676

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Of which, Sunderland

  2000

  19

  734

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  16

  986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Using motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks (Road Traffic Act 1988, sec 143(2))

  Tyne and Wear

  2000

  441

  4,336

  30

  —

  —

  124

  2001

  461

  4,027

  38

  —

  82

  Of which, Sunderland

  2000

  90

  854

  5

  —

  —

  54

  2001

  86

  757

  2

  —

  —

  28

  1These data are on the principal offence basis

  Wine
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total holding of wine of the Department is; and what the total value is. [136489]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Ministers and the Permanent Secretary maintain drinks cupboards for official hospitality only. There is no other holding of wine in the Department.

  Witness Intimidation
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to ensure that witnesses to crime are able to give evidence without fear of intimidation.[134053]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government recognise that the intimidation of witnesses is an important issue that needs to be addressed. Witness intimidation in criminal proceedings is an offence under section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and intimidation in civil proceedings is an offence under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. The Home Office has advised the police to take immediate action against offenders in cases of intimidation or harassment of witnesses.
  122W

  Number of persons1 proceeded against at magistrates courts,found guilty and sentenced at all courts for television licence evasion and using motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, Tyne and Wear,2000 and 2001

  Year

  Proceeded against

  found guilty

  Offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 to 1967(mainly television licence evasion)

  Tyne and Wear

  2000

  5,358

  4,672

  2001

  6,581

  5,766

  Of which, Sunderland

  2000

  847

  753

  2001

  1,124

  1,002

  Using motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks (Road Traffic Act 1988, sec 143(2))

  Tyne and Wear

  2000

  6,397

  4,931

  2001

  5,958

  4,608

  Of which,Sunderland

  2000

  1,272

  1,003

  2001

  1,103

  873

  The Government published "Tackling Witness Intimidation—An Outline Strategy" on 15 May 2003. It was issued to all Local Criminal Justice Boards and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and is available on Criminal Justice System online. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary have all received specialist training to help them be more responsive to the needs of intimidated witnesses. The guidance on anti-social behaviour orders stresses the importance of offering support to witnesses and victims when applications for such orders are made.

  There needs to be adequate protection for witnesses in the courtroom to ensure that they can give their best evidence. Most courts now have separate waiting rooms for witnesses, reducing the possibility of their coming into contact with the defendant, or those closely acquainted with him or her, and thus reducing the risk of intimidation. Increased funding for Victim Support has enabled its Witness Service to be extended to all Crown court centres and magistrates courts in England and Wales. This means that there should always be someone at court to support witnesses who may feel intimidated or worried.

  The Government have also introduced a range of special measures to assist intimidated witnesses to give their evidence in court, including the use of TV links, srceens around the witness box and clearing the public

  123W
  gallery so that evidence can be given in private. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides the legislative framework for these measures and a phased implementation programme began on 24 July 2002.

  In exceptional cases, where there are real and substantial grounds for fear and the Crown would not be able to proceed without the witness's evidence, the judge may allow the identity of a credible witness to be concealed entirely from the defendant. In taking this decision, the court must balance the need for protection of the witness against the risk of unfairness to the defendant and must satisfy itself that the interests of the accused would not be unduly prejudiced.

  These court-based measures are complemented by community-based measures, ensuring that support is available to witnesses where they live. Co-ordinated action by a number of agencies, for example in carrying out an initial risk assessment of a witnesses' vulnerability to intimidation, is key.

  The Government, in conjunction with the Housing Corporation and the Mayor of London, are today launching a scheme which will give intimidated witnesses the option of fast track relocation within the social housing sector. The Government recognise that, while the aim should be that perpetrators of crime and anti-social behaviour should be those who are moved, there will be instances where the risk to the witness is so great that this option needs to be available.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most recent two-year reoffending rate was for offenders leaving young offender institutions. [135865]

  Paul Goggins
  Reconviction is used as a proxy measure for reoffending. The latest two-year `un-adjusted' reconviction rates for young offenders discharged from custody was 73 per cent., for those released in 1998. The rates in the preceding years were 71 per cent., 70 per cent., 71 per cent., 72 per cent., 72 per cent., 71 per cent., 74 per cent., 75 per cent., 76 per cent., 75 per cent. and 75 per cent. between 1987 and 1997 respectively. These rates are published in "Prison Statistics–England and Wales 2001".

  Under 18s in custody—England and Wales

  1997

  1998

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Prison Service establishment

  2,480

  2,465

  2,420

  2,435

  2,435

  2,605

  2,290

  Local Authority Secure Children's Homes LASCHs

  110

  125

  125

  220

  295

  300

  310

  Secure Training Centres (STCs)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  115

  115

  120

  190

  Source

  Data for Prison Service establishments is as at end June, apart from the figure for 2003 which is as at end April. Data for LASCH is from DfES and is as at end March. Data for Secure Training Centres is from the Youth justice Board and is as at end April. Figures for 1997, 1998 and 1999 are not held centrally. All numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.
  124W
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders from North Wales below the age of 15 years who were sentenced to custody were not immediately placed in a local authority secure community home in the last three years for which figures are available. [136017]

  Paul Goggins
  The Youth Justice Board is responsible for the commissioning and purchasing of secure accommodation for under 18s and for the placement of individual offenders.

  In the three years to 31 October 2003, all sentenced young offenders of under 15 years of age were immediately placed either in a local authority secure children's home or in a secure training centre.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department where young offenders below the age of 15 from North Wales are placed if sentenced to custody and no local authority community home place is available. [136019]

  Paul Goggins
  The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales is responsible for the commissioning and purchasing of secure accommodation for under 18s and for the placement of individual offenders in the juvenile secure estate. Where no place is available in a local authority secure children's home, a sentenced young offender from England or Wales below the age of 15 is placed in any of the three Secure Training Centres—Rainsbrook, Medway or Hassockfield.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are detained in young offenders' institutions claiming to be aged between 15 to 17-years-old whose age has not been independently verified; and if he will make a statement. [136251]

  Paul Goggins
  The courts are responsible for establishing the ages of young people who appear before them. Custodial establishments do not repeat the checks courts make. We are not aware of any sentences inappropriate to a person's age having been passed; if such a case was found it would be referred to the court.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many under 18s were in gaol in each year since 1997; and how many were in youth detention centres and other correctional establishments. [132939]

  Paul Goggins
  The information on the number of under 18s who were in Prison Service establishments, Local Authority Secure Children's Homes and Secure Training Centres is given in the table.

  Under 18s in custody—England and Wales

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment the Government has made of whether to develop a systematic mandatory training scheme on domestic violence for(a) judges and magistrates, (b) expert witnesses, (c) CAFCASS and (d) police officers; and if he will make a statement.[136395]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is as follows:

  Judges and Magistrates

  My Department continues to work closely with the Judicial Studies Board (JSB) to develop training for judges and magistrates that takes account of the growing body of knowledge about domestic violence.

  All judges on first appointment to part-time judicial office and all judges newly authorised to hear family cases are required to attend a relevant JSB residential induction seminar. Both full-time and part-time judges attend residential continuation seminars every three years in each jurisdiction they exercise. All induction and continuation seminars include discussion of domestic violence issues. Family law induction and continuation seminars include such issues in virtually every session within the seminar programmes.

  Many judges in addition attend locally organised seminars. In 2002 the topic for the one-day Circuit Criminal Seminars, which are attended by all full and part-time judges sitting in the Crown court, was Domestic Violence.

  The training of Magistrates is the statutory responsibility of individual Magistrates courts committees. Recently, the JSB in conjunction with the Magistrates Association produced a training package for magistrates, specifically on domestic violence. The objectives for the pack are that by the end of the course delegates will: be able to define domestic violence; recognise when domestic violence features in a case; and desrcibe how that recognition of domestic violence will impact on the conduct and disposal of a case and the treatment of any vulnerable individuals involved.

  The programme of training for trainers began at the end of October. Magistrates courts committees will be encouraged to train their magistrates and legal advisers as soon as possible.

  Expert Witnesses

  The Home Office supports, and part funds, the work of the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners (CRFP). The CRFP has rigorous procedures to ensure those persons admitted to the register have appropriate training, experience and expertise to act as experts. Currently there is no training, or requirement for training, in domestic violence involved in CRFP registration as it is not of direct relevance to the majority of registered practitioners.

  CAFCASS

  CAFCASS's training programme for Family Court Advisors includes a module on domestic violence. This will be put into operation for the first time in November and December 2003. CAFCASS is also currently developing a policy on domestic violence, which will
  126W
  include guidance and procedures for staff. This will be available in 2004 and CAFCASS will review staff training needs with regard to the finalised policy.

  Police

  The Centrex 'Policing Responses to Domestic Violence' modular training programme was launched in 2002 and has been substantially developed and updated. The training programme was distributed to police force training managers and nominated domestic violence officers in August 2003. The Policing Responses to Domestic Violence E-learning material CD-Rom was launched in March 2003.

  We will continue to identify and respond, as a matter of priority, to the needs of those suffering from domestic violence.

  Cleveland Coroner
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the Department expects to announce the outcome of the inquiry into the conduct of the Cleveland Coroner. [136570]

  Mr. Leslie
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]: His Honour Judge Milford QC, who is conducting the investigation into Coroner Sheffield's conduct, has informed the Department for Constitutional Affairs that he expects to submit his report by the end of November 2003. My noble Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor will wish to give the report his detailed consideration.

  While my noble Friend will be keen to bring this matter to as swift a conclusion as possible, it is not possible to set a timetable for announcing the outcome at this stage.

  Court Buildings
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the court buildings in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley. [136980]

  Mr. Laslie
  In Lancashire, as elsewhere, it is our intention to make better use of the joint estate (Court Service and Magistrates' Court Service). Where county court operations can be moved from unsatisfactory buildings into more modern magistrates courts they will be, so improving facilities for users and making efficiency savings. It is too early to say specifically where in Lancashire this will happen until feasibility studies have been completed but Chorley may be affected. The Lancashire Magistrates' Courts Committee has no plans to close any of the courts for which it is responsible.

  A new court complex is being considered for Blackpool to house the county court and possibly the Magistrates' Court. The current buildings have inadequate facilities, are in poor condition and Blackpool County Court could benefit from additional court rooms.

  The current buildings that house Blackburn County Court and Blackburn Magistrates' Court are recognised to be outdated. There are proposals to provide a new building in Blackburn to house both courts.

  Fatal Accidents
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to change the level of damages payable for bereavement in fatal accident claims; and if he will make a statement. [136827]

  Mr. Lammy
  The level of bereavement damages was increased from £7,500 to £10,000 with effect from 1 April 2002. The Government are currently considering how best to provide for further changes in future.

HEALTH

  Residential Care
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether self-funded residents in care homes whose income is above the maximum amount that qualifies for pension credit will receive a flat rate of savings credit. [137133]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Self-funders in care homes do not receive any savings disregard. The savings disregard only applies to council supported residents. Self funders in care homes would receive the exact level of pension credit to which they were entitled.

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom have been diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration in the last 12 months. [136043]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of people with age related macular degeneration is not collected centrally. However, a study sponsored by the Macular Disease Society in 2001 estimated that there were 182,000 people with age related macular degeneration with a best eye visual acuity below that judged appropriate for certification as blind or partially sighted.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the most recent ambulance response times within the constituency of Romford are; and what the figures are for(a) nearby population centres in Essex and (b) other London boroughs. [136481]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on response times is collected on a national health service trust basis. A copy is available in the Library and at http:// www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313.pdf.

  Angiogram Patients
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what differences there are in the guidance for admission of angiogram patients in cases where the patient is(a) already hospitalised and (b) not hospitalised. [135759]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Patients that are hospitalised are likely to be prioritised for angiography for a range of clinical reasons. Most commonly, they will be 128W
  experiencing severe or recurrent pain or they may have suffered some myocardial damage already. We would expect each hospital to have local protocols in place for managing such patients.

  Arthritis
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 163W, how much funding has been allocated for the period (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2005–06 to primary care trusts for the implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on TNFa therapy. [133918]

  Mr. Hutton
  The funding made available in primary care trust allocations for 2003–04 to 2005–06 to meet recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was not separately identified.

  Asperger's Syndrome
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many current residents at secure mental hospitals have been assessed as having Asperger's syndrome. [136952]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]:Information about the number of current residents in secure mental hospitals who have been assessed as having Asperger's syndrome is not available. However, in 1999 the National Autistic Society published the results of a study of 1,305 residents of the three special (now high security) hospitals in England, which was funded by the Department through the Section 64 scheme of grants to voluntary organizations. This identified that there were then 31 people with an autistic spectrum disorder, of whom 21 had Asperger's syndrome.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will hold an inquiry into the misdiagnosis and mistaken treatment of patients in secure mental hospitals who have Asperger's syndrome.[136953]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 6 November 2003]:We have no plans to commission an inquiry into services for people with Asperger's syndrome in secure hospitals. However, services for people who have Apserger's syndrome have been included in the specialised services national definition set (SSNDS), with a view to improving the collaborative commissioning arrangements necessary to provide them with a seamless service. Inclusion in the SSNDS provides a basis for service reviews and strategic planning and enables commissioners to establish a broad base-line position and make initial comparisons on activity and spend.

  Breast Feeding
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made towards achieving national targets on breast feeding. [133579]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: Through the NHS Priorities and Planning Framework 2003–06, a target has been set to increase breast feeding initiation rates by two percentage points per year focusing especially on women from disadvantaged groups.

  129W
  Figures are not yet available but are being collected from primary care trusts in 2003 to provide a baseline for monitoring future performance.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress with the target to increase breast feeding, with particular reference to the target for women from disadvantaged groups. [133907]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) today.

  Care Homes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many care home places were available in Sussex in each of the last six years, broken down by(a) local authority run, (b) independent private and (c) independent charity and other not for profit organisation. [134777]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the number of care home places by type of accommodation available in Sussex as at 31 March for the years 1998 to 2001.

  Figures for later years have been collected by the National Care Standards Commission but comparable details broken down by local authority are not available.

  Table: Number of care home places in Sussex1 by type of accommodation, 31 March 1998 to 2001

  Rounded Data

  Residential homes

  Nursing homes

  Local authority

  Private

  Voluntary

  Small2

  Independent

  Sussex

  ;

  2001

  1,500

  11,605

  3,645

  775

  8,310

  2000

  1,520

  12,770

  3,175

  785

  8,705

  1999

  1,605

  13,030

  3,140

  815

  8,945

  1998

  1,840

  12,700

  3,485

  790

  9,235

  1Brighton and Hove, East Sussex and West Sussex local authorities and East Sussex and West Sussex health authorities

  2Independent registered care homes with less than four places

  Source:

  RA and RH(N) form A

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's homes in England are(a) open and (b) closed and which are under investigation for possible child abuse.[118923]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply

  As of 30 September 2003, there are 1,141 children's homes registered with the National Care Standards Commission and an additional 920 applications to register are being processed. 57 children's homes have been de-registered.

  Information is not collected centrally on the number of children's homes in England that are under investigation for possible child abuse.

  Dentistry
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking to promote dental health among children. [135282]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In England, primary care trusts are responsible for oral health promotion and currently they attach particular importance to ensuring that oral health is covered in initiatives like Sure Start, health action zones and healthy living centres.

  In August 2001, to complement this work, we launched our "Brushing for Life" scheme which targets families with young children in the 31 areas where dental decay is highest. There are currently 32 schemes running nationally. When carrying out developmental checks, health visitors demonstrate good tooth brushing practice and give the families a free pack containing a tube of fluoridated toothpaste, a toothbrush and a leaflet on oral hygiene. In 2003, the "Brushing for Life" scheme has been extended to Sure Start schemes in order to ensure more parents are given the opportunity to improve the oral health of their children, particularly in more deprived areas of the country.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent by his Department on research into diabetes in each year since 1997. [134395]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has consistently supported research into diabetes but has not in the past collected information on its total expenditure in this field. The greater part of the funding meets the service costs to the national health service of research funded by research councils and charities, including Diabetes UK. This funding was identified for the first time from the NHS trust annual research and development reports for 2001–02, and the Department's total spend on diabetes research in that year has been estimated as £14.1 million.

  Available estimates of Medical Research Council spend on diabetes research are shown in the table.

  £million

  Amount

  1999–2000

  6.5

  2000–01

  8.6

  2001–02

  8.9

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 29 October,Official Report, column. 234W, on diabetes, which companies have confirmed that they will continue to supply animal insulin for diabetics; and what written commitments they have made. [136779]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Novo Nordisk and CP Pharmaceuticals market animal insulins. Novo Nordisk informed the Department that they would be continuing to supply animal insulins to the United Kingdom market for the foreseeable future. CP Pharmaceuticals issued a press release in July this year confirming that
  131W
  they would be continuing to supply animal insulins. Both companies have recently confirmed that their position remains unchanged.

  Diet
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government is taking with regard to the adulteration of processing food with fats and sugars. [130120]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is NHS Plan (2000) commitment to work with industry to improve the overall balance of the diet, including salt, fat and sugar in food. The Department of Health and the Food Standards Agency are in discussions with the food industry on reducing the level of salt in processed foods and work on added sugars and fat will follow through 2003–04.

  There is wider on-going action to help address the overall balance of the diet. The Department is leading the development of a comprehensive Food and Health Action Plan, working across Government and with the food industry to establish a coherent and effective programme of activities on nutrition in order to achieve a healthier diet for people in England. The plan will pull together all of the issues that influence what we eat and will address:
  production—including the manufacture and preparation of food which contribute most to a healthy diet
  supply—including access to healthier food
  information for consumers about healthy eating and nutrition.

  Disabled People (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much has been allocated to the Families Fund since 1997; what the average grant to a family with a disabled adult or child was in the last 12 months; and by how much this has risen since 1997; [136146]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Families Fund; how it has helped disabled people and their families; and what the grants are most commonly used for. [136147]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Family Fund was set up by the Government in 1973 to give practical help to families with severely disabled and seriously ill children under the age of 16. Since 1998 the charity has received separate funds from the Governments of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Taking these together, the following amounts have been allocated to the Family Fund:

  £million

  1997

  21.7

  1998

  22.0

  1999

  23.2

  2000

  24.2

  2001

  25.4

  2002

  26.5

  2003

  27.8

  The FF uses these funds to provides grants direct to families for items which the statutory sector does not provide. The most popular types of grants are for: holidays or leisure facilities so everyone in the family can
  132W
  have a break; bedding and clothing to cover the expense of wear and tear because of the child's disability; additional hospital visiting costs; play equipment if this is related to the child's special needs; washing machines and other 'white goods' that provide practical help to ease the physical burden of carers for disabled children. 90 per cent. of the funds go direct to families. All administrative and other costs are met from the remaining 10 per cent. The average grant made to a family in 1997 was £466.00. The average grant made to a family in 2003 was £560.00. This represents an average increase of 20.17 per cent. since 1997. The Family Fund has been evaluated as "providing a good level of value for money" (Secta report 1999). In 2002–03 The Family Fund supported 44,800 families. Through the use of a network of visiting advisers The Family Fund are able to respond flexibly and imaginatively to the different needs of each family. Over the last 30 years they have helped improve the quality of life for tens of thousands of severely disabled children and their families.

  EU Directive 2001 /20/EC
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the additional cost to the Medical Research Council of implementing EU Directive 2001/20/EC;[135586]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of EU Directive 2001/20/EC on the non-profit-making sector. [135587]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As part of the consultation on the draft United Kingdom regulations, a partial regulatory impact assessment (RIA) was provided and universities, national health service trusts and charities were invited to submit estimates on recurring and nonrecurring compliance costs for non-commercial trials. The comments received will be taken into account in preparing the final legislation and the final RIA.

  In another initiative designed to reduce the impact, the Department and the Medical Research Council have announced a joint project to work with experts to find practical solutions to the issues identified in the impact assessment. Details of the project can be found on www.ncchta.org/eudirective/index.asp. Furthermore, the Government have taken steps to attempt to influence the Commission in its consideration of a Commission Directive on good clinical practice and also in reviewing guidance that the Commission published earlier this year with a view to avoiding any unnecessary costs.

  Further information on the partial RIA and the proposed UK implementing regulations is available at http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/inforesources/ publications/mlxpub.htm.

  Fluoridation
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to add fluoride to water. [133787]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 23 October 2003]: The Government has no plans to add fluoride to the water supply on a national basis. Clause 61 of the Water Bill, if enacted, will enable strategic health authorities to undertake local consultations about whether the populations that they serve are in favour.

  Health Care (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) consultants and (b) junior hospital doctors there were in each clinical specialty at (i) York district hospital and (ii) York Primary Care Trust in each year since 1992. [135952]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Health Care Providers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his Answer of 6 October 2003,Official Report, columns 343–44W, on health care providers, if he will list foreign-owned private health care providers who provide services to the NHS whose names are held centrally. [134498]

  Mr. Hutton
  United Healthcare is providing administrative health services to 10 primary care trusts (PCTs). Kaiser Permanente is engaged with eight PCTs as part of a non-contractual mutual learning arrangement.

  Both these arrangements involve the provision of support around redesigning health services rather than the direct provision of health services.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors led to the initiation of the recent discussions between his Department and United Healthcare; who took the initiative in setting up the discussions; and by what means his Department is accountable to Parliament for the contract with United Healthcare. [134499]

  Mr. Hutton
  In Delivering the NHS Plan, published in April 2002, the Government set out its intention for the national health service to work with international organisations to develop and test models of integrated health care.

  In August 2002 my right hon. Friend, the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) asked Departmental officials to enter into discussions to explore the potential for and feasibility of adapting and applying United Healthcare's Evercare model in a number of primary care trusts (PCTs).

  The framework agreement between the Secretary of State and the United Healthcare provided for United Healthcare to undertake scoping work with ten PCTs. Under this agreement, individual PCTs that wished to take the work further then contracted with United Healthcare for administrative healthcare services.

  Funding from a Vote 1 central budget has been transferred to each PCT as a contribution to the overall cost of the pilot. The accounting officer for the Department (the chief executive) is responsible to Parliament for the expenditure of the Vote.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many foreign-owned private health care providers are providing services to the Transformational Change Programme managed by the National Primary and Care Trust Development Programme. [134500]
  134W
  Mr. Hutton
  Two foreign-owned private healthcare providers are providing support to primary care trusts through the national primary and care trust development programme's transformational change programme.

  Nine primary care trusts (PCTs) have contracted with United Healthcare Group for assistance in redesigning services for vulnerable elderly people. One has contracted for support in predicting demand for health services.

  Eight PCTs are also participating in a non-contractual mutual learning arrangement with Kaiser Permanente as part of the transformational change programme.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent of inequality of(a) health, (b) access to health and (c) accessibility of health services; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which these inequalities have changed since 1997. [134874]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 29 October 2003]: The health gap, between those at the top and bottom ends of the social scale, remains large and in some areas continues to widen, despite overall improvements in health. We have set a national target to reverse this trend and, in July, published a Programme for Action. The latest available data shows that while the gap between the infant mortality rate for routine and manual groups and the whole population widened slightly, there was no significant change for male or female life expectancy for the same period. This data refers chiefly to the period before targets were set. We will be publishing a first annual report on health inequalities in 2004. Other inequalities in access to services and accessibility of services are not readily measurable in a nationally comparable way. We have asked primary care trusts to undertake a health equality audit to identify and tackle important health inequalities in their area. The first results are due in 2004.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will standardise the procedure for closing NHS care homes. [134069]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 5 November 2003]:
  It would not be appropriate or practical for the Government to try to impose a standardised closure procedure on care homes. This is because care home closures may occur for a wide variety of reasons, such as a fall in the local demand for care home places or the rising value of property.

  Also, the overwhelming majority of care homes are private businesses and the Government cannot intervene in a decision by the owner of that business to cease trading as a care home. However, providers are required under the Care Homes Regulations 2001 to give residents a reasonable period of notice when closing the home. The period of notice should be set out in the residents' contracts or statement of terms and conditions.
  135W
  Local councils should have contingency plans, drawn up in consultation with service providers, for dealing with the closure of homes. Local councils have a responsibility for making alternative arrangements for anyone that they place in a home which subsequently closes.

  Lung Cancer
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into combining CT scans and radioactive trace PET scans to detect lung cancer.[133921]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not funded research into combining computed tomography scans and radioactive trace positron emission tomography scans to detect lung cancer. The Medical Research Council (MRC) would consider applications for research in this specific area. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding.

  Lymphoedema
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department collates relating to the number of persons living within the East Kent Health Authority catchment area suffering from lymphoedema. [135409]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 5 November 2003]: The Department does not routinely collect statistics on the prevalence of individual conditions like lymphoedema. However, we do have data on admissions to national health service hospitals for patients whose primary diagnosis is lymphoedema. Information on the number of admissions based on those people who live in the East Kent Health Authority area is shown in the table. Admissions are defined as the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. These figures for not represent the number of in-patients as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Admissions

  1996–97

  15

  1997–97

  15

  1997–98

  13

  1998–99

  17

  1999–2000

  10

  2000–01

  9

  2001–02

  4

  Notes:

  1. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002-03) diagnosis fields in the HES data and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  2. Figures are grossed for both coverage and missing/invalid clinical data, except for 2001–02, which is not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Mental Health Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total funding for mental health services has been in the NHS in London in each of the past five years. [133738]
  136W
  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows data on mental health expenditure from 1998–99 to 2002–03, which is the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mental Illness expenditure

  (£thousands)

  London Regional Office Area

  1998–99

  667,408

  1999–2000

  763,238

  2000–01

  861,671

  2001–02

  961,549

  2002–03

  1,074,817

  Notes:

  2002–03 data remains provisional. Figures are provided for health authorities and primary care trusts within the NHS London Regional Office area for 1998–99 to 2001–02 and for those organisations within the five London strategic health authority areas for 2002–03. Expenditure relates to the commissioning of secondary care mental illness only: Figures are not available for mental illness expenditure for primary care nor mental illness
  expenditure within personal social services.

  Sources:

  Health authority audited accounts 1998–99

  Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 to 2002–03

  Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients receiving a disease modifying treatment for multiple sclerosis are included within the formal monitoring arrangements of the risk-sharing scheme; and what assessment he has made of whether the estimate of 7,000 patients by November will be reached. [135766]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Up to the end of August, around 6,300 patients were receiving treatment with a disease modifying treatment for their multiple sclerosis. Around 300 patients each month are being initiated on treatment. Sheffield University's School of Health and Related Research is collecting scheme data and we are discussing with them how best to publicise a breakdown of patients currently being treated to show the subsets being treated under the scheme and those subject to detailed monitoring. As yet, we have no precise estimate of the likely date on which full recruitment of the cohort of patients subject to detailed monitoring will be achieved.

  NHS Estate
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 52W, on the NHS Estate (Health and Safety), what percentage of patient-occupied floor area was below (a) health and safety compliance and (b) fire safety standards in (i) England, (ii) each strategic health authority and (iii) each NHS trust in each year since 1997. [133430]

  Mr. Hutton
  Nationally, figures for the proportion of patient occupied floor area that is not compliant with statutory health and safety and statutory fire safety regulations, including compliance with the National
  137W
  Health Service Firecode Standards, are 9.71 per cent. and 7.31 per cent. in 2002–03, a reduction from the 2001–02 figures.

  Data collection began in 2001–02 and the information requested has been placed in the Library. Owing to trust mergers in 2002–03, direct comparison with data for 2001–02 is not possible in all cases.

  These figures reflect the proportion of the estate that is not fully compliant. Non-compliance covers a wide variety of conditions, including that which is just below standard. Therefore, the figures do not indicate levels of risk. Trusts make every effort to remedy any concerns from local enforcement bodies as quickly as possible. This is reflected in the very small numbers of injuries and deaths arising as a result of fires and reportable health and safety incidents in NHS hospitals in England, despite the very high numbers of people who use healthcare premises.

  NHS Staff
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are employed by the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority. [136885]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) reports that it currently employs 120 permanent members of staff. That includes Shropshire and Staffordshire Workforce Development Confederation, which joined with the SHA on 1 October 2003.

  Nurse Practitioners
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to allow nurse practitioners to run medical practices. [136466]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are committed to widening career opportunities for nurses and increasing recognition of the role nurses play in delivering primary care.

  Under personal medical services arrangements, nurses may already run medical practices.

  We intend to continue these arrangements, and carry them over into the new general medical services contract so that nurses may be co-signatories to the contract.

  Presrcibed Drugs
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to reduce the waste of presrcibed drugs through their not being used; [133044]

  (2) if he will estimate the annual value of presrcibed drugs not used.[133045]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is estimated that unused medicines returned to pharmacies are probably worth £100 million per year. The Department is concerned about the wastage of unused medicines and has introduced a number of initiatives to address this.

  These include, the medicines management collaborative schemes that demonstrate innovation and good practice in medicines management. Reducing the
  138W
  volume of unwanted medicines is one of the local objectives being pursued by some of the primary care trusts participating in the programme.

  Repeat dispensing makes it possible for patients to get their repeat medicines for up to a year from their community pharmacy without having to contact their general practitioner's surgery. At each repeat dispensing episode, the community pharmacists checks that the medicines are still needed and being used appropriately by the patient.

  The first wave of 30 pathfinder sites is no under way, with another 50 or so coming on stream early nest year, ahead of national roll-out by end of 2004. Evidence from previous pilot studies has shown that repeat dispensing helps reduce waste.

  In the Government statement of 17 July on the proposed framework for a new community pharmacy contract, disposal of medicines would form one of the essential services for all national health service pharmacies. Discussions on this front continue with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the NHS Confederation. We aim to start implementing by April 2004. www.doh.gov.uk/pharmacyframework

  Modernising hospital pharmacy services, where patients can now continue to use their medicines when admitted to hospital, together with dispensing medicines at the outset sufficient for discharge, has also been shown to reduce waste.

  Presrciptions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average amount paid to Her Majesty's Government from each presrciption charge was for financial year 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [136867]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  For the financial year 2001–02, the amount of each presrciption charge was £6.10.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost of wastage caused by patients returning unused presrciption medicine to chemists was in the last year for which figures are available; and what steps the Department is taking to reduce such wastage.[136713]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  While the Department regularly obtains information on the extent of local national health service schemes for the collection and disposal of unwanted medicines, and these are available across the country, this does not include the cost of medicines returned. The latest estimate is that unused medicines returned to pharmacies are probably worth £100 million per year.

  The Department is concerned about the wastage of unused medicines and has introduced a number of initiatives to address this. These include the medicines management collaborative schemes that demonstrate innovation and good practice in medicines management. Reducing the volume of unwanted medicines is one of the local objectives being pursued by some of the primary care trusts (PCTs) participating in the programme.
  139W
  Repeat dispensing makes it possible for patients to get their repeat medicines for up to a year from their community pharmacy without having to contact their general practitioner's surgery. At each repeat dispensing episode, the community pharmacist checks that the medicines are still needed and being used appropriately by the patient. The first wave of 30 pathfinder sites is now under way, with another fifty or so coming on stream early next year, ahead of national roll-out by end of 2004. Evidence from previous pilot studies has shown that repeat dispensing helps reduce waste.

  We are funding a joint task force, based at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, to lead implementation of a national strategy to spread better understanding of and partnerships between patients and health professionals on taking their medicines. This will promote the benefits of helping patients to take a more active role in managing their own care.

  In the Government statement of 17 July on the proposed framework for a new community pharmacy contract, available at www.doh.gov.uk/pharmacyframework, it was highlighted that disposal of medicines was expected to form one of the essential services normally provided by all NHS pharmacies. Discussions on this front continue with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the NHS confederation. We aim to start implementing from April 2004.

  Modernising hospital pharmacy services, where patients can now continue to use their medicines when admitted to hospital, together with dispensing medicines at the outset sufficient for discharge, has also been shown to reduce waste.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the three most(a) advantaged and (b) disadvantaged primary care trusts, giving their respective distance from their funding target allocation in percentage terms for 2003–04 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [136037]

  Mr. Hutton
  As a result of the 2003–04 to 2005–06 revenue allocations all primary care trusts in England will make progress towards their target shares of resources as determined by the weighted capitation formula.

  Information on distances from targets for primary care trusts in England for 2003–04 to 2005–06 is available in the Library.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was allocated to each primary care trust to pay for the new consultant's contract. [131637]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trust allocations for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 include 0.3 per cent., 0.4 per cent, and 0.5 per cent, of main allocations for the new consultants' contract.

  Private Hospitals
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of private hospitals do not have 24 hour cover from qualified doctors. [133046]
  140W
  Mr. Hutton
  Establishments registered as independent hospitals, with the National Care Standards Commission under the Care Standards Act 2000, that have overnight beds for in-patients undergoing medical treatment or surgery are required as a national minimum standard to have a resident medical officer available on immediate call at all times to manage urgent care if a consultant under whom a patient has been admitted is absent or unavailable. Information on the proportion of private hospitals that have such beds is not collected centrally.

  Public Service Contracts
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public service contracts were awarded by his Department(a) in total and (b) to SMEs in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [127800]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is currently not held centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Teeth
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the adult population had no natural teeth in(a) 1983, (b) 1993 and (c) at the latest date for which figures are available. [134609]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The proportion of the adult population with no natural teeth in 1978, 1988 and 1998 is shown in the following table. This data are available from the Adult Dental Health Survey, which is carried out every 10 years and covers adults aged 16 years and over in the United Kingdom.

  Percentage of the adult population with no natural teeth

  1978

  30

  1988

  21

  1998

  13

  Source:

  Adult Dental Health Survey,1998.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what proportion of those eligible for council tax benefit claimed the benefit in(a) Chorley, (b) Lancashire and (c) the North West Region in 2002–03; [135753]

  (2) what proportion of pensioners received council tax benefit in 2002–03; and what proportion of pensioners in Chorley who were eligible claimed the benefit. [135754]

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the percentage of households wholly comprised of those aged over 60 years who were(a) wholly and (b) partially relieved of payments of council tax in 2002–03. [136542]
  141W
  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on 4 November 2003,Official Report, column 610W.

  Back-to-work Support (Over-50s)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what back-to-work support is available for people aged over 50; and how many people over 50 have been put back into work through Government initiatives since 1997. [132948]

  Mr. Browne
  We are providing a wide range of services through Jobcentre Plus to help people aged over 50 looking for work. This includes job-search help and advice, training, and claiming in-work financial support. Well over 120,000 people aged over 50 have been helped back to work through Government programmes, such as New Deal 50 plus, since they began to be introduced in 1998. These programmes have helped to increase the employment rate of older workers by 5.4 per cent. from 64.7 per cent. in the spring of 1997 to 70.1 per cent. in the spring of 2003.

  Benefit Claimants (Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many young people from other counties who are 16 or over are claiming benefits in Somerset. [136549]

  Mr. Pond
  Details of a person's place of birth or origin are not routinely collected when they make a claim to benefit. Therefore, it is not possible to supply details of how many young people claiming benefits in Somerset come from outside the county.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of the people who have received a letter about direct payment of benefits have begun to receive benefits by automated credit transfer, broken down into those who have opted to have their benefits paid into(a) a Post Office card account, (b) a basic bank account and (c) a regular current account. [114414]

  Mr. Pond
  We are unable to supply the information in the format required.

  Key figures on the progress of conversion to Direct Payment are available in the Library updated every four weeks.

  We do not distinguish between existing or basic bank accounts.

  Carers' Allowance
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost of abolishing the overlapping benefits rule for the payment of carers' allowance.[134645]

  Maria Eagle
  The overlapping benefit rules are a fundamental feature of the social security system. They prevent the payment at the same time of two or more benefits intended for the same purpose.
  142W
  The estimated gross cost of abolishing these rules for the payment of carers' allowance would be around £330 million a year1. After adjusting for offsets in income-related benefits2 the estimated net cost would be about £195 million a year. These figures do not take account of the behavioural effect of carers presently not claiming carer's allowance who would be induced to do so by a change in the rules.

  1Gross costs are calculated from data taken from a 100 per cent extract of CA claims on the CA computer system for May 2003. They allow for cases where an underlying entitlement exists but records are not currently held on the system.

  2 Offsets are calculated from a 5 per cent. extract of claims on the Income Support computer system in 2003 and a per cent. extract of the Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit claims of May 2001.

  Child Maintenance Bonus
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the value of accrued entitlements to the child maintenance bonus among lone parents in receipt of income support in Scotland; and if he will make it his policy to preserve accrued entitlements to the child maintenance bonus once the new child support rules are applied to all families. [135935]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 23 October 2003,Official Report, columns 703–04W.

  Child Support Agency
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what guidelines are used by the Child Support Agency in dealing with cases where automatic deductions from pay have been made by an employer, but have not been passed on to the CSA; and what plans he has to review these guidelines. [132281]

  Mr. Pond
  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 Mike Isaac to Mr. Huw Irranca-Davies, dated 10 November 2003:

  In replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive. As he is currently on leave I am replying on his behalf.

  You asked what guidelines the Child Support Agency uses in dealing with cases where automatic deductions from pay have been made by an employer, but have not been passed on to the Agency.

  Where a deduction from earnings is made the employer is required to pay it to the Agency by, at the latest, the 19th of the month following that in which the deduction was made. The Agency will contact the employer soon after the 19th of the month if a payment is not received. While non-receipt of payment from an employer is rare we will also contact the non-resident parent and inform them that payment has not been received from their employer.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many liability orders were granted in the last 12 months following enforcement action by the Child Support Agency; [135644]
  143W
  (2) whether priority is given by the Child Support Agency to enforcement action in cases (a) where the parent with care is in receipt of income support and other similar benefits and (b) where the parent with care is not; [135645]

  (3) what the maximum acceptable timescale is for the Child Support Agency to complete an enforcement action from its commencement; what proportion of cases met these targets in 2002–03; and what procedures are in place to monitor compliance with these targets. [135755]

  Mr. Pond
  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 Mike Isaac to Bill Tynan, dated 10 November 2003:

  In replying to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked:
  How many liability orders were granted in the last 12 months following enforcement action by the Agency:
  Whether the Agency gives priority to enforcement action in cases where the parent with care is in receipt of income support and other similar benefits;
  What the maximum acceptable timescale is for the Agency to complete enforcement action, what proportion of cases met such targets in 2002–03, and what procedures are in place to monitor compliance with these targets.
  From the 1 October 2002–30 September 2003 the Agency was granted 3,169 Liability Orders by the courts in England, Scotland and Wales.
  Where a non-resident parent refuses to pay the assessed maintenance for their child(ren) we always consider appropriate enforcement action. For employed non-compliant parents the Agency would usually seek to implement deduction from earnings orders from their earnings. For those who are self-employed, or who have other forms of income, we have to take action through the courts. We always seek to give equal priority to those parents with care who are in receipt of benefit and to those who are not.
  Currently, there are no set timescales for the completion of enforcement action. The time taken varies according to the circumstances of the case, the availability of court dates, the non-attendance of the non-resident parent in court, etc. We are looking to include targets for the different processes that comprise our enforcement action next year.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects that existing cases will be migrated to the new system of operating the Child Support Agency. [136011]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on 16 September 2003,Official Report, columns 696–97W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will respond to the letter of 14 August from the hon. Member for Totnes concerning Mrs. J. Duffy of Kingsbridge, Devon.[136970]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to the hon. Member on 4 September. I am forwarding a copy of my letter to him.
  144W
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will respond to the letter of 18 August from the hon. Member for Totnes concerning Mr. Guy Pannell of South Brent and the winding-up of pension schemes. [136973]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I regret we have no record of the hon. Member's letter. If he would like to forward a copy I will arrange for it to be considered urgently.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions why he has not yet replied to the letter to him dated 18 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. J. Meehan. [136983]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 13 October. I am forwarding a copy of my letter to him.

  Disability Handbook
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the Answer of 17 September 2003,Official Report column 758W, on the Disability Handbook, when the Government will start a programme to revise the Disability Handbook; what plans the Government has to consult the National Autistic Society during this review; and when the Government anticipates this work will be completed. [136505]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is continuing to work on determining the final format for the information technology based guidance, which will eventually replace the Disability Handbook. The new guidance will be rolled out in phases. Detailed plans for its development and implementation have not yet been decided. Officials have already had meetings with the National Autistic Society and will take into consideration their comments on the current section in the Disability Handbook, in addition to information on the autistic spectrum disorder provided by them. The Department would welcome their comments on the revised draft guidance when developed.

  EDS
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list payments made to EDS in respect of(a) the Child Support Agency and (b) the Accord project in each of the last five financial years; and if he will make a statement. [134232]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Employment (Wansdyke)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people were in employment in Wansdyke constituency in(a) April 1997 and (b) October 2003;[136329]

  (2) how many people were unemployed and claiming benefits in Wansdyke constituency in (a) April 1997 and (b) October 2003. [136330]
  145W
  Mr. Pond
  In 1997, 86 per cent. of the working age population in Wansdyke were in employment. An equivalent figure is not available for 2003.

  In April 1997 there were 1,333 people unemployed and claiming Job Seeker's Allowance (JSA) in Wansdyke. Latest information from the claimant count is for September 2003, when there were 405 people claiming JSA.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total capacity of facilities in the United Kingdom licensed by the Health and Safety Executive to store greater than one tonne of fireworks or related explosives was at 1 October. [134587]

  Mr. Browne
  The total licensed storage capacity for fireworks at sites licensed by the Health and Safety Executive is 19,177 tonnes. This figure represents the net mass of the explosive contained in the fireworks. This storage capacity is sufficient to hold fireworks with a gross weight in excess of 76 thousand tonnes.

  In addition, local authority licensed stores holding more than one tonne (gross) have an estimated capacity of 5,000 tonnes (gross).

  Explosives licensing in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many explosive storage sites, capable of storing what quantity of explosives, were licensed by the Health and Safety Executive and other appropriate bodies in respect of Global Fireworks Ltd.(a) prior to 5 April 2002, (b) between 6 April 2002 and 5 April 2003 and (c) from 6 April 2003 to date. [135639]

  Mr. Browne
  Global Fireworks Ltd. did not have HSE-licensed storage facilities during any or these periods.

  Licensing of explosives stores in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We understand that there were no explosives storage facilities licensed or registered in the name of Global Fireworks Ltd. during this period.

  Smaller explosives stores are licensed or registered by local authorities. Registers of these storage facilities are maintained by local authorities. There is no central database of licensed stores and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps are taken by the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that consignments of fireworks entering the United Kingdom are taken to a licensed storage site. [135640]

  Mr. Browne
  The storage of fireworks is regulated by HSE in partnership with local authorities under the Explosives Act 1875. Anyone storing fireworks illegally will be liable for be prosecution.

  HSE works with local authorities and Customs and Excise to verify whether firework importers have licensed storage facilities in Great Britain. The evidence from these checks is that the overwhelming majority of
  146W
  fireworks imports declared to Customs and Excise are being imported by firms with licensed storage available to them.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions were commenced by the Health and Safety Executive for illegal(a) transportation and (b) storage of explosives in each of the last five years. [135641]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the following table. All the prosecutions were successful with the exception of the two prosecutions in the current year which are pending. This table does not include cases in the current year that are still under investigation. Prosecutions by HSE for illegal transport or storage of explosives

  Transportation

  Storage

  1999–2000

  —

  2

  2000–01

  2

  —

  2001–02

  1

  —

  2002–03

  —

  —

  2003–04

  1

  1

  Total

  4

  3

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what quantity of fireworks was seized by the Health and Safety Executive in each of the last five years. [135642]

  Mr. Browne
  The Health and Safety at Work Act only provides powers to seize fireworks in cases where there is imminent danger. There have been no such cases in any of the last five years.

  Where the fireworks do not present an imminent danger the Health and Safety Executive will serve an enforcement notice requiring the owner to arrange for the fireworks to be removed to a legal storage place. The information in the table gives the number of enforcement notices issued over the last five years.

  Where there are concerns over the safety of the fireworks HSE will work with the local authority to arrange for the fireworks to be dealt with safely and where necessary for enforcement action to be taken by the local authority under the Firework Safety Regulations 1999.

  In addition to requiring the removal HSE will also prosecute where there is sufficient evidence of illegal storage (or other breaches of the legal requirements).

  HSE Enforcement Action on illegal fireworks storage

  Enforcement notices

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  1

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  0

  2003–04

  5

  Fostering and Adoption
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last met fostering and adoption groups to discuss benefit payment levels. [136502]
  147W
  Mr. Pond
  The ministerial team of the Department of Work and Pensions meet with a wide range of groups to discuss and further the work of the Department. However, none of the Ministers have met recently with fostering and adoption groups to discuss benefit payment levels.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) enforcement notices have been served and (b) prosecutions have been initiated by health and safety inspectors under Health and Safety at Work legislation in each of the last 12 months. [135822]

  Mr. Browne
  The number of(a) improvement and prohibition notices served, and (b) the number of prosecutions initiated by the Health and Safety Executive, Field Operations Directorate inspectors, in each of the last 12 months for which information is available, are shown in the table:

  2002–031

  Improvement and Prohibition notices issued

  Separate offences prosecuted

  April 2002

  962

  110

  May

  1,462

  149

  June

  1,013

  141

  July

  1,309

  109

  August

  1,098

  69

  September

  1,141

  148

  October

  1,090

  121

  November

  1080

  148

  December

  821

  113

  January 2003

  898

  154

  February

  923

  161

  March

  950

  182

  Total

  12,747

  1,605

  1provisional

  Notes:

  1. Figures for improvement and prohibition notices served, and prosecutions stated by local authorities on a month-by-month basis, are not available except at disproportionate cost.

  2. The number of notices are those issued by HSE in Great Britain.

  3. In England and Wales, HSE inspectors initiate prosecution. In Scotland, the Procurator Fiscal decides whether to bring a prosecution; HSE recommends prosecution when this is justified following an investigation.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Midlothian constituency received the minimum income guarantee on the latest date for which figures are available. [137126]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at May 2003, the number of Minimum Income Guarantee recipients in Midlothian was around 1,700.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

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

  3. Parliamentary Constituency is assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

  4. MIG recipients are defined as Income Support benefit units where the claimant, and/or partner is aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 5 per cent. sample

  New Deal
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many 18 to 24-year-olds have left the New Deal for Young People with unknown destinations; and what percentage of these he estimates subsequently found full-time employment. [133164]

  Mr. Browne
  The New Deal for Young People (NDYP) is a success—by the end of June 2003, just over three-quarters of a million young people had participated in the programme, nearly 450,000 of whom had been helped into jobs.

  However, 264,7701 people have left NDYP to unknown destinations. A survey in 1999 (Employment Service Research Report: 21 August 1999, Jon Hales and Debbie Collins) reported that 57 per cent. of those recorded as leaving NDYP for unknown destinations between April and August 1998, went into paid employment.

  We are currently conducting a study to provide further information on New Deal unknown destinations.

  We expect to publish the report on this survey next year.

  Note:

  1Includes people who may have left the programme more than once.

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Wansdyke constituency have benefited from each of the New Deal programmes since 1997. [136331]

  Mr. Browne
  The available information is in the table.

  Numbers of people in the Wansdyke constituency helped by the New Deal programme3

  Programme1

  People starting

  People gaining a job

  New Deal for Young People

  460

  310

  New Deal 25 plus

  130

  40

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  360

  200

  New Deal 50 plus2

  90

  90

  1All figures are up to the end of June 2003 apart from New Deal 50 plus which is

  up to the end of March 2003.

  2People in receipt of the New Deal 50 plus Employment Credit.

  3Information on the other New Deals is not available broken down by constituency.

  Source:

  New Deal database

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many company occupational pension schemes, covering how many workers, have been closed since 1 December 2002.[137622]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on pension schemes is held by the Pension Schemes Registry that is maintained by the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA). Some data on the number of occupational pension schemes, and number of recorded members in these schemes, recorded by the registry as having closed
  149W
  to new members between 1 October 2002 and 30 June 2003 are provided in the table. The figures relate to the position as at September 2003.

  Number of occupational schemes, and number of members in occupational schemes, recorded on Pension Schemes Registry as becoming closed between 1 October 2002 and 30 June 2003

  Date

  Number of schemes

  Number of members

  1 October 2002–31 December 2002

  113

  46,172

  1 January 2003–31 March 2003

  122

  122,283

  1 April 2003–30 June 2003

  78

  44,924

  Total

  313

  213,379

  Notes

  1. The Pension Schemes Registry (PSR) is not designed or intended to provide a comprehensive or continuous statistical record of the status of schemes. The PSR registers schemes for tracing purposes and collects the levy from pension schemes, including those in the process of winding-up. New scheme data are being reported to the PSR on a continuous basis. Therefore, the figures are subject to continuous revision. When a scheme has changed status, the previous status of the scheme is not recorded on the registry. Schemes have up to 12 months to notify OPRA of any status change. The data in the table do not include any schemes that may have changed their benefit type (money purchase, salary related or hybrid) but not their status code (from open to closed).

  2. A closed scheme is a registerable scheme to which no new members may be admitted, but existing members can continue to make contributions and accrue benefits. The data above do not contain any schemes that are either frozen, winding up or wound up.

  3. The data in the table relate to private sector occupational pension schemes. In addition to data on occupational schemes, the registry also collects data on personal pension and public sector schemes. These schemes are not included in the table

  Source

  OPRA.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether local authority housing benefit departments are being automatically supplied by his Department with details of the pension credit receipt of pensioners for the purpose of reassessing housing benefit entitlement; and if he will make a statement. [135908]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: We automatically supply local authorities with information about pension credit awards to enable them to determine entitlement to housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  There were some initial technical problems encountered in transmitting information about pension

  (a) Number and percentage of all dependent children

  1979

  1990–91

  2001–02

  Number of dependent children by economic status of family type

  Lone parent

  of which:

  In full time work

  500,000

  400,000

  600,000

  In part timework

  400,000

  400,000

  800,000

  Not working

  600,000

  1,300,000

  1,800,000

  Couple with children

  of which

  One or more full-time self-employed

  1,200,000

  1,700,000

  1,500,000

  Both in full time work

  1,400,000

  1,300,000

  1,600,000

  One in full time work, one in part time work

  4,100,000

  2,900,000

  2,900,000

  One in full time work, one not working

  4,100,000

  2,700,000

  2,300,000

  One or more in part time work

  600,000

  300,000

  600,000

  Other

  900,000

  1,100,000

  800,000

  Total

  13,800,000

  12,000,000

  12,800,000

  150W
  credit awards to local authorities, which affected only a small number of cases and were largely resolved within two weeks. Local authorities have been kept informed of any difficulties, and every effort is being made to resolve remaining minor issues.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the take-up rate of the pension credit is in the Midlothian constituency.[137127]

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

  Approximately half of all pensioner households across Great Britain are eligible for Pension Credit and stand to gain on average £400 a year. Around 1.9 million Pension Credit awards have already been made to pensioner households across Great Britain as a whole (helping more than 2 million individuals).

  The Government has a target for at least 3 million pensioner households to be in receipt of Pension Credit by 2006. We want all those eligible for Pension Credit to take up their entitlement.

  We intend to publish monthly reports on the progress of Pension Credit take-on, which will include information on the number of applications. The first such report will be published later this month.

  Poor Households
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate, on the basis of the Households Below Average Income data set, the number and percentage of(a) all dependent children and (b) dependent children under five who are (i) children of lone parents in full-time employment or self-employment, (ii) children of lone parents in part-time employment or self-employment, (iii) other children of lone parents, (iv) children of two parent families where both parents are in full-time employment or self-employment, (v) children of two parent families where one parent is in full-time work and one in part-time work, (vi) children of two parent families where one parent is in full-time work and one not working, (vii) children of two parent families where no parent is working full time but one or more is working part-time and (viii) other children of two parent families in (A) 1979, (B) 1990 and (C) 2001–02. [136448]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]: Such information as is available is in the tables.
  151W

  (a)Number and percentage of all dependent children

  1979

  1990–91

  2001–02

  Percentage of dependent children by economic status of family type

  Lone parent

  of which:

  In full time work

  3

  3

  5

  In part time work

  3

  3

  6

  Other

  4

  11

  14

  Couple with children

  of which:

  One or more full-time self-employed

  9

  14

  12

  Both in full time work

  10

  10

  13

  One in full time work, one in part time work

  30

  24

  23

  One in full time work, one not working

  30

  22

  18

  One or more in part time work

  4

  3

  4

  Other

  6

  9

  6

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  (b) Number and percentage of children under five

  1979

  1990–91 2001–02

  Number of children under 5 by economic status of family type

  Lone parent

  of which:

  ;

  In full time work

  —

  100,000

  100,000

  In part time work

  100,000

  100.000

  200,000

  Not working

  200,000

  500,000

  600,000

  Couple with children

  of which:

  One or more full-time self-employed

  300,000

  500,000

  400,000

  Both in full time work

  100,000

  300,000

  300,000

  One in full time work, one in part time work

  1,100,000

  800,000

  700,000

  One in full time work, one not working

  1,700,000

  1,300,000

  900,000

  One or more in part time work

  100,000

  100,000

  200,000

  Other

  300,000

  400,000

  200,000

  Total

  3,800,000

  4,000,000

  3,400,000

  Percentage of children under 5 by economic status of family type

  Lone parent

  of which:

  In full time work

  1

  2

  2

  In part time work

  1

  2

  4

  Other

  5

  13

  16

  Couple with children

  of which:

  One or more full-time self-employed

  7

  12

  11

  Both in full time work

  3

  7

  9

  One in full time work, one in part time work

  28

  19

  21

  One in full time work, one not working

  44

  33

  26

  One or more in part time work

  4

  2

  5

  Other

  7

  10

  6

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  Notes

  1. Estimates are for Great Britain and, where appropriate, quoted to the nearest thousand or percentage point.

  2.Self-employed couples are presented as a separate category. This is consistent with presentation in the Households Below Average Income series.

  sources

  "1979"—Family Expenditure Survey;'1990–91'—1990 and 1991 Family Expenditure Survey;'2001–02'—2001–02 Family Resources Survey.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the authorities that(a) met their targets for (i) affordable and (ii) social housing in the last year for which figures are available and (b) did not meet their targets. [136752]
  152W
  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not set annual targets centrally for local authorities on either affordable or social housing.

  Planning policies for affordable housing are set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 3, 'Housing', and in Circular 6/98, 'Planning for Affordable Housing'. They advise that where local planning authorities are able to demonstrate a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs, based on up-to-date surveys and other data of

  153W
  local need, they should indicate in their local plan how many affordable homes need to be provided throughout the plan area, and set indicative targets for specific suitable sites (expressed either as numbers of homes or a percentage of the homes on the site).

  Local planning authorities should be monitoring their performance against their local plan policies and targets, but this information is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Census 2001
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action his Department will take in response to the recent Statistics Commission report on the accuracy of the 2001 census for the Westminster city council area. [136992]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Accurate census and population statistics are an important issue for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly for financial allocation and as the basis for population and household projections which underpin a range of policy needs for housing and community support. We look to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to supply these to the highest standard achievable, and in response to the statistics commission report the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and other Central Government Departments will engage with ONS to ensure that this is achieved.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also noted the recommendation to make progress on the creation of an accurate address register. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister agrees with the need for this and will be working with ONS and other relevant bodies to improve national address information.

  Computer Fraud
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been(a) budgeted and (b) spent by his Department since April 2002 on (i) combating computer fraud, (ii) preventing theft of computers and (iii) safeguarding the security of information held on computer; and if he will make a statement. [128797]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister manages the security of its information, including information held on its computer system, in accordance with the guidance given in the Manual of Protective Security, a comprehensive body of policy and interdepartmentally agreed security standards that is issued by the Cabinet Office.

  Over the period referred to, many of the services involved in managing our security, were provided jointly to Department for Transport (DfT)as well as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. In addition, the services are provided as part of the overall provision of Information Technology, Audit and other security related service. It is therefore not possible to provide an accurate breakdown in the way requested without incurring disproportionate cost.
  154W
  The overall staff costs across both Departments for some of the areas contributing to the management of our security are:

  £thousand

  IT Audit Services:

  224.5

  IT Security Office:

  122.3

  Internal Firewall Management:

  216.2

  Other IT Security Services:

  158.3

  As part of the commitment to information security, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently moving to compliance with BS7799 for corporate ICT services for DfT and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The budget for this project is £300,000 for 2002–04.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) average and (b) average band D council tax was in (i) Sedgefield borough council and (ii) Durham county council in each year since 1997. [136593]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  £

  Sedgefield borough council

  Durham county council

  Authority'sown Band Dcouncil tax1

  Authority'sown average council tax per dwelling1

  Authority'sown Band Dcouncil tax

  Authority'sown average council tax per dwelling

  1996–97

  111

  130

  486

  397

  1997–98

  235

  155

  548

  372

  1998–99

  246

  162

  634

  429

  1999–2000

  254

  168

  662

  448

  2000–01

  265

  174

  692

  470

  2001–02

  278

  183

  721

  489

  2002–03

  302

  198

  828

  562

  2003–04

  311

  205

  903

  615

  1Including parish and town council precepts

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average council tax was in England in each financial year since 1995–96. [136595]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  £

  Average Band Dcouncil tax for two adults

  Average council tax per dwelling

  1995–96

  609

  498

  1996–97

  646

  525

  1997–98

  688

  564

  1998–99

  747

  614

  1999–2000

  798

  656

  2000–01

  847

  697

  2001–02

  901

  741

  2002–03

  976

  804

  2003–04

  1,102

  908

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties there were(a) in 1997 and (b) on 1 April 2003 in each council tax band in (i) England and

  155W
  (ii) each council tax collecting authority in England; and what the proportion of total properties was in each case. [137221]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on the number of properties in council tax bands as at 1 April is not available. Figures are available, however, as at 16 October. Those as at 16 October in the previous year have been provided for England are given in the following table. A table giving figures for individual billing authorities is available in the Library of the House.

  Council tax bands, England

  Band

  Number of chargeable dwellings

  Percentage of total chargeable dwellings

  Number of chargeable dwellings

  Percentage of total chargeable dwellings

  A

  5,203,350

  26.1

  5,293,456

  25.4

  B

  3,870,586

  19.4

  4,011,941

  19.2

  C

  4,351,090

  21.8

  4,515,653

  21.7

  D

  2,956,331

  14.8

  3,151,048

  15.1

  E

  1,813,481

  9.1

  1,975,568

  9.5

  F

  947,300

  4.8

  1,044,435

  5.0

  G

  688,168

  3.5

  749,382

  3.6

  H

  103,297

  0.5

  113,545

  0.5

  Total

  19,933,605

  100.0

  20,855,028

  100.0

  Source

  CTB1 returns

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of those eligible for council tax benefit took up the benefit in 2002–03. [135357]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is presented in the DWP annual report, "Income Related Benefits-Estimates of Take-Up", which is available in the Library.

  Cumbria
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will restore Cumbria to the Northern Region; and if he will make a statement. [137125]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Cumbria is part of the North West Region and will remain so.

  Housing (Seller's Pack/Overcrowding)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) in relation to the draft Housing Bill, how many surveyors will be required to fulfill the requirement of the seller's pack proposals; how these will be trained; and over what timescale they will be available; [R][136895]

  (2) what plans the Government have to amend the Overcrowding Standard as defined in the Housing Act 1985. [136939]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's initial estimate is that between 7,500 and 8,500 Home Inspectors will be needed to carry out home condition reports but this figure may be revised in the light of consultations and further work with the industry. Research indicates that there is a substantial pool of 156W
  labour that could meet this potential demand, including the 4,500 people who are carrying out residential surveys now.

  Home Inspectors will have to be certified and trained to National Occupational Standards. An awarding body will be appointed by the certification scheme to accredit the training courses and qualifications for home inspectors. Academic institutions, professional institutions and major employers are likely to run courses and training will take account of differences in prior knowledge and skills. Work on this has already started and we expect this will accelerate once the proposed new legislation is in place. Any requirement for sellers to provide a home condition report will not be brought into force until the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is satisfied that there are sufficient trained Home Inspectors in place.

  The Government recognises that the statutory overcrowding standards in the Housing Act 1985 are now out of date, and is considering whether they should be reformed in the light of the arguments presented during the Westminster Hall Debate on 29 October 2003, Official Report, column 105WH.

  Housing Capital Receipts
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether, under transitional provisions relating to the Local Government Act 2003, housing authorities currently repaying debt from housing capital receipts will have the transfer of these receipts to Central Government fully offset in the calculation of housing subsidy for the next two years. [135915]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will publish the proposals for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) subsidy for 2004–05 shortly.

  Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received about turning the housing renewal pathfinders into urban development corporations; and if he will make a statement. [136994]

  Keith Hill
  None.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many housing market renewal pathfinders have websites; and whether it is his policy to encourage this. [136995]

  Keith Hill
  Market Renewal Pathfinders communication strategies are determined by them to reflect local circumstances. Currently as part of their communication strategies two pathfinders have websites. These are Merseyside at www.newheartands.co.uk and Newcastle Gateshead at www.newcastlegateshead pathfinder.co.uk.

  Housing Refurbishment
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the capital funding allocated to Arm's Length Management Organisations for housing refurbishment
  157W
  is treated in the same way in Government Accounts as capital supplied for the same purposes by local authorities. [136969]

  Keith Hill
  Capital resources for housing refurbishment investment is currently provided to Arms Length Management Organisations and local authorities through credit approvals, a permission to borrow up to a certain limit. These approvals are supported, as required, by subsidy payments through the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

  Credit approvals are not shown within central Government Accounts as they do not reflect cash transactions between Central and local Government. Subsidy paid within the HRA is shown within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Resource Accounts.

  Capital resources that are secured through borrowing, or provided for separately, by local authorities would be identified within their own accounts.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) house starts and (b) overall house sales there were in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990, (iii) 2000 and (iv) the last year statistics were available, broken down by region. [136751]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) The latest available statistics for total house starts by region for 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2002 are tabled as follows:

  1980

  1990

  2000

  2002

  North East

  6,046

  7,272

  7,094

  6,387

  North West

  17,156

  19,293

  18,683

  19,112

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  12,829

  11,922

  13,813

  14,615

  East Midlands

  13,256

  13,537

  15,130

  16,004

  West Midlands

  13,761

  15,862

  15,780

  14,659

  East

  17,032

  17,477

  18,686

  19,315

  London

  8,226

  9,850

  15,300

  16,914

  South East

  27,162

  21,710

  23,440

  25,303

  South West

  15,872

  16,546

  16,741

  16,918

  Total

  131,340

  133,469

  144,667

  149,227

  Source

  Returns to ODPM from local authorities

  (b) The latest available statistics for overall house sales by region for 1996 (first year available), 2000 and 2002 are tabled as follows:

  1996

  2000

  2002

  North East

  38,701

  46,941

  58,268

  North West

  110,350

  137,645

  165,889

  Yorkshire & the Humber

  83,419

  101,504

  122,380

  East Midlands

  78,727

  97,080

  113,253

  West Midlands

  87,417

  100,871

  117,982

  East

  117,065

  130,699

  148,081

  London

  139,587

  153,854

  173,286

  South East

  182,719

  192,439

  223,564

  South West

  111,290

  123,972

  138,925

  Total

  949,275

  1,085,005

  1,261,628

  Source

  Land Registry

  Local Elections
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many allegations of electoral fraud in the North West Region have been investigated in the last 10 years. [134290]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested on electoral fraud at elections is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Finance
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities received a grant settlement that was limited by the ceiling in 2003–04; and what percentage increase each of these authorities would have received if a ceiling had not been imposed. [137130]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A table showing the percentage increase in grant before floors and ceilings for all authorities is available in the Library of the House.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost would have been in 2003–04 of funding local authorities in accordance with the funding formula if a ceiling had not been imposed. [137131]

  Mr. Raynsford
  If the same grant floors had been retained then the full cost of the floor would have to be entirely financed via the scaling factor for all authorities above the floor. The factors by which grant increases were scaled back would have changed from approximately 0.94 to 0.84 for education authorities; from approximately 0.90 to 0.53 for police and fire authorities; and from approximately 0.95 to 0.64 for shire districts.

  Alternatively additional money would have to be found to meet the cost of the floor. The total cost of the floor was £266,591,602 for all authorities in 2003–04.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to remove the ceiling imposed on local authorities in order to bring their grant settlement up to the funding formula in future years. [137132]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper 'Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services' made clear the intentions of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to retain floors and ceilings in order to ensure that all authorities receive a reasonable increase in grant, and to avoid large fluctuations in grant from year to year.

  Local Government Revenue
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) amount and (b) share of local government revenue was accounted for by (i) revenue support grant, (ii) other Government grants and funds, (iii) universal business rate and (iv) council tax in (A) England and (B) each council tax levying authority in England in (1) 1996–97 and (2) 2002–03. [137220]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A table showing figures for England is available in the Library of the House.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effects of the recent high court judgement concerning the issue of health and mobile phone mast planning applications. [136825]
  159W
  Keith Hill
  The judgment by Mr. Justice Richards on 22 October in the case of "Phillips v The First Secretary of State and others" was about the compliance with the procedural requirements in the planning appeal process and was confined to its own facts. It does not have any wider ramifications.

  The judgment reflects Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications that it is for the decision-maker to decide whether health concerns are a material consideration and what weight to place on them.

  Nevertheless, PPG8 states that, in the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the international guidelines for public exposure (the ICNIRP guidelines) it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application, to give further consideration to the health aspects and any concerns about them. It remains the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the appropriate mechanism for determining health safeguards.

  New Deal
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the(a) schemes and (b) funding made available to St. Helens South since 1998 under the New Deal for Communities. [134647]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no New Deal for Communities (NDC) Partnerships in St. Helens South, and so no NDC funding has been made available in the area. However St. Helens does receive Neighbourhood Renewal Funding.

  The 39 NDC areas were chosen by firstly considering the degree, intensity and extent of deprivation in different areas, based on the 1998 (then current) Index of Local Deprivation. Secondly, we aimed to have a regional spread, so that lessons could be learnt from experiences across the whole country. Each NDC Partnership has a grant of between £35 million to £62 million to spend over the 10-year lifetime of the Programme.

  Newcastle-Gateshead Pathfinder
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Newcastle Gateshead Pathfinder dealing with the under-occupancy in designated local government wards in Newcastle and Gateshead; and if he will make a statement.(136024]

  Keith Hill
  The Newcastle/Gateshead Pathfinder's initial strategic scheme has been received by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be discussing the details of the scheme with the pathfinder in the coming weeks. One of the aims of the pathfinder programme is to achieve a better match between the housing stock available locally and the needs of households in the pathfinder area. It is expected that pathfinder strategies will propose a mixture of clearance, new build and refurbishment/remodelling to achieve this better balance.

  In addition, local authorities are subject to regular monitoring by the Audit Commission Housing Inspectorate's Best Value regime which checks for the efficient use of public sector housing stock in meeting the needs of local residents.

  Out-of-borough Housing (Newham)
  John Cryer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funds the London borough of Newham claimed from Her Majesty's Government for expenditure on out-of-borough housing in each of the past five years. [135585]

  Keith Hill
  Resources for local authority housing during this period were provided through the Housing Investment Programme and Housing Revenue Account subsidy. It is for authorities to use their resources as they see fit. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not collect information on the amount that may have been spent on particular dwellings.

  Planning (Section 106)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice he offers local authorities on the operation of section 106 development gains, with particular regard to the amount of land allocated to social and affordable housing. [136750]

  Keith Hill
  National policy for England is set out in Circular 1/97 on Planning Obligations (January 1997) which sets out guidelines on the use of planning obligations. Broadly, it requires planning obligations to be: necessary; relevant; directly related to proposed development; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and reasonable in all other respects. The Circular only gives a general indication of what might be reasonable, since establishing the relationship between a particular planning benefit and an individual development must be a matter of judgement, exercised in the light of local circumstances, rather than an issue for detailed national presrciption.

  National policy for England on planning for affordable housing is currently provided in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing (March 2000) and Circular 6/98 (April 1998) on Planning and Affordable Housing. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has recently proposed changes to this policy framework and these are set out in the consultation document `Influencing the size, type and affordability of housing'(July 2003). These changes will be accompanied by practical advice on what works well and where.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals to modify the section 106 planning procedure. [136896]

  Keith Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Statement given on 6 November 2003,Official Report, column 39WS.

  Planning Inspectors' Reports
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many decisions after receipt of planning inspectors' reports have been delayed for longer than(a) three, (b) six and (c) nine months in the last three years. [137705]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested on planning decisions was not centrally recorded in suitable format prior to April 2002, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The records held by the Government Offices only record whether cases were
  161W
  completed before the primary target of eight weeks and secondary target of 13 weeks or after the secondary target.

  April 2000 to March 2001

  April 2000 to March 2002

  Total decisions (Number)

  173

  189

  Less than the secondary target (13 weeks)(Percentage)

  58

  55

  Longer than the secondary target (13 weeks)(Percentage)

  42

  45

  However, the information requested is available for cases dealt with by Planning Central Casework Division in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster since April 2002.

  April 2002 to March 2003

  April 2003 to September 2003

  Total decisions

  183

  162

  Longer than three months

  32

  28

  Longer than six months

  1

  12

  Longer than nine months

  0

  0

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what target he sets for the length of time he takes to reach a decision after receipt of an inspector's report on a planning inquiry. [137706]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's target (shared between Planning Central Casework Division (PCCD) and the Planning Inspectorate (PINS)) is, by March 2004, to decide 80 per cent. of called in planning applications and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister appeals within 16 weeks of the close of inquiry. Half the necessary improvement was secured in the first year.

  Recommended Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Department maintains a list of recommended consultants to be employed by local authorities for conducting(a) best value studies and (b) privatisation or voluntary transfer of council housing stock. [137500]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 6 October 2003,Official Report, column 1026W.

  Regional Spatial Strategy
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what role he will have under the new Planning Bill in deciding(a) the total number of houses that are to be included in the Regional Spatial Strategy and (b) the number of houses that each local authority is to be allocated; and whether county councils will become statutory consultees in this process. [136903]

  Keith Hill
  In relation to(a) under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, as now, the regional planning body would propose the number of new dwellings that should be provided in its region. In relation to (b) the RPB would be able to distribute this provision on a sub-regional basis, for example according to housing market areas, and to identify the
  162W
  consequences for each local planning authority. Both the total number and its distribution would then be tested at an examination in public. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister would receive a report of the Panel which conducted the examination and decide whether to confirm the proposals. Under the draft regulations for Part 1 of the Bill, county councils would be statutory consultees in the RPB's preparation of the draft figures.

  Resource Equalisation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authorities that both do not receive area cost adjustment and lose government grant in 2003–04 under the resource equalisation arrangements. [136724]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No authority lost grant in 2003–04, as every authority received an increase of at least 3 per cent. The following authorities both do not receive area cost adjustment and had a lower increase than they would have done had the additional resource equalisation element not been introduced for 2003–04:

  Shire Districts

  Bromsgrove

  Christchurch

  East Dorset

  Shire Counties

  Cornwall

  Cumbria

  Derbyshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  Durham

  Lancashire

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  North Yorkshire

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  Shropshire

  Somerset

  Staffordshire

  Suffolk

  Worcestershire

  Shire Unitary Authorities

  Bournemouth

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Herefordshire

  North Lincolnshire

  Poole

  Rutland

  Telford and the Wrekin

  Torbay

  York

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to reduce the number of rough sleepers over the winter. [136439]
  163W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Homelessness Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister brings together the work of the former Rough Sleepers Unit, the Bed and Breakfast Unit and a team to ensure the effective implementation of the Homelessness Act 2002 and assist local authorities in the development of strategies to tackle homelessness.

  The Directorate continues to work closely with local authorities and voluntary sectors to reduce the number of rough sleepers throughout the year.

  As of June 2003, local authority statistics show that 504 people were sleeping rough on any single night. This figure sustained my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's target to reduce rough sleeping by at least two-thirds from a baseline figure of 1,850 in June 1998 and is the lowest recorded level.

  To ensure the two thirds reduction is sustained, key local authorities have been asked to draw up strategies for their areas for the period up to 31 March 2004 in consultation with local voluntary agencies and other partner organisations.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions between 31 March 2002 and 31 March 2003(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental Special Advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity; what places were visited; and how much each visit cost. [126660]

  Yvette Cooper
  Between 29 May 2002 and 31 March 2003, Special Advisers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have travelled abroad on four occasions, at an average cost of £3,770 per trip, visiting Brazil, South Africa, India and Denmark on official business. All travel by Special Advisers is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Tenancy Deposit Scheme
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of private landlords in England and their agents have participated in the voluntary tenancy deposit scheme. [137107]
  164W
  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South on 22 October 2002,Official Report, column 564W.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions members of his Department have held with representatives of the Welsh Assembly Government on extending the voluntary tenancy deposit scheme to Wales. [137108]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not discussed with the Welsh Assembly extending the pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme. Since it has been a voluntary scheme, it is for the Assembly to decide if it should wish to implement a similar scheme in Wales.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the voluntary tenancy deposit scheme in England. [137109]

  Keith Hill
  The University of York evaluated the pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme. This was published in December 2002 in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister report "An Evaluation of the Pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme".

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to introduce legislation to govern deposits made to landlords by tenants; [137110]

  (2) if he will introduce a statutory tenancy deposit scheme to (a) hold deposit moneys and (b) independently resolve disputes between landlord and tenant at the end of a tenancy. [137112]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to meet the Law Commission and stakeholders later this year, to discuss the possibility of legislating for the protection of tenancy moneys in connection with the Law Commission's work on tenure reform.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the extent to which private landlords unjustifiably withhold deposits paid by tenants. [137111]

  Keith Hill
  The Survey of English Housing has for several years asked tenants about what happened to the deposit for the tenancy they had left most recently. The survey has consistently reported that up to 20 per cent. of tenants considered that the withholding of their deposits, either in part or in full, had to some extent been unreasonable. These figures are, of course, based on tenant perception, and on any objective test, such as independent adjudication, a lower figure of unjustified withholding might be expected.

EDUCATIONS AND SKILLS

  Teachers' Pay (2004–06)
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  The thirteenth report of the School Teachers' Review Body is being published today. It covers all the major pay changes over the period April 2004 to September 2006.1 Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House of Lords and at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/payandperformance/

  In making their recommendations, the review body were required to have regard to the matters set out in the remit letters of 1 August 2002 and 11 July 2003. The STRB report deals with a wide range of weighty and complex issues. The review body has also been working to a much quicker timetable than usual which has placed special pressures on it and on the consultation partners. I am indebted to the review body and to other partners for the high degree of professionalism, dedication and skill they have shown in tackling such an important and difficult remit on such a timescale. STRBfs recommendations are set out below, followed in each case by my response.

  General Pay Matters

  The STRB have recommended the following:
  We recommend a multi-year award.
  We recommend that, with effect from September 2006, changes in pay rates be implemented in September each year rather than in April each year.
  We recommend the following changes to classroom teachers' salary levels:
  an increase of 2.5 per cent. from April 2004 and of 3.25 per cent. from April 2005 to end August 2006 in the values of
  the main scale and upper scale for qualified teachers
  the pay spine for Advanced Skills Teachers; and
  the pay scale for unqualified teachers.
  These increases should also apply, in respect of all classroom teachers, to the values of the special needs allowances.
  We further recommend that there be a re-opening clause under which any of the parties can ask us to review the matter of the above percentage increases awarded. This should take effect if the average rate of headline inflation for the respective preceding 12 months, April 2004—March 2005 or April 2005—March 2006, exceeds 3.25 per cent. or falls below 1.75 per cent.
  1 A further report from STRB on more technical matters will be published in February 2004 and be the subject of a separate consultation
  2WS
  I welcome the responsible and constructive way in which the STRB has tackled the issue of how to position an inflation-led, multi-year settlement. There is much here that I am able to endorse outright. Where I have not done so, it is to ensure changes are affordable for schools, as they also continue with workforce reform.

  The background to the need for an inflation-led settlement is set out in detail in the recital of evidence in the STRB's report. In the Government's evidence document of 11 July we made clear that it is vital that heads and governors are enabled to meet the funding challenges of the next two years if the education of pupils is not to suffer. Pupils must always be our main concern.

  I believe that the current recruitment and retention position is the healthiest one for many years. The statistics published today by the Teacher Training Agency, showing a rise of 8 per cent. in teacher training students, provide further evidence of the success story on recruitment. None the less, I concur with STRB that the position must be monitored and we must remain vigilant.

  The STRB is also right, in my view, to highlight the importance, in trying to retain our best teachers, of tackling workload issues. That is why the national agreement on workforce reform is so important, with all that this agreement means for reducing excessive workload for teachers and helping them focus more exclusively on what matters most—teaching and learning. I am clear that, in looking at teachers' pay over the next two years, it is essential we do not allow the sort of increases that would have an adverse impact on teachers'jobs and workload and workforce reform.

  The STRB's recommendations also respond imaginatively to the challenge of setting headline figures for several years in the future. Heads and Governors will reap very considerable benefit from such advance knowledge of what is overwhelmingly their main financial commitment, as teachers' pay is the largest call on their budget. I also note the STRB concern that teachers would worry if there were no safety valve if inflation turned out to be much higher than all reasonable forecasts are indicating.

  I therefore endorse the recommendation that any of the statutory parties may ask the STRB to review the figures again if they are outside the parameters set by that recommendation. In such an event, I would expect the STRB to report to me and I would then consult on proposals in the usual way. Any recommendations would need to be considered carefully by the Government on merit and with due regard to affordability. In addition, in assessing the inflation position, I would want proper account to be taken of both RPI and RPIX.

  I am also pleased to see that the STRB has supported the calls of my Department and the local authority employers that we should move to a September timing for all pay awards, ie headline increases should be paid from September at the same time as teachers receive any new incremental or performance-related increases. That will be another powerful boon to schools in aiding their financial planning and in giving them a buffer of five months in the early part of the financial year before their

  3WS
  increased paybills take effect. Indeed, my proposals below mean we would actually be introducing this change a year early, in September 2005.

  I believe that the STRB recommendations on headline pay show prudence, creativity and a strong sense of the priorities and challenges facing schools. I am able to endorse outright the 2.5 per cent. pay award proposed for April 2004.

  However, a 3.25 per cent. pay increase for the full 12 months of 2005–06 would be a heavy burden for some schools to bear. For those in deficit it would worsen their ability to turn round their finances; and even for others, it would use up the headroom they need to raise standards and tackle other issues facing teachers such as their workload and the wider workforce reforms. Therefore, I must propose a phased approach to the recommended 3.25 per cent. pay increase in 2005–06.

  I propose a 2.5 per cent. increase from April 2005 topped up to 3.25 per cent. from September 2005 (as in the attached pay scales). The next increase after that would be from September 2006. As I stated on 29 October, I will keep under review the guaranteed minimum increase for schools for the financial year 2005–06 and announce a final figure in due course.

  In addition to these headline increases over the next two and a half years, I should perhaps note that many teachers will naturally continue to receive other pay elements of pay. For example, over 100,000 main scale teachers will receive annual increments of up to £2,000 each year. An even higher number will have reached upper pay scale point 2. And some 200,000 teachers will receive management allowances of between £1,638 and £10,572.

  Local Approaches to Pay

  The STRB have recommended the following:
  We recommend that the existing pay spines and the Outer London Allowance be replaced by new Outer London pay spines for qualified teachers, unqualified teachers, the leadership group and ASTs. Likewise, the existing pay spines and the Fringe Allowance should be replaced by new Fringe pay spines for qualified teachers, unqualified teachers, the leadership group and ASTs.
  We recommend a differential increase for outer London effective from April 2005
  From April 2005 to end August 2006, we recommend an enhanced increase in the values of the main and upper scale for qualified teachers, the pay spine for Advanced Skills Teachers and the pay scale for unqualified teachers in outer London.
  We also recommend an enhanced increase to the starting pay of all qualified classroom teachers in inner and outer London from April 2005 to end August 2006.

  I welcome the principles and motives behind the important recommendation to give outer London and the Fringe their own consolidated pay scale, on the same lines as was introduced for inner London this year. I endorse these changes, which take us further in the direction of a more local and regional dimension to pay, but within a nationally determined framework. I look forward to seeing the STRB's further recommendations early next year on how we should continue to develop local and regional pay for the medium and longer term.
  4WS
  I am more cautious about the recommendation to increase outer London pay differentially from April 2005, as there is further debate to be had about whether these changes are based on hard evidence of need. The same reservations apply to the recommendations about starting pay for inner and outer London.

  Major pay changes were introduced in inner London only in April. There is an argument that these must be given time to bed in and have effect. We also need to ensure that changes designed to improve recruitment and retention in inner London are not undermined by countervailing changes in the outer London area. Moreover, other measures are currently working their way through the system which may help remedy the issues reflected in the STRB report. These measures include the £1 billion key worker housing scheme recently announced by the Deputy Prime Minister, which will benefit hundreds of London teachers with their accommodation.

  None the less, I am currently minded to endorse the principle of STRB's proposals, but would expect the implementation to take place from September 2005, in line with the phased timetable set out above for other teachers. I propose that the changes recommended for April 2005 should actually come into effect from September 2005.

  Recruitment and retention allowances

  The STRB have recommended the following:
  We recommend that the recruitment and retention allowance scale be abolished with effect from 1 April 2004.
  We recommend that payments for recruitment purposes should be made for a fixed period of up to a maximum of three years. For retention purpose, a three-year maximum should also apply, but with scope for renewal in exceptional circumstances.

  I endorse these proposals. The STRB have drawn attention to the fact that the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document makes separate provision for schools and LEAs to pay recruitment and retention incentives and benefits, and that there is a degree of duplication between this more wide-ranging provision and the recruitment and retention allowance scale set out elsewhere in the Document. The STRB have said that continuing or new payments can be made by means of the more wide-ranging provision, rather than by means of a set scale.

  I interpret the STRB's recommendation to mean that, from April 2004, all allowances currently awarded under what is currently paragraph 24 of the pay document (which sets out the scales and arrangements for payment) should either be abolished, or renewed under paragraph 48 of the pay document, and this is the proposal on which I am consulting. I also endorse the proposals about time-limited allowances.

  However, I propose that, in addition to changes needed to the pay document, supplementary guidance on handling the range of issues which are involved here is worked up in consultation with the parties, with the aim of ensuring that teachers currently in receipt of recruitment and retention allowances are treated fairly.
  5WS
  The Upper Pay Scale

  The STRB have recommended the following:
  We recommend that consultations take place urgently on a new framework for progression to U3 in both England and Wales, including:
  rigorous criteria which enable schools to identify those teachers who are performing at the highest level;
  a grading system which enables schools to rank the performance of teachers in their school in relation to those criteria; and
  a system of external assessment, using the threshold model. We recommend that this new framework be completed by 5 January 2004.

  The STRB preface these recommendations by setting out a compelling vision for schools, in which:
  governors, heads and teachers are comfortable with the concept of rewards related to performance;
  schools are able to make decisions without detailed rules and guidance;
  high-quality performance management and professional development are available to all teachers to help them improve standards;
  schools have the confidence and capability to assess performance and reward staff; and
  performance and reward systems are managed effectively, transparently and fairly.

  I welcome this statement and the detailed commentary provided in the STRB report on where we are with the upper pay scale. I also welcome the STRB statement that:
  "We wish to ensure that further progression up the scale is clearly based on merit. We believe this should result in a tapering pattern of progression in which teachers will have the opportunity, on performance grounds, to move up the scale but progressively fewer of them will do so. We see a more substantive role for continuing professional development in this model."

  I must declare publicly my disappointment about the outcome on upper pay scale point 2, where too few schools made a serious attempt to differentiate between the relative performance of their teachers. If we go on in the same vein as UPS2 then schools will ultimately face a bill of £700 million by the time UPS5 has taken full effect, over and above a similar bill for threshold payments. That is not tenable.

  In all walks of life people may perform competently, or highly effectively, or outstandingly well. We have the best ever generation of teachers. But to be clear that some are positively outstanding is no insult whatever to their able colleagues. The notion that every teacher is performing identically well fails to pay proper tribute to our very best teachers and defies common sense. I am grateful to those schools which have recognised this and showed the courage to administer UPS2 with appropriate rigour. The fact that some awarded points to only a minority of teachers disproves the argument made by others that this was impossible.

  I now look to the pay partners to rally behind the STRB's proposals for where we should go now on UPS3, including the challenge to achieve a result by 5 January based on agreement with as many of the pay partners as is possible. I recognise that finding agreement will be difficult, but I am determined to
  6WS
  succeed and am heartened by the success of the National Agreement on Workforce Reform. Therefore, I will be writing to all the statutory consultation partners today inviting them to work with us over the coming weeks to achieve a better way forward.

  As these issues are taken forward, all parties should restrict any preconditions, so that all options can be considered thoroughly and frankly. As I made clear in my 11 July proposals, I must ensure that any outcomes are affordable and manageable for the school system; and I am committed to the tapered approach to progression advocated in the STRB report. We also need to take account of the legal position in Wales. But I do not rule out at this stage fundamental changes to the structure of the upper pay scale, albeit that these might need to be referred to the STRB for further consideration, which would have an additional impact on the timetable.

  I have also been considering the issue of mainstreaming threshold and PRP monies into school budgets in England in 2005–06. Having taken account of representations from the headteacher associations, I am today announcing that no such transfer will take place and that these monies will instead go to schools as a Specific Formula Grant (paid via LEAs). That will enable the money to continue to be distributed to schools according to the numbers of threshold and post-threshold teachers, as at present, rather than through the more general local authority finance system.

  Management Allowances

  The STRB have recommended the following:
  We recommend that management allowances be increased in April 2004 and be frozen at this level thereafter. We further recommend that the parties discuss and agree as soon as possible a framework and guidance for new arrangements so that they can take effect by April 2005 to make payment for specific, additional, weighty responsibilities targeted on teaching and learning.
  We recommend that where management allowances are awarded in the transitional period until the implementation of the new arrangements, they should be awarded for a period of up to one year only.
  We recommend that the maximum level of payment available for duties under these new arrangements be £11,000. This value should apply from April 2005 or from such later date that the new arrangements are put into operation, in the event that the new arrangements are not ready to be implemented by April 2005.

  We recommend there should be discussion, with resulting decisions and guidance, on the following aspects:
  The types of responsibilities for which payment should be made, advising on levels of payment, perhaps differentiated by type and size of school;
  Whether the payment scale should be open with only a minimum and a maximum amount specified (maximum to be the amount that we have recommended), leaving the actual payment to be decided by the school in line with agreed guidance; or
  Whether the payment scale should contain specific levels of payment (similar in concept to the current management allowance scale), leaving the school to decide on which specific level to pay, in line with agreed guidance;

  7WS
  Whether the payments should be made for a fixed term of up to three years, the term to be renewable if the teacher continues to undertake the duties;
  Whether the minimum level should be lower than present management allowance 1;and
  Whether there should be provision made for bonuses of up to £500 for teachers taking on one-off important learning and teaching projects, with smaller tasks and projects undertaken by teachers as part of their professional development, without payment.

  The STRB report identifies a serious issue in schools that needs to be addressed over management allowances. There are now too many allowances in the system and too many of those that exist are really disguised retention or performance awards. An implausible 52 per cent. of teachers have such an allowance and the number of allowances is growing by 4 per cent. annually. Over £1 billion is currently being spent each year on all allowances. This development has begun to undermine confidence in the allowance system. It can also damagingly inflate a school's costs, at a time when budgets are already under pressure.

  The school system needs to undergo a major sea change on staffing structures so that teachers are freed to teach and more and more administrative and managerial tasks are undertaken by non-teaching staff. That will help focus the precious resource of qualified teachers on the job they came into the profession to do-namely, teaching. And it will also help schools deal better with funding pressures.

  The STRB's recommendations on management allowances are central to these wider changes. No one would argue against a substantial allowance being paid to, for example, a head of a subject department who is outside the leadership scale. But we must reverse the trend reported by the STRB and move rapidly to the new position they describe. That would freeze the financial level of current allowances and target future allowances on issues directly concerned with teaching and learning.

  I therefore fully endorse the principle of the STRB's recommendations on the need to consult on a new system of management allowances to better reflect our teaching and learning priorities. However, I believe it is possible, through discussion with the parties, to make faster progress. Therefore, I propose bringing forward by one year to April 2004 the recommendation to freeze the value of management allowances-ie. there will be no further inflation-uprating of current allowances.

  I believe that the new, targeted, allowances should be introduced either from April 2004, if the criteria and arrangements for them can be worked out with the consultation partners in time; or otherwise from as soon as possible thereafter. This more rapid timescale is essential if we are to nip this worrying trend in the bud; and if we are to minimise the uncertainty that would inevitably surround any "transitional" arrangement applying throughout 2004–05.

  I endorse the recommendations to cap the new management allowances at £11,000. In the event that the new system cannot be introduced in time for April 2004,
  8WS
  I endorse the recommendation that any old-style allowances awarded in 2004–05 should be for a maximum of one year only.

  Leadership Group Pay

  The STRB have recommended the following:
  We recommend that the percentage increases in value to the pay scales for qualified teachers that we have recommended in paragraph 21 of chapter 4, be applied to the leadership group pay spine.

  I welcome the STRB's careful consideration of the issues relating to leadership group pay. In reaching the decisions that there should be no specific changes to the leadership group pay spine other than those applying to pay scales for qualified teachers, they have looked carefully at labour market issues for heads, whether there was a need for action for particular groups, and the case for a change in the basis for calculating differentials.

  I endorse the recommendation that there should be no specific changes for leadership group pay other than the general uplift. I propose, however, that the uplift should be adjusted as set out above and phased in the same way as my proposals in relation to other qualified teachers.

  Next steps

  I am now initiating consultation with the employer organisations, the teacher associations and other interested parties as required under section 126 of the Education Act 2002, before I make provision by order for teachers'pay and conditions in 2004—05.

  Summary of Secretary of State's proposals

  The national pay award should he as follows:
  2.5 per cent. from April 2004
  2.5 per cent. from April 2005, topped up to 3.25 per cent. from September 2005 (as in the attached pay scales)
  All pay awards should run from September with effect from September 2005.
  The figures above should be open to further STRB review if inflation is more than 3.25 per cent. or less than 1.75 per cent. on average over a 12 month period as specified by STRB.

  Outer London allowance should be rolled into the basic pay to create a new outer London pay scale from April 2004 (as attached). Fringe Area allowance should be treated similarly to create a new Fringe Area pay scale from April 2004 (attached).

  Outer London salaries should increase differentially from September 2005 (see attached scales).

  Starting salaries in inner and outer London should increase differentially from September 2005 (see attached scales).

  From April 2004, recruitment and retention allowances should not be subject to a scale as at present; but such allowances should then be payable to individuals only for periods of three years, except that the period for retention allowances could be extended in exceptional cases.

  A new framework should be established for resolving issues on the upper pay scale.
  9WS
  Current management allowances will be frozen at their current cash values. Work will begin on a new type of management allowance to be introduced from April 2004 or as soon as possible thereafter.

  There should be no specific changes for leadership group pay other than the general uplifts.

  Responses to the consultation letter are required by 12 December 2003. However, in line with the STRB's proposals on the upper pay scale, as summarised above, discussions on that issue may continue if necessary until 5 January 2004 in the interests of reaching as broadly based an agreement as possible.
  10WS
  Detailed information on current and recommended pay levels April 2004 to August 2006 has been placed in the Library.

HEALTH

  "Fighting Infection"
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The Government's response to "Fighting Infection", the Fourth Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Cm 6012, was published on 7 November. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
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 as honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have received from the Secretary General of the Royal British Legion about vaccines used by the Ministry of Defence during the 1990–91 Gulf War and the renewed call for a full public inquiry.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Royal British Legion continues to campaign for such an inquiry. However, the Government are not convinced that a public inquiry would help. The possibility that we may look again at this matter has not been ruled out but, in the present circumstances, it is only through the programme of research initiated by the Government that we are ever likely to be able to establish the causes of Gulf veterans’ illnesses.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Is it not a deeply serious parliamentary matter that, 13 years after the conflict, so many of our troops, some now terminally ill, are still left with medically unexplained illnesses? Are not the Government's frank admissions on 9th October—that medical record-keeping was abysmal and that an unlicensed vaccine was used on our troops—also cause for grave concern? As the MoD does not know what vaccines were given to whom and when, Porton Down's tests on animals cannot possibly have replicated the immunisation programme as administered. So how can it possibly be determined whether the vaccines were safe in any particular case? Surely the Secretary General's compelling case for a public inquiry now deserves a positive response.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, in answering my noble friend's question, I acknowledge the tremendous work that he carries out with the Royal British Legion on behalf of Gulf War veterans. Although we are aware of the tremendous frustration felt by Gulf War veterans in the years since the conflict, my noble friend, of all people, will appreciate the work undertaken by this Government since we came to office in 1997. We have initiated scientific research, provided medical help, given information and made
1082
that information available and transparent, and we have provided substantial financial assistance. We have acknowledged the problems of the poor record-keeping that occurred in 1990–91, as referred to by my noble friend. Indeed, we placed that in the public domain. In the intervening years, this Government have made many improvements to record-keeping.
In an Answer to my noble friend on 5th November, we said that, although the Government were not convinced that a public inquiry would help to answer the basic question of why Gulf veterans are ill, we have not ruled out the possibility that we may look at the matter again if circumstances change.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the combined anthrax and pertussis vaccine was used to immunise troops in January, February and March 1991, given that the pertussis vaccine was not licensed for use in the United Kingdom and that the test results of the combined vaccine on mice resulted in severe weight loss, although guinea pigs showed no reaction? Furthermore, the then Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Metters, recalls advising the MoD on 21st December 1990 of the importance and relevance of the information from the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, stressing his own concerns and those of the institute. What were the reasons for going ahead with the immunisation programme when such serious concerns had been reported to the MoD and the Department of Health?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, will know that the fact that a vaccine is unlicensed does not mean that it is untested and therefore inherently unsafe. He will also know that licensing procedures cannot be accelerated; hence, there was no possibility of obtaining a United Kingdom licence for any previously unlicensed products in the six months between the Iraq invasion of Kuwait and the coalition campaign to liberate it. Anthrax was licensed, as the noble Lord acknowledged, and pertussis was licensed for children but not for adults. As we said in our Written Answer of 9th October to my noble friend Lord Morris, we do not know whether or not heed was taken of the concerns expressed by the Chief Medical Officer. The test results referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, are interim results published at Porton Down. We await the final results at the end of the year.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I share the indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, in that it appears that the Government still do not know the consequences of their vaccination programme of some 12 years ago. Indeed, the noble Lord's Written Question, put to the Minister in January this year, was not replied to until October. That demonstrates that the facts and figures were not available to this Government.
Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, what was the status of those vaccines? The Minister's reply to the Written Question stated

1083
that it was offered to all personnel. Was that an offer that they could not refuse or was it a vaccine that was genuinely voluntary? What is the current status?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the reason for taking so long to answer my noble friend's Question—it was tabled in January and answered on 9th October—is because it included several questions. We found it necessary to seek the advice of independent experts on the arrangements for administering anthrax and for MoD officials to consult colleagues in the Department of Health licensing department, who in turn needed to seek advice from others. In order to give the fullest possible Answer, it was decided to provide information on the use of the anthrax vaccine after 1990–91. Information about contraindication for the 13 vaccines used at that time was not readily available. Anthrax was not a compulsory vaccination and never has been. It has always been voluntary.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the same cocktail of vaccines being used for the troops in Iraq today?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have learnt many lessons from the problems identified in 1990–91. Today we have a very important schedule of vaccination times. Vaccines are given at certain times on a routine basis. As to the content of the vaccine, I shall contact the noble Baroness.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I remember this issue being raised many years ago. It was not admitted then as freely as now that there were serious mistakes in medical record-keeping. That has been said for a long time. Does the Minister agree that if we can have public inquiries for a train or boat disaster, surely it is wholly unreasonable that we should still refuse to have one for more than 5, 000 people who are getting older and who have unexplained illnesses, and at a time when we have troops at war?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is still the view of this Government that only through a programme of research initiated by the Government are we ever likely to find the reasons why so many Gulf veterans are ill. As I said, the Government have not closed their mind.

Hallmarking
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any proposals for revision or modification of the existing system of hallmarking of precious metals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, a draft EU directive on hallmarking has been proposed, but the UK is opposing it because it would weaken the protection
1084
currently enjoyed by consumers in the UK. We think that we have a reasonable chance of success. The British Hallmarking Council has recommended changing UK legislation to mark mixed metal articles, but responses to a consultation on this did not make an adequate case for such changes.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I hope that it is still a draft directive rather than law. If we are forced down that road, can he ensure that we still retain, as a secondary mark, the established British hallmarking system on genuine goods, because some of the European states will not enforce a European directive?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, let me be clear. We oppose the directive because we believe that it would not maintain consumer confidence, that it would not be effectively enforced and that it would do nothing for the common market. The terms of the directive do not mean that an assay mark cannot be used; they simply mean that it does not have to be used and that one can rely on a manufacturer's mark plus market surveillance. We do not think that that is a good system. We want to retain the system we have. Even if the directive is passed—we shall oppose it—we could still put on the marks that we have.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that nine of the 10 countries due to join the European Community next year favour compulsory hallmarking and that this is such a hazardous moment because of the Italian presidency? The Italians produce a good deal of jewellery in this country, but is it not also a fact that more Italian items are destroyed for undercaratage than any others? The major risk of losing the British hallmarking system, which is such a guarantee of standards to consumers, will remain until this presidency finishes at the end of the year.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is true that the Italians revived the hallmarking directive in July. It is an issue about which they feel very strongly. That has not in any way prevented imports of Italian jewellery in to this country. At present the discussions on the working party are not making great progress. The Italians have said that they will take this matter to the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER). We think that that will not make progress. We shall continue to oppose the directive.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I declare an interest. I wrote a brief for the British goldsmiths association arguing against the retention of the assay mark which, if considered carefully, is just an extra cost imposed on British jewellers. Countries elsewhere in the world can manage without such a system; it is just a market distortion. The sooner we do away with it the better. Will my noble friend reconsider his position and support the directive? That would make us more competitive in Europe.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the mark is a very minor cost. We think that it is an essential piece

1085
of information. Far from it being a market distortion, it is a very good piece of information that gives consumers confidence in the product that they are buying. We have no intention of changing our policy on this matter.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister has told this House on more than one occasion that our Government are, fortunately, against this directive. Can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government are confident that they will have sufficient support at the next Council meeting at the end of the month to frustrate this Commission proposal?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: No, my Lords. We hope that enough member states share our view to be able to block this measure, which is for qualified majority voting. However, we must recognise that there are member states which support the directive. That is why we are making a major effort to persuade other member states to come round to our point of view.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, does not speak for all Members on this side of the House, the vast majority of whom would support the Government in their total opposition to this directive? If the noble Lord, Lord Desai, needs further direction on this matter, he is very welcome to come and talk to the people at the Birmingham Mint, who will soon put him right about this fundamental measure of consumer protection.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords;, I am sure my noble friend Lord Desai would be horrified if it was ever thought that he was speaking for the majority of this House.

Zimbabwe: Aid
2.51 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will ensure that recent British aid to Zimbabwe will not be used for political ends.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, we remain confident that the systems are in place to ensure that humanitarian relief provided by the United Kingdom reaches those most in need. The World Food Programme and others distributing international food aid all have clear procedures and monitoring systems in place, and these are working well. Along with the United Nations, the EU and other donors, we continue to make it clear to the Zimbabwean Government that we will not tolerate political interference in the distribution of food aid.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, over the past two years, British taxpayers have poured £62 million worth of humanitarian aid into Zimbabwe. Independent reports say that that has been manipulated to help prop up the brutal dictatorship. Has the time not now come to table a UN resolution to seek monitors, not only for the distribution of food aid, but also for human rights issues?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have answered a number of Questions about the manipulation of food aid. I have made it absolutely clear that we think that the monitoring process we have put in place is robust and that there are investigations every time there is any kind of allegation. With respect to seeking a UN resolution, noble Lords will recall that in the United Nations there is no appetite for any such resolution. In fact, when we have put resolutions to the UN human rights committee, they have fallen as a result of the action taken by the African group as a whole.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, why does the United Kingdom have a history of recognising foreign governments which manifestly have adopted power by bypassing acceptable election processes?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is a long-standing convention that we recognise states not governments.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the World Food Programme is satisfied with the monitoring arrangements. Has she noted its statement that the number of people dependent on food aid will increase from 1.8 million in October to more than 5.5 million in the early months of next year? Is she satisfied that the arrangements are robust enough to cope with a trebling of the number receiving aid, particularly bearing in mind the acknowledged shortages which are occurring in the urban areas and, in particular, in Matabeleland? Will our programmes do everything possible to redress the discrimination against the urban areas and against Bulawayo where children are now starving to death from malnutrition?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I received a report this morning from an official who was in Zimbabwe last week. The numbers will rise from 1.3 million to 5.5 million, but that is because we are approaching what is called the "hungry season". So the figures will be more in line with those last year. We are confident, following our discussions in Zimbabwe last week, that the monitoring systems are robust. We have given an additional £0.5 million to the World Food Programme to cover monitoring issues. We continue to feed some 1.1 million vulnerable people in Zimbabwe, including malnourished children.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, did not the very well respected international Human Rights Watch find incontrovertible evidence that food aid is being manipulated for political ends and that some horrible and brutal decisions are being taken?

1087
We all recognise that the Government are very limited in what they can do about this issue—short of working very hard to get rid of Mugabe—but over the weekend did not the Minister hear the American President calling Zimbabwe an outpost of oppression? Is she not aware—I am sure she is—that day after day our high commissioner in Harare is subjected to the most appalling and outrageous threats and insults? Is it not time that we followed the example of the American Congress and spoke out more robustly and more strongly and pushed Mr Mbeki in South Africa into the action he has promised, which is to bring this horrific nightmare to an end?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised a number of different issues. First, how robust have the UK Government been? We cannot have been more robust. A decision would not have been taken at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting last year, which I attended, suspending Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth, if the UK Government and our Prime Minister had not been extremely robust. We were the first country to cease arms sales to Zimbabwe. We were part of the European Commission that agreed sanctions and an assets freeze. The US Government followed the European Union with respect to that.
We have been at the forefront of discussions, not just with our European partners, but with the United States and others about what we can do in Zimbabwe. I have said in this House many times that outside governments are extremely limited in what they can do regarding a government who are intent on repressing and harassing their own people. We have done our best. I have listened time and again to calls from the party opposite for us to do more, but have heard very little about what more we can do.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, can the Leader of the House explain what steps her Majesty's Government intend to take at the forthcoming Heads of Commonwealth conference in Abuja to promote a resolution to the political crisis in Zimbabwe and the flagrant abuse of human rights in that country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we shall continue to talk with other Commonwealth countries about this matter. Noble Lords will know that Zimbabwe has not been invited to the conference by the Nigerian Government, which is hosting the event.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, we have been told—and I am sure it is true—that we are working very closely with the EU on this matter. The EU is, in turn, beginning to work very closely with the African Union. I think that the Minister will agree that the African Union has consistently blocked our efforts to bring the issue to the United Nations. Is it part of our express policy to urge all our EU partners to press the African Union no longer to continue that opposition, but to allow a resolution to be properly discussed, as it should be, in the United Nations?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have continued to work with our EU partners. The noble Baroness will recall that the EU-Africa summit, which was due to be held earlier this year, did not go ahead precisely because the EU and the AU could not reach agreement about the possible attendance or non-attendance of Mugabe at that summit. We shall continue to do that work. The noble Baroness will also be aware that there are differences among European Union countries with respect to an ongoing strategy on Zimbabwe.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble Baroness back to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Howell. Is she satisfied that the South African Government are doing everything possible to apply pressure on Mugabe's regime to bring it to an immediate close?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will know that we have been in discussions over many months with the South African Government. They have assured us that they are engaged in discussions on these matters with the Government of Zimbabwe, and indeed with the MDC.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister talked about the monitoring of the distribution of food aid. Can she say how many irregularities have been detected recently?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, no irregularities have been detected recently.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Amos: That is absolutely right, my Lords. I remind noble Lords of a point I have made in this House before. The international community provides food aid, but the Government of Zimbabwe itself provides food aid through the Grain Marketing Board. So many of the irregularities that may have been brought to your Lordships' attention relate not to international aid through either the World Food Programme or the Department for International Development but to the food aid being delivered by the Government of Zimbabwe. If noble Lords know of irregularities, I should be happy if they brought them to my attention.

International Development Funding
3 p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to reduce international development funding to middle-income countries.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are committed to spending 90 per cent of DfID country programmes in low-income countries by 2005–06. That, together with contributing to the cost of

1089
recovery in Iraq, will lead to some reductions in aid to other middle-income countries in future years. Further details are provided in a Written Answer I have today given in reply to my noble friend Lord Radice. I have placed a copy of that Answer in the Library of the House.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that reply and declare an interest as a board member of HelpAge International, an international development charity working for and on behalf of older people in many middle-income countries.
I welcome the Government's continued commitment to increase overall international development funding and support for multinational organisations such as HelpAge International. I hope that Iraq will soon rejoin the group of middle-income countries. However, I am disappointed that the extra spending on its reconstruction has meant that a further £50 million has been cut from funding for middle-income countries in the next two years. That may be especially harmful to programmes in Latin America and Eastern Europe.
Noble Lords: Question!
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I seek the Minister's reassurance that central to her department's international development agenda on poverty reduction is another change in circumstances that we face, which is the global revolution in ageing, which is impacting on all parts of the world, especially developing countries.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that the commitment of the Government and of the Department for International Development to the poorest countries in the world will continue. What is happening at present is an acceleration of the trend to which we are already committed. We have a target to move our spending from a current base of 78 per cent spent on the lowest income countries in the world to 90 per cent by 2005–06. Iraq counts as a middle-income country. We have considered how we spend the money that we allocate to middle-income countries and have had to reallocate within it. But our commitment to the poorest countries in the world continues.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on 12th March 2003, it was stated:
"It would clearly be wrong to consider withdrawing DfID funding from other humanitarian emergencies or development efforts elsewhere in the world"?
Clare Short, the noble Baroness and the Prime Minister all said that reconstruction costs in Iraq would come from DfID reserves. However, on 6th November, Hilary Benn stated—and the noble Baroness echoes him—that the,
"withdrawal from programmes, earlier than we had previously decided".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/03; col. 42WS.],
1090
was because of expenditure in Iraq. What other battles is DfID likely to lose over Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, misunderstands the nature of DfID funding. The money we spend on humanitarian aid and emergencies around the world is separate from the money we spend on our bilateral and multilateral programmes. There has been no cut in our humanitarian or emergency assistance to any country as a result of our programmes in Iraq. What we have considered reallocating—not during this year but from next year—is the money spent in middle-income countries, which we were already doing in any event so that we could meet our commitment to 90 per cent of our spending going to low-income countries.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the middle-income countries whose budgets have constantly been under threat under this Labour Government are still home to at least 140 million people living in poverty. The Secretary of State, Mr Benn, released a shocking Written Statement last week describing reduction of spending in middle-income countries of about £100 million. Only in October did he pledge £544 million for Iraq, with no mention of cutbacks.
Of course we support aid for reconstruction of Iraq, but not at the expense of countries such as Albania, Romania and Bulgaria, to mention but a few, or poor countries such as those in Latin America. Why do the Government continue to calculate by pure numbers of people per country, not by percentage? There will always be more people below the poverty line in China than Albania, for example. How do the Government expect aid programmes to continue if they are cut so suddenly?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness represents a party which presided over a dramatic fall in the amount going to overseas development. Since 1998, UK aid spending has increased by 74 per cent in real terms. So I do not understand her point about our overseeing cuts in expenditure on development. We have made a commitment to the poorest in the world that 90 per cent of our bilateral funding will go to them through our commitment to low-income countries.
Lord Joffe: My Lords, some middle-income countries, such as South Africa, are being ravaged by HIV/AIDS. Their needs are perhaps even greater than those of Iraq, especially bearing in mind that they are not in receipt of the massive reconstruction budget presently offered by the USA to Iraq. Will the Leader of the House outline the key criteria applied by DfID in reallocating funds from middle-income countries to Iraq and confirm that those criteria are consistent with those usually followed by DfID in allocating funds?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, that dealing with HIV/AIDS is central to our work in sub-Saharan Africa and will continue to be, regardless of whether it occurs in a middle-income country such as South Africa or

1091
elsewhere. On the criteria, post-conflict countries have always been important to our development agenda. We are developing a strategy for our work in middle-income countries.

Business of the House: Armistice Day
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as the House will know, tomorrow is Armistice Day. Although the House will not be sitting at 11.00 a.m., Members of the House, their staff and officials of the House will be attending to their duties. I think that the House will agree that it is appropriate that we should join the nation in observing the two-minute silence at that time, so that we might remember those who gave their lives for their country to help to preserve our democratic freedom. Instructions will also be issued to Heads of Department, so that those members of staff who wish to observe the two-minute silence are enabled to do so.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Transfer of staff]:
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Sections 23 to 25: supplementary]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 11, line 20, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Clause 27[Mergers]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 235 to 239:
Page 12, line 16, leave out "he" and insert "the regulator"
Page 12, line 20, leave out from beginning to "will" in line 21 and insert "the applicant has taken steps to secure that (taken as a whole) the actual membership of any public constituency, and (if there is one) of the patients' constituency".
Page 12, line 25, leave out "he" and insert "the regulator".
Page 12, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) In deciding whether it is satisfied as to the matters referred to in subsection (5)(c), the regulator is to consider (among other things)—

(a) any report or recommendation in respect of either of the applicants made by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection,

(b) the financial position of the applicants."

Page 12, line 26, leave out from beginning to "the" in line 27 and insert—
"( ) The applicants must consult about the application in accordance with regulations.
( ) In the course of the consultation the applicants must seek the views of—

(a) any Patients' Forum for an applicant,

(b) the staff employed by the applicants,

(c) individuals who live in any area specified in the proposed constitution as the area for a public constituency,

(d) any local authority that would be authorised by the proposed constitution to appoint a member of the board of governors,

(e) if the proposed constitution provides for a patients' constituency, individuals who would be able apply to become members of that constituency,

(f) any persons prescribed by regulations.

( )"
Page 12, line 28, leave out "he" and insert "it".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 240 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Section 27: supplementary]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 13, line 2, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Co-operation between NHS bodies]:
[Amendment No. 243 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Public involvement and consultation]:
[Amendment No. 244 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Patients' Forums]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 13, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) In section 15 (establishment of Patients Forums), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(1A) The Secretary of State shall also establish a Patients' Forum for each NHS foundation trust, unless a resolution of the board of governors of the trust under section 18A has had effect.
(1B) In relation to a Patients' Forum established by virtue of subsection (1 A) references in this Part to the trust, or NHS trust, for which it is established shall be read as references to the NHS foundation trust.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my ability to clear the Chamber is impressive. As I have said previously, we support independent patient involvement. NHS foundation trusts, like other NHS bodies, will be under a duty to consult and involve patients and the public under Clause 30. The Bill did not require NHS foundation trusts to have patients' forums because we do not want to prescribe how NHS foundation trusts should implement their duty to consult and involve the public and patients. In that stance there was no intention to diminish the work of patients' forums.
However, we recognise that there are strong feelings and concerns on the issue, in the House and outside. We wish to respond to those concerns by proposing that all NHS foundation trusts will, in the first instance, have a patients' forum. An NHS foundation trust must continue with a patients' forum for at least a year from establishment, under the government amendments in the group that we are moving. That will give a trust's governance arrangements a chance to get fully up and running, and the trust will have had the opportunity to consider the best way of fulfilling its duty to consult and involve patients and the public. At

1093
that stage, the board of governors will gain a power to vote on dissolving the patients' forums under those amendments.
Before voting on dissolution of its patients' forum, the board of governors would first need to consult the members of the trust and the patients' forum itself. The board of governors would also need to be satisfied that satisfactory alternative arrangements were in place for fulfilling the independent patient involvement and scrutiny role of the patients' forum. At least three-quarters of the members of the board of governors must vote to dissolve the patients' forum at a general meeting for such a resolution to be passed. That is what Amendments Nos. 245, 248, 249 and 252 would achieve.
I hope that all sides of the House will feel able to support the government amendments and that colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches will not press their amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the government amendments as he did. They were not unexpected in view of the Minister's assurance in Committee carefully to consider an alternative to provide more comfort for patients' interests and to show that we are serious about patient involvement on the providers' side. Some of the subsidiary amendments are sensible tidying-up arrangements, as were the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats at the previous stage. To that extent, they are welcome. We welcome, in particular, Amendment No. 249, which amends Section 19 of the 2002 Act, and Amendment No. 252, which gives the commission the right role as regards foundation trusts. We very much welcome the introduction of statutory consultation requirements on merger proposals, which has been under debate.
We do not accept the underlying principle behind the Government's amendments. Patients' forums are a statutory link with the community, so the community should decide whether that link is severed, not the foundation trust. Amendment No. 245 and subsequent amendments tabled by the Government attempt to provide a consultation procedure, but it starts from the wrong end. It is no good to consult a foundation trust patients' forum without a duty to have regard to what it says. It is all very well to consult, but the process must be taken seriously, and there should be a duty to do so. Will the overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities be consulted? Those are essential pre-requisites to any power.
Our fundamental objection is that we see patients' forums as the standard operating requirement for patients' involvement in the NHS, whether an ordinary NHS trust or a foundation trust. They should, and will, be a useful independent informed voice for patients and will be able to act as a support for governors, counterbalancing the influence of trust management on the governing body. They should be able to link up accountability mechanisms, particularly through their powers of referral to
1094
overview and scrutiny committees. They should link up also with national accountability, through the referral of issues of concern to the commission.
The bottom line is that the Government themselves made a commitment that there should be a patients' forum in every trust and PCT. That was the underlying basis of the 2002 Act. By the simple expedient of getting rid of NHS trusts and turning them into foundation trusts, they are attempting to climb out of that commitment, albeit with that caveat. That is a major problem for us.
There are problems with individual amendments. What sticks out most is the aspect of timing. Under the Government's provisions, by my calculations, the minimum period for which a foundation trust should have a patients' forum is 15 months—I do not know whether the Minister will be able to confirm that. That is a ridiculously short time in which to have a patients' forum to see whether that will operate. Even in their own terms, the Government's amendments seem extraordinarily flawed.
Many of us have considerable doubts about what constitute adequate arrangements to secure the performance of functions corresponding to those of the patients' forum for that trust. One could go into detail specifying that; indeed, if we were to accept the provision, such detail would have to be included. But, having looked carefully at the provisions, I am afraid to say that I do not believe that the Government have gone far enough. They will have to stretch themselves to go that extra mile.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in what he says on this group of amendments. I recognise that the Minister has tried to be helpful in tabling the government amendments, but I am sorry to say that, having read them, I do not think that they will do.
The central point is that the governors of a foundation trust should not be made judge and jury on the question of whether to get rid of a patients' forum. That is surely what they would be, as the consultation that they would be required to perform under proposed subsection (5) is only that—consultation. As the noble Lord said, it does not include a duty to pay attention to the feedback that the governors receive or to act accordingly.
The chairman of the board of governors is in a particularly awkward position since he is also the chairman of the trust, who would have a clear interest in wanting to remove the patients' forum. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I do not see why the overview and scrutiny committee has been omitted from the consultation process. One of patients' forums' main powers is that of referral to the local overview and scrutiny committee. That is part and parcel of their democratic underpinning. It seems extraordinary to ignore the views of the OSC.
I agree that the Government need to explain the meaning of subsection (1) of Amendment No. 248. It is not clear what replacement arrangements there

1095
could be for a statutory power to refer a matter to the OSC or the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health; nor is it clear what replacement arrangement there could be for a statutory duty to find out the views of patients.
As a matter of drafting, the Government's amendments, taken together, cause me some puzzlement. Amendment No. 248 refers to the circumstances in which a patients' forum may be dissolved. That presupposes that a patients' forum exists to be dissolved. Yet, Amendment No. 245 says that a patients' forum need not be set up in the first place, if a resolution under Amendment No. 248 has been passed. How could that resolution have been passed if the patients' forum did not exist? I should be glad, if the Minister could explain.
I feel let down by the Government's approach to patients' forums in the Bill, despite the fact that they tried to meet us halfway. The promise was made only a few months ago—after three years of negotiation— that every hospital would have its own forum. If patients' forums are to be abandoned across the piece in acute trusts, the least that should happen is that the community itself should do the deciding. The government amendments adopt the wrong approach.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have listened and have moved a bit on foundation hospitals and patients' forums. As there are so many changes and new bodies in the National Health Service, I ask the Minister to spell out what patients' forums will do. There is confusion on so many bodies at the moment.
Lord Warner: My Lords, on the last point, I can say that, under foundation trusts, patients' forums will do the same job as they do under the existing arrangements. There is no change in their functions. They will continue the functions that they have performed under an NHS trust, when that trust becomes an NHS foundation trust.
In response to the point made by the noble Earl, I say that, together, the amendments achieve the transfer of the patients' forum. We disagree with his view that they do not. I am happy to consider the point again with parliamentary counsel to ensure that the amendments achieve the purpose that we said they would achieve. It was my intention, in approving the amendments, that they should achieve that purpose. There would be no point in our making elaborate arrangements for possible dissolution, if we had not ensured that they would continue when the NHS trust became an NHS foundation trust. I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Earl will accept that we have endeavoured to do that.
We think that some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are a bit harsh. If we examine the detail of what we have provided, we will see that there is a high threshold for getting rid of a patients' forum through a foundation trust. We have required a 75 per cent vote at a meeting of the board of governors. That is a fairly high threshold. The
1096
governors must be satisfied that there is alternative provision that satisfactorily carries out the functions of a patients' forum. There will have to be powerful evidence that an alternative to the patients' forum can be provided, and the vote must pass the 75 per cent threshold that we have specified.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the noble Lord withdrawing the amendment, so that we can go back to it at Third Reading? Is he going to consider it again between now and Third Reading? This is Report, and I do not believe that he will be able to consider the amendment again, if we agree it now.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am sorry if I have misled the House. I have absolute confidence in our amendments. I thought that I had moved the amendment earlier. For the avoidance of doubt, I beg to move.
3.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 245) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Ahmed, L.

Filkin, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fitt, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Gale, B.

Andrews, B.

Gavron, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Golding, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Barnett, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Goudie, B.

Berkeley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Greengross, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gregson, L.

Borrie, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Brookman, L,

Harrison, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L.

Hayman, B.

Chorley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Christopher, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Crawley, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Derby, Bp.

Joffe, L.

Desai, L.

Jones, L.

Dixon, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dubs, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Eatwell, L.

Lipsey, L.

Elder, L.

Lockwood, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Lucas, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chancellor)

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

1097

Massey of Darwen, B.

Sheldon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Simon, V.

Mitchell, L.

Stallard, L.

Morgan, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Ouseley, L

Tenby, V.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Paul, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Warner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Prys-Davies. L.

Whitaker, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Whitty, L.

Richard, L.

Wilkins, B.

Rooker, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kimball, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Arran, E.

Liverpool, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lyell, L.

Attlee, E.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Avebury, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Barker, B.

L.

Biffen, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Bowness, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Montrose, D.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Moynihan, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Byford, B.

Newby, L.

Caithness, E.

Noakes, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northesk, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northover, B.

Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Onslow, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cuckney, L.

Parkinson, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dholakia, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Dundee, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Plumb, L.

Elles, B.

Quinton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rawlings, B.

Emerton, B.

Razzall, L.

Ezra, L.

Reay, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L.

Feldman, L.

Rees, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Fookes, B.

Rennard, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Glentoran, L.

Roper, L.

Goodhart, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hanham, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skelmersdale, L.[Teller]

Henley, L.

Slim, V.

Higgins, L.

Smith of Clifton, L

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Taverne, L.

Howe of Idlicote. B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jeger, B.

Tope, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tordoff, L.

1098

Trefgarne, L.

Walmsley, B.

Trumpington, B.

Walpole, L.

Vivian, L.

Warnock, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Wakeham, L.

Wigoder, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wilcox, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendments Nos. 246 and 247:
Page 13, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"(2) In section 15 (establishment of patients' forums) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there is inserted "and
(c) for each foundation trust."" Page 13, line 29, after "reports)" insert—
"(a) in subsection (2)(c)(ii) after "NHS trust" there is inserted "or foundation trust";"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 248:
Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) After section 18 there is inserted—
"18A POWER OF NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTS TO DISSOLVE PATIENTS' FORUM

(1) Subsection (2) applies where the board of governors of an NHS foundation trust is satisfied that adequate arrangements are in place to secure the performance of functions corresponding to those of the Patients' Forum for that trust.

(2) The board may pass a resolution to dissolve the Patients' Forum with effect from a specified date.

(3) The date so specified must be not less than three months after the date on which the resolution is passed.

(4) The resolution must be passed at a general meeting by not less than three quarters of the members of the board.

(5) Before passing a resolution, the board must consult the members of the trust and its Patients' Forum.

(6) The board may not pass a resolution until the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the date of the trust's authorisation to become an NHS foundation trust.""

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, different considerations apply to the later amendments. On these Benches, we would not wish to move amendments in priority to government amendments. We would appreciate it if the Minister would move his amendments formally, to determine what the House might do in those circumstances.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am in some difficulty here. I am being encouraged by the noble Lord to move Amendment No. 248.I am being advised not to move Amendment No. 248 by my advisers on the grounds that, given the vote, we would not move our amendments in this group. We have to look at the amendments moved by the noble Lord, which have

1099
been carried, to determine whether, technically, they require any tidying up. In the light of that, we will not be moving Amendment No. 248.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, we particularly wish that he would move Amendment No. 249.
[Amendment No. 248 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) In section 19 (supplementary), in subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (k), after "an NHS trust, " there is inserted "an NHS foundation trust, ",

(b) in paragraph (p), after "NHS trusts, " there is inserted "NHS foundation trusts, "."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have nothing to add. There seems to have been a change of heart in the box since I last spoke to my advisers. They say that I should move Amendment No. 249.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 250 and 251 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 13, line 34, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 36 and insert—
"( ) Section 20 of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002 (c. 17) (Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health) is amended as follows.
( ) In subsection (10), after "an NHS trust, " there is inserted "an NHS foundation trust, ".
( ) In subsection (12), "
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there has been a change of heart. We wish to move Amendment No. 252 as well. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 253 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Taxation]: [Amendment No. 254 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Other amendments relating to NHS foundation trusts]:
[Amendment No. 255 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 256:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
"CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS
(1) Regulations may make provision as to the conduct of elections for membership of the board of governors of an NHS foundation trust.
(2) The regulations may in particular provide for—

(a) nomination of candidates and obligations to declare their interests,

(b) systems and methods of voting, and the allocation of places on the board of governors, at contested elections,

(c) filling of vacancies,

(d) supervision of elections,

(e) election expenses and publicity,

1100

(f) questioning of elections and the consequences of irregularities.

(3) An NHS foundation trust must secure that its constitution is in accordance with regulations under this section.
(4) Pending the coming into force of regulations under this section, elections for membership of the board of governors of an NHS foundation trust, if contested, must be by secret ballot."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments relating to NHS foundation trusts]:
[Amendment No. 257 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Offence]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner Amendments Nos. 258 to 260:
Page 14, line 18, leave out from "form" to end of line 19 and insert "stating which constituency he is a member of.
Page 14, line 22, leave out "relevant constituency" and insert "constituency for which the election is being held"
Page 14, line 26, leave out "relevant constituency" and insert "trust"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 261 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Representative membership]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 14, line 38, leave out "its public" and insert "any public constituency and (if there is one) of the patients'".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 263 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Audit]:
[Amendment No. 264 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Audit of accounts of NHS foundation trusts]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 130, line 30, after second "the" insert "board of governors and board of directors of the"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, in moving Amendment No. 265, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 266 and 267. Schedule 5 sets out the duties, powers and responsibilities of an NHS foundation trust auditor. Paragraph 3 places a requirement on the auditor to consider whether he should make a report in the public interest on any matter which comes to his notice during the course of the audit.
These amendments have been tabled in response to the concerns expressed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She argued powerfully that in order to ensure proper accountability, it is important that there is a mechanism for ensuring that the membership is made aware of any auditors' reports on an NHS foundation trust and that they are made in the public interest. We propose to amend the Bill to ensure that any such public interest reports are sent to the board of governors, as the representative of the members, as well as to the directors of the NHS foundation trust, at the same time as they are submitted to the regulator. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for listening to our arguments in Committee. I am pleased with the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 266 and 267:
Page 130, line 33, leave out "trust and" and insert "board of governors and board of directors of the trust and to"
Page 130, line 37, leave out "trust" and insert "directors"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]
Clause 38 [General duty of NHS foundation trusts]:
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 270:
Page 15, leave out lines 16 to 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 271 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [CHAI: supplementary]:
3.45 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 272:
Page 132, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) a person appointed as chairman by the body specified in section 183(2B), "
The noble Earl said: My Lords., in moving Amendment No. 272, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 273 to 282 inclusive, and Amendments Nos. 406 to 408 inclusive. In moving this amendment. I return to one of the key themes of our Committee debates: the extent to which both CHAI and CSCI are to be allowed to operate independently of government.
Independence from government is far from being some kind of heretical suggestion. On the contrary, it is the very characteristic that will ensure the: one outcome that we all want to see emerge from these provisions, which is that the two new bodies should command total public confidence. They must not be seen in any sense to be the stooges of Ministers. They must be free to offer advice and to reach conclusions impartially, and must be seen to do that.
I agree that neither body can operate in a way which isolates them from the broad drift of government policy or from the way in which Ministers may wish to see health policy and the health service develop but, as a matter of principle, the leverage that a government are able to exercise over CHAI and CSCI should be kept to the absolute minimum.
There are several levels on which such independence can manifest itself. The first relates to the question of who should appoint the chairman and members of CHAI. As the Bill stands, those appointments are in the gift of the Secretary of State. I do not think that the Government have made the case for this. They have said that it is their intention for all such appointments to be delegated to the NHS Appointment
1102
Commission. If that is so, then I ask the obvious question: why should that not be written on the face of the Bill?
In Committee, the Minister said that he felt it sensible for the Government to reserve for themselves a power of appointment of the chairman and members of the two bodies. He also said that the Government should be judged on their past performance as regards their readiness to delegate appointments to the commission. I am afraid that I am not swayed by either of those arguments. Even if one were to accept the slightly challenging proposition that this Government are a model of fairness and objectivity in the way that they approach appointments of this kind, the acceptability of the Bill, as the Minister knows, should not be judged according to the practices of the current administration. Those things are beside the point; the Bill should set down rules and procedures appropriate for this or any other government. We know what scope there is for political bias and for the subjective judgment of Ministers to influence their choice of appointee. With bodies as important as these, there is a cast-iron case for ruling out that possibility from the beginning.
I do not propose to deprive the Secretary of State of the power to remove either the chairman or any of the members on the grounds set out in the schedule. Those provisions seem sufficiently fair to cater for a situation where things may be going wrong and speedy action needs to be taken. However, I do not see why the remuneration of the chairman and members of CHAI and CSCI should be directly determined by the Secretary of State. Instead I propose that the Bill should adopt the same formula as that used in the Bank of England Act 1998. Under that Act, it is for the Bank itself to determine the Governor's pay, with the approval of the Secretary of State. That may be a shift only of emphasis, but it is an important shift.
Similarly, it should not be for the Secretary of State to say whether there should be pensions and allowances for the chairman and members. Following once again the model of the Bank of England Act, CHAI and CSCI themselves should be allowed to settle that question. If they decide that there should be pension arrangements, as I expect they would, then they should seek the approval of the Secretary of State for that decision. The Secretary of State would then be responsible for deciding what those arrangements should be.
Lastly, remaining with the theme of independence, the bodies must be independent financially. If they cannot be sure that they can have the money necessary to carry out their functions, they will not be truly independent. Amendments Nos. 277 and 282 amend Schedules 6 and 7 respectively for CHAI and CSCI to remove the absolute prohibition on borrowing other than from the Government with a power to borrow other than from the Government. This new power is not unconstrained, but would allow cumulative additional borrowing up to the amount of the previous year's annual expenditure.
In the ordinary course of events, if CHAI needed to borrow money, it would do so from the Government. As the Minister pointed out in Committee, that is the cheapest course, but it is not necessarily bad value for money—as the Minister went on to allege—to pay a higher interest rate. Value for money is not only about economy, it is also about efficiency and effectiveness. If CHAI is prevented investing in, say, some new technology because the Treasury's finances are in a mess, the efficiency or effectiveness of CHAI's operations could be seriously harmed. It could represent very good value for money to allow CHAI to borrow if it meant that the body could then discharge its functions in the best way possible.
I am sure that CHAI and CSCI will be responsible bodies; they will have the Comptroller and Auditor General breathing down their necks if they act otherwise. However, to suggest, as the Minister did in Committee, that borrowing by these responsible bodies could present a real danger to the effective performance of their duties is carrying things too far. The reverse is the truth: they have to be given financial freedom if they are to carry out their functions effectively.
The spirit of what the Government said they wanted to see from these provisions is that there should be freedom consistent with proper accountability to Parliament. I believe that our amendments conform with that principle. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, these are important amendments. There is a great difference between how it feels to be the chairman of a quango if you are appointed by the Secretary of State and your salary and conditions of service are fixed by him, and how it feels if you are appointed independently by someone else and your salary and conditions of service are determined by the body of which you are the chairman. It is a completely different feeling.
In my experience, there are two possible kinds of independence in these circumstances. If one has been appointed by the Secretary of State, there is independence within the broad spectrum of what is acceptable to him and to the Government of the day. Should one go on into a different kind of government, one's freedom changes slightly and one is prepared to accept that. However, if one is appointed quite independently, one can, if necessary, stand up to the Secretary of State and be truly independent. That is what we want in this case. We want the two bodies to be able to carry out, within their terms of reference, a completely independent job.
Of course we understand that there are two ways of doing so, but this is a new situation. Foundation trusts are supposed to be independent hospitals and they need independent bodies to inspect them. I strongly support the amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the amendments. When they first announced the merger of the acute inspection aspects of CHI and the
1104
National Care Standards Commission, the Government promised a new CHAI which would be every bit as independent of government as the Audit Commission. In a sense, these amendments are designed to ensure that the Government honour that obligation. They are a natural way of ensuring that the independence of CHAI and CSCI is absolutely clear. As the amendments are drafted in moderate tones, I shall be surprised if the Government can find any reason to resist them.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised a number of issues. I shall deal with them steadily as I am not as practised a parliamentarian as I hope to be in the future.
I support Amendments Nos. 278 and 281 in relation to appointments because they reflect current practice in that chairs and board members are appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission. I do not understand therefore what difficulty there will be in establishing that as a pattern. It has nothing to do with the issue of accountability through Parliament and the Secretary of State for the work carried out, but it does give a degree of separation in terms of appointment. It is suggested that an independent element could be added to the system for the appointment and dismissal of the chair and board members. This is similar to the existing system for local authority chief executives. Both suggestions are valuable.
However, I have real concerns about the amendments that would allow the commissions— certainly in relation to CSCI, which I would understand more than I would CHAI—to repay borrowed money. This is because of the complexity in regard to how repayments would be made and how money would be raised in order to make such repayments. It must be remembered that these organisations will have the freedom to impose fees and to increase them in certain circumstances. I am concerned that fees should be kept at a proper level and not used to pay for borrowed money.
It would be extraordinarily helpful if CSCI and CHAI—I do not quite understand how the process works—were able to make direct submissions to spending reviews independent of the Department of Health. The problem at the moment is that they must make their submissions through the Department of Health's total submission, where they are in competition with other groups rather than able to make their own direct interventions.
A great difficulty may arise if both commissions are not properly resourced in the future by the Government, but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will assure us that they will have appropriate resourcing in the future.
Lord Warner: My Lords, this large group of amendments concerns the appointment, pay and financial independence of the two commissions and the regulator.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 272, 273, 278, 406, 407 and 408 would be that all appointments to the boards of both CHAI and CSCI and also the

1105
independent regulator would be automatically delegated to a special health authority—effectively the NHS Appointments Commission.
I said previously that the Government envisage that the vast majority of national appointments for which the Department of Health is responsible will be delegated to the NHS Appointments Commission, with only a very small proportion of appointments being made directly by the Secretary of State. The position regarding CHAI and CSCI has already been made quite clear in Committee and in another place. The Government are committed to delegating all stages of the appointments processes for both commissions to the NHS Appointments Commission for chairs and non-executive members Ministers will not be involved other than by setting the criteria against which candidates are judged.
As regards the independent regulator for NHS foundation trusts, it is the Government's intention that the Secretary of State will appoint the regulator on first establishment. He may in the future consider delegating appointment of the independent regulator to the NHS Appointments Commission. It is likely that appointments to the new board structure will also be delegated in that way. Against this background, we do not believe that there is any need for the amendments.
As regards Amendments Nos. 274, 275, 276, 279, 280 and 281—which concern the determination of remuneration and other allowances—we do not believe that the parallel with the Bank of England is at all valid. The effect of the amendments is that CHAI and CSCI would themselves be responsible for determining remuneration and other allowances, including pensions, of the chairmen and members of the commissions. This would be highly inappropriate because, as I said in Committee, it is proper that these functions should belong to the Secretary of State as he sets the overall budget for CHAI and CSCI in consultation with the inspectorates—and, in the case of CHAI, with the National Assembly for Wales—and he will be able to ensure that the remuneration paid to the chair and other members is appropriate and proportionate.
It would be a little bizarre to follow the path of the amendments because the chairs and other members of CHAI and CSCI are public appointees rather than employees of the commissions. As such, their remuneration should not be determined by themselves as that would hardly ensure proper public accountability. It cannot be right for the chair and other members of CHAI and CSCI to determine themselves the amount of remuneration they are to receive. I am not sure that they would wish to do so as this would leave them open to accusations of lining their own pockets. Certainly, as someone who has chaired an NDPB, I would not want to be in the position of effectively fixing my own pay. The backstop proposed by the noble Earl of the Secretary of State having to approve such determinations would put him in an impossible position because he might have to disagree publicly with the proposals put forward by the commissions.
1106
I am unclear about what benefits the amendments would have. They would not serve to make the commissions more financially independent as the Secretary of State—in consultation with the Assembly in the case of CHAI—will remain responsible for setting the overall budget. The amendments would serve only to set up a system for CHAI and CSCI which, for no good reason, would be different from all other public appointments to NDPBs and would muddy the waters of accountability.
Amendments Nos. 277 and 282 seek to allow CHAI and CSCI to borrow money from the private sector. In Committee, I made clear that the Government are committed to ensuring that CHAI and CSCI are fully funded to carry out all their functions effectively, whether that funding is obtained through fee income or through central funding. Clearly, we would not wish to go to all the trouble and expense of setting up a new and powerful independent set of commissions only to render them incapable of doing their work due to lack of funding.
It would be unprecedented for NDPBs such as CHAI and CSCI to be able to raise money by borrowing from the private sector in this way. As I stated in Committee, there are good reasons, we think, in terms of value for money on interest rates and accountability for their core functions why we should not take this particular path. It is not the case, as the noble Earl has previously suggested, that this unwillingness to allow the commissions to borrow from the private sector undermines our stated belief in their capabilities and independence.
CHAI and CSCI will be independent inspectorates of health and social care, and we have every confidence in their undoubted expertise in these areas. However, I see no reason why we should depart from well established financial practices for NDPBs for CHAI and CSCI. I do not believe that these amendments make sense.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government's stall so clearly. The way in which he has done so starkly opens up the difference in philosophy between ourselves and the Government on what these two bodies should look like. I thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for what she said. I am grateful, too, for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, at least in part, for what I had to say.
I simply do not think that the Minister has made the case for reserving a power of appointment to government. He has not said why or in what circumstances this power would be needed. If, as they say they do, the Government intend to use the NHS Appointments Commission for the vast bulk of these appointments, that is surely the track we should pursue. For the life of me, I cannot think why this should not be set down.
There is a very good reason for creating that Appointments Commission. Our memories do not need to be that long to recall that there was some of controversy during this Government's initial period in

1107
office over politically biased appointments. Whether the allegations were well founded is another matter, but the Appointments Commission was set up to address that concern, and I applauded it.
Lord Warner: My Lords, will the noble Earl remember back to before 1997, when there was quite a lot of controversy, as I recall, about his government's appointments to NHS bodies? It is a bit rich to take a genuine effort by this Government to take many of these appointments out of the political arena and say that that action was simply a result of concerns about this Government's behaviour.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am the first to acknowledge that every government want to ensure that there are people in important public positions who are broadly sympathetic to the drift of government policy. Of course that is so. However, the Minister is being a little disingenuous; there is simply no comparison, if one looks at the statistics on politically biased appointments in the current Government's time and in that of the previous Government. Yes, of course Conservatives were appointed to some positions, but there was much more of a balance in those days than a few years ago. I say no more than that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Is he really saying that the last government did not exercise political bias in their appointments to NHS bodies? My Lords, they did. They appointed a considerable number of Conservatives. Very few people who were identified as Labour Party members and supporters were appointed.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have just said that of course Conservatives were appointed to key positions, but it is a matter of degree. That is the point. The blatant attempt to bias the process when this Government came to power was there for all to see. I, for one, welcomed the creation of the Appointments Commission as a means of getting us away from all that and, to a very great extent, it has done so.
The Minister rejected the analogy I attempted to make with the Bank of England, and suggested that CHAI and CSCI were simply not the kind of non-departmental public bodies which could accommodate the freedoms that I propose in these amendments. Again, I simply do not agree with him. The fact that they are public servants—
Lord Warner: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the chairman of the Audit Commission has his salary set by the Secretary of State? Is the noble Earl suggesting that the Audit Commission chair is not independent because his salary is set by the Secretary of State?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not feel the need to comment on that. The analogy I was making was with the Governor of the Bank of England. He is a public
1108
servant, as much as the chairman of CHAI or of CSCI will be. There is a good argument for saying that if we want to make these bodies as independent and politically unbeholden as possible, we should look very seriously at the simple device of allowing these bodies to set salaries, with the veto of the Secretary of State. I am not suggesting that there should not be such a veto.
As the amendments make very clear, the Secretary of State would have a say in this. He would be able to disagree with whatever proposals he did not like, and I do not see what is wrong with that. It would be a public disagreement, but I do not see why that is undesirable.
As to the freedom to borrow, I hope I have made it clear that these proposals are simply designed as a safety valve. They would not be used in the routine course of events for capital requirements, but they could be used if needed. Again, I think that is a sensible proposal; each body would have to exercise its judgment responsibly and would be audited and examined on the strength of that judgment. It is not as if no controls or checks would be made on them.
I think we have reached an important point of disagreement between this side and the Government, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
4.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 272) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Dholakia, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Dundee, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Arran, E.

Elles, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Attlee, E.

Emerton, B.

Avebury, L.

Ezra, L.

Barker, B.

Falkland, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fearn, L.

Biffen, L.

Feldman, L.

Blackwell, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Blatch, B.

Fookes, B.

Bowness, L.

Fowler, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Glentoran, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Byford, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Chalfont, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Coe, L.

Henley, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Higgins, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Craigavon, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Hooper, B.

Cuckney.L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

1109

Howe, E.

Reay, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Redesdale, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Rees, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rees-Mogg, L

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Rennard, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Kimball, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kingsland, L.

Roper, L.

Kirkham, L.

Russell, E.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Listowel, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Liverpool, E.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Lucas, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.

Sandberg, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Scott of Needruun Market, B.

L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Sharp of Guildfbrd, B.

Maddock, B.

Sharpies, B.

Marsh, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Slim, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Stewartby, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Montrose, D.

Strange, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Moynihan, L.

Taverne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Tenby, V.

Newby, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Noakes, B.

Thomson of Monifieth.L.

Northesk, E.

Tope, L.

Northover, B.

Tordoff, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Onslow, E.

Trumpington, B

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vivian, L.

Parkinson, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wakeham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Walmsley, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Walpole, L.

Plumb, L.

Warnock, B.

Quinton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wigoder, L.

Razzall, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Crawley, B.

Ahmed, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Alli, L.

Derby, Bp.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Desai, L.

Andrews, B.

Dixon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dubs, L.

Barnett, L

Eatwell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Elder, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Evans of Watford. L.

Billingham, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Blackstone, B.

Chancellor)

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bragg, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Filkin, L.

Brookman, L.

Fitt, L.

Burlison, L.

Gale, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Gavron, L

Carter, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Christopher, L.

Golding, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Goudie, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Gregson, L.

1110

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Mishcon, L.

Harrison, L.

Mitchell, L.

Haskel, L.

Morgan, L.

Hayman, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ouseley, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Paul, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Richard, L.

Joffe, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Jones, L.

Rooker, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sheldon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Lea of Crondall,L.

Stallard, L.

Lipsey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lockwood, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Thornton, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Warner, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whitaker, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Wilkins, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.19 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, it would be for the convenience of the House if I made clear a decision that we reached during the Division. We shall not press the amendments relating to financial freedoms; the only amendments that we shall press are the ones for which there is a wider consensus in the House and which relate to the independent appointment. I believe that the House has agreed to Amendments Nos. 272, 278, 407 and 408. I shall not move any of the other amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 273 to 277 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [CSCI: supplementary]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 135, line 29, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "body specified in section 183(2C)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 279 to 282 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Quality in health care]:
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 283:
Page 16, line 20, at end insert "; and
(c) services to support independent living and rehabilitation"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we return to an issue on which we spent some time in Committee regarding the duties of the health service vis-à-vis services which are designed to bring back and facilitate independent living. The latter amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 354, 355 and 356— concern the lack of clarity regarding the role of the NHS and the inspection of some long-term conditions.
When we debated this matter in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Warner, gave one of the most surprising and disappointing responses that we have had during the whole of the proceedings on the Bill. He questioned the role of acute trusts and foundation trusts in relation to rehabilitation and prevention. I greatly appreciate the information that the noble Lord supplied to noble Lords on this side of the House in his letter of 4th November to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. In that letter he greatly clarified the situation as he pointed out—perhaps more fully than he could in Committee—that he believed that the bulk of the responsibility for rehabilitation and independent living lay with primary care trusts. However, in so doing, the noble Lord led us to the exact problem. In our original amendments we did not—and we are not doing so in these—refer to the role of primary care services or, indeed, community services. We referred specifically to the role of foundation trusts and acute services regarding rehabilitation and independent living.
During our previous discussion the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, talked about the role of acute trusts in physiotherapy. A great many services that, historically, were carried out in the premises of acute hospitals are no longer dealt with in that way. A number of services, including cancer services, are now carried out in community-based premises as opposed to acute hospital premises. With the growth in intermediate care in particular—that is an area that I know particularly well, but there are others—an increasing number of people who for one reason or another would have received treatment in acute hospitals now receive similar treatment in other settings. It is the responsibility of the acute services provider, and of the inspection regimes under which the providers provide those services, that we seek to establish. That is perhaps clearer in the later amendments in the group which concern drug and alcohol services. Another area would comprise the role of medical services in care homes and in nursing care homes.
The amendments are tabled because there is a huge lack of clarity about exactly how CHAI and CSCI will work in relation to these services, which have moved from their typical location but which continue to be medical services run alongside social services. The responses that we received in Committee served, if anything, to highlight the confusion but they did not add any clarity. That is why we present them again for further debate today. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I support the amendment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that there certainly was some confusion when the matter was discussed in Committee.
There used to be a clear dividing line between health and social care particularly for those patients who are cared for at home in the community. However, some very complex clinical scenarios now exist where independent living and rehabilitating someone back into society can occur only where there is a very high
1112
quality, highly specialised outreach service from the hospital combined with other infrastructure services to provide support in the patient's own home. A good example of that is patients who require intermittent positive pressure ventilation at night. The respiratory team will set that up and will be based in the acute hospital. The patient may be at home and may even be at work during the day but needs to be on ventilation over night and requires careful monitoring and support with the equipment, particularly if he or she has had a tracheotomy.
There is an increasing shift towards providing services where the patient wants them with more and more outreach services. The Bill's present wording seems to suggest that everything stops when someone has been treated. However, these patients have a continuum of rehabilitation and supportive care that often continues right through the rest of their lives. In some cases the acute medical infrastructure—I use the word "medical" in the broadest sense meaning all the medical health services—can later be withdrawn and the patient cared for with more of a social services infrastructure of support.
I have a slight concern that the amendment should contain the word "health" before "services" to make it read,
"health services to support independent living and rehabilitation".
That might remove some of the confusion. That is my only reservation with the wording of the amendment. I completely support its spirit.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Finlay illustrated why I find it difficult to support the amendment, without the need for further clarification. When services move into the community many people would rather have a service that does not have a particular medical orientation. What they want to receive is a medical service in a social or community setting. One of the great difficulties that has arisen in providing services, for example, in old people's homes where people are heavily dependent on care, and with adult disabled people—I declare an interest as the president of John Groom's Association for Disabled People, so I have some knowledge of these kinds of services—is making sure that you have the right balance of care.
I do not underestimate the difficulty of making decisions as regards which camp they fall in. My great concern is that they do not all become health services with medical orientation, thus losing some of the social care issues that come with rehabilitation.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have already discussed the issues raised by Amendments Nos. 283, 354, 355 and 356 in Committee, and I wrote to Peers on them on 4th November. With respect to Amendment No. 283, I explained that we did not believe that we should change the existing definition of healthcare in such a way, because to do so would suggest that services concerned with rehabilitation and independent living were generally provided by NHS bodies. In fact, they

1113
are most frequently provided by local authorities as social services, with health services provided as ancillary to those services. I totally agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth.
I want to be absolutely clear that I am not suggesting in any way that such services will always fall within the definition of social care or always be regulated by CSCI. The NHS also provides rehabilitation services and, where that is the case, those will fall within the definition of healthcare as services provided in connection with the treatment of illness, and will be subject to inspection by CHAI.
The terms "rehabilitation" and,
"services to support independent living",
used in the amendment are so broad that they could almost cover the entirety of adult social care. To amend the definition of healthcare as suggested would therefore give a misleading impression of the services to be dealt with by CHAI under the Bill, and those to be dealt with by CSCI.
I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in terms of a continuum of care, and nothing that I say would seek to go against that. I shall give some examples to illustrate the point that I have been trying to make. In some cases, a discharge will be to onward rehabilitative care provided by the NHS. For instance, where an individual had recently had a limb amputated, they would be provided with ongoing pain management and rehabilitative services. Such services would be inspected by CHAI.
In other cases, a discharge might be made to a social care facility, where rehabilitation could take place. For example, a patient who had been admitted to hospital as a result of a fall might be discharged and provided with a care package to a sheltered housing facility. That facility would be subject to inspection by CSCI under the 2000 Act, even though there may be an element of healthcare such as community nursing in the care package. I am trying to illustrate that we want to see where the balance of effort lies in particular packages of care, always accepting that there will be a continuum of care. The definition in the Bill is appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 354, 355 and 356 were also tabled in Committee, and I return to the arguments that I made then. Services providing long-term care and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse are not providing acute medical intervention, as do hospitals, for people with those conditions. They primarily provide secondary care to aid recovery or manage ongoing secondary symptoms. Those facilities may have substantial input by nurses and allied health professionals, but have limited input from consultants or other doctors.
Nevertheless, those services are also providing substantial personal care for service users, including the most intimate forms of that care with toileting and bathing. In common with other care homes providing nursing input and personal care, those services should properly continue to be inspected by CSCI so that their
1114
welfare needs can be most appropriately met. CSCI will of course be able to seek assistance from CHAI where healthcare professional expertise is needed.
I understand the concerns highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about inconsistencies in registration for facilities providing services for long-term conditions and drug and alcohol abuse. We accept that in some cases the line between health and social care is very fine, and difficulties can occur around that line, regardless of where it is drawn. I agree that a consistent approach to registration should be taken, and CHAI and CSCI will work closely together and with providers to ensure such consistency of approach. However, the issue must be solved by working with the regulators themselves, rather than revisiting issues that were discussed, at length if I may say so, during the passage of the Care Standards Act in an attempt to redraw the boundary between health and social care.
The amendments will not solve the problem, but they could create new ones. They should not be pressed or they should be rejected.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the Minister clarify for me that the inspection process for patients who have a lot of clinical input as well as a lot of social care input will be conducted only by CSCI? Alternatively, is he saying that, for patients for whom there are big outreach services from hospital, there would be a joint inspection process to make sure that there were not gaps in provision and that the patient did not miss out on high quality services on both sides of their spectrum of need?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am saying exactly that— that the two inspectorates would work together, but who would lead would turn on where the balance of post-hospital care was being provided from. It would depend on whether there were, in effect, an outreach of the hospital or a transfer largely to the supervision of the social care agency.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer, which served to strengthen my argument. There is still a tremendous lack of clarity about who will inspect medical services provided in the community. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about the importance of social care and social rehabilitation. She and I have no argument on that at all. My concern remains about the quality of medical services, no matter how few or incidental they may be, to people cared for primarily in a social care service. I do not think that CSCI will ever be in a position to make clinical judgments about care of people in the community; that is the concern behind the amendment.
The comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, are helpful and have got us somewhere. Clearly we shall not get much further on the matter at this stage. We may not return to the issue, but professionals certainly will, time and again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 284:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
"STANDARDS

(1) The CHAI stall be the principal guardian of standards in the NHS and shall prepare and publish standards in relation to the provision of health care by and for English NHS bodies, Welsh NHS bodies and cross-border SHAs.

(2) The CHAI must keep the standards under review and shall publish amended standards whenever it considers it appropriate.

(3) The CHAI must consult the Secretary of State, the Assembly and such other persons as it considers appropriate before publishing a statement or amended statement under this section.

(4) The standards set out in statements under this section are to be taken into account by every English NHS body, every Welsh NHS body and every cross-border SHA in discharging its duty under section 45."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 284, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 286, 287, 288, 333, 340 and 342. We come to an issue that, perhaps par excellence in this part of the Bill, points out the major gulf between the Government and ourselves, which is the question of who should carry responsibility for setting the standards in health and social care that CHAI and CSCI are to police. The Government say that if standards are not set by Ministers, that is an abrogation of ministerial responsibility and that, furthermore, it is wrong in principle for CHAI or CSCI to be both standard setters and the judges of whether those standards have been complied with.
I fundamentally take issue with those propositions. If there is one overriding problem with the NHS, it is the tendency of Ministers to second guess the clinicians and managers working in the service by setting them objectives that are, at root, political. They do it for understandable and well intentioned reasons, but it is a mistake. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, shrewdly observed in Committee, benchmarks set for the NHS by politicians contain hidden clinical judgments, which politicians are in no position to make. If we are serious about de-politicising healthcare, Ministers have to stand back from the whole business of dictating targets and standards. They need to do that in order that the patient can be quite certain that the health service is being assessed, not in terms of what Ministers believe that patients should want, but in accordance with objective standards of quality devised by those professionally fit to devise them.
In making that case, I am not seeking to deny that the Secretary of State has a legitimate interest in the standards set in healthcare. He clearly does, and should be consulted accordingly. His views should count. Nor am I suggesting that CHAI and CSCI should not listen to anyone else in drawing up and interpreting the standards to which they work. Plenty of other people, not least patients themselves, have a legitimate role in that context. Clinicians, managers and voluntary organisations also have a role. But when we talk about who should have primary responsibility for the standards that operate, who should take ownership of them arid who should be their chief defender and promoter, there can be only one answer: the two professional bodies themselves.
In 1997, a standard was set for the NHS. That was to reduce waiting lists. That standard was no more sensible than that which was subsequently set by the Government, which was to reduce waiting times. Both those standards required clinicians and managers to do things that ran directly counter to their professional judgment. If CHAI and CSCI find themselves in a position where they are unable to defend to the hilt the standards they propound as being clinically and ethically well founded, they will not be seen as credible organisations. That is not to say that they should ignore the budgetary constraints within which the NHS must operate or set standards that are financially or practically out of reach. However, if the Minister were to speak to Sir Ian Kennedy, as I am sure that he has done, he would realise that Sir Ian has a clear idea of the domains of work in which CHAI will be engaged, and that those domains, which are relatively few, will embody the standards to which CHAI will work. I was dismayed when the Minister told me in Committee that the draft standards to be published later in the year would incorporate a multitude of subject areas. The Government seem to be in danger of making the same mistake as they have made for the past six years, which is to be far too prescriptive in their approach to healthcare.
I do not expect to persuade the Minister of my views, but I hope that other noble Lords will be persuaded. The work that we are discussing is directly comparable in its need for impartiality and professionalism to that of the Audit Commission. The idea that the standards to which the Audit Commission works should be set by politicians ought to fill us with horror. It is the same in this respect. CHAI and CSCI must be able to do their work without fear or favour, because only in that way will we fully trust them. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 285 and 287. I hope that the Minister will be a little more receptive than he was last Thursday, when he accused my noble friend, of all people, almost of obstructing the Bill, which was the last thing he was seeking to do. He was so ungracious that the only people who were indebted to him— although I do not suppose that they thanked him as cordially as they might—were the Opposition Whips. They enjoyed a successful vote largely due to some of the language that the Minister used.
The amendments reflect the muddle that the Government are in in having two horses, the Department of Health and CHAI. The Bill states that the Secretary of State "may" prepare and publish statements of standards. It is important that somebody should publish statements of standards. It would be difficult for practitioners to comply with requirements that have not been made absolutely clear to them. I notice that Clause 46, which deals with the standards that are to be set by the Assembly, states:
"The Assembly may prepare and publish statements".
It goes on to state:
"The Assembly must keep the standards under review".

1117
My amendment would put the Secretary of State under a clear duty to do that. The preparation and publication of statements of standards should not be carried out on a voluntary basis. It should be an obligation. Clause 45(2) states:
"The Secretary of State must keep the standards under review".
That is quite right, so why should he not be obliged to make them clear in the first place? I do not suppose that the Minister will accept the amendments, but they are tabled in the pious hope that he might perhaps be a little more receptive and not think that everybody on this side of the House is out simply to obstruct the passage of the Bill. We seek merely to help the Government. Some of us are hurt and upset that they appear to be as unappreciative as they usually are.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, the amendments are interesting because they draw out the distinction between clinical standards and service delivery targets. The latter are often called standards, but that is a misnomer.
Clinical standards are absolute. They are evidence based and they are the result of scientific inquiry— usually level one evidence from randomised control trials. Those standards are set within the context of national service frameworks. They are set according to NICE guidance; prescribing standards; the royal colleges' clinical standards; and the National Patient Safety Agency.
The second group are the targets: the service configuration standards, which vary according to political emphasis. They provide performance benchmarks such as waiting times. Clinical standards between England and Wales do not and cannot differ. It would be to fly in the face of scientific evidence to suggest that they could differ. However, performance standards inevitably will differ, because they will reflect policies, priorities, structures and circumstances on the two sides of the border. The Welsh Risk Pool, for example, has its own performance frameworks. The royal colleges' advice on service configuration will be interpreted slightly differently depending on the population to which it has to be applied. Service targets will arise from them that are within ministerial control.
I shall try to illustrate that difference with one clear example. The diabetes national service framework suggested that retinopathy should be detected early through a retinopathy screening programme. In Wales, that was instigated immediately, but there was a lag in England and Scotland. Nobody has disputed the clinical standard against which retinopathy should be screened, but the service targets varied on the two sides of the border. I am proud that England and Wales have now decided to follow the Welsh example.
That is a clear example of how distinct the clinical standards are. The amendments draw out that distinction and clarify that the guardian of the clinical standards cannot be within ministerial control. Those standards must relate to the bodies which conduct the background research and systematic reviews and
1118
which produce the hard, often irrefutable evidence that dictates the direction in which the service should go.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support my noble friend. I shall also take up the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. To a lay person, the distinction between the two sets of standards is sometimes blurred. I remember an announcement of the Minister of Health in the Scottish Executive about improving standards of cleanliness and asking everybody to wash their hands. I do not know if that is a clinical judgment. It is a grey area; it falls on the borderline.
I shall mention an aspect of the issue on which my noble friend did not touch, but which was prominent in the debate in Committee; that is, the effect on finance of decisions on standards. On the fourth Committee day, the Minister said:
"I was very interested in the noble Earl's view that one can let an inspection body set the standards, irrespective of the cost of funding those standards in the public arena. I suggest that that would be an interesting approach to budget-setting for any future Chancellor of an alternative government to the present one".— [Official Report, 16/10/03; col. 1135.]
The Minister was assuming that an improvement in standards would automatically be more expensive—or perhaps he was assuming it might be cheaper. If CHAI were setting the standards, it would not be able to change the budget because that would be the Minister's responsibility. As is illustrated by the hand-washing episode, not all improvements are expensive. It costs no more to wash your hands than not to wash them. It costs no more to clean the ward properly than to go around not cleaning it properly.
I do not want to trivialise the issue, but it is not right to assume that improvements in standards are bound to be more expensive. In any case, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, budget setting and standard setting would not necessarily be separated. An alteration in standards which would cost money would never be set by the chairman of CHAI without discussing the desirability with the Secretary of State. There would be plenty of consultation. I do not therefore believe that the money argument should apply.
There is not the smallest question but that the temptation is great for the Secretary of State to use announcements about standards here and there and at different times because a focus group has made a complaint or because the press has reported something and a comment needs to be made. It is used as a political tool. It has been by all governments and it always will be. That temptation would be greatly enhanced if the Secretary of State took all the decisions. It is desirable that CHAI should have this role and I hope that the House will see that argument.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, the amendment presents a huge temptation. To have standards and to be free from some of the political interventions of the National Care Standards Commission makes me want to vote for it. However, I have some real reservations.

1119
It can be an elephant trap for a commission to set its standards and be the keeper of those standards and it lets the Government off the hook. It is up to the Secretary of State and the government department to be clear about the policy drive. That must take us into the way in which the standards are being implemented.
It is crucially important that the responsibility for publishing standards is a joint one. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, many of them are put together in consultation. However, there might be some differences in the way in which standards are set in CSCI and CHAI. I agree with my noble friend Lady Finlay that there is great confusion about clinical standards, which we use also in social care.
Targets and standards are distinctly different issues and we should be pressing the Government to clarify them. Frameworks and sets of standards are clearly set out and from those the targets emerge. As regards CSCI, once we have the standards we can get on with the targets and not be deflected by government intervention.
I find it difficult to support the amendment, although noble Lords will be able to hear from my hesitation that I am tempted by it. I would like to be able to set such standards but it is a temptation I should resist.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's promise to resist temptation in this area. I was chided by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for being unappreciative of offers of help from the Opposition Benches to improve the Government's Bill—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I did not say Opposition Benches; I said Opposition Whips.
Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that I did not get much thanks from the Opposition Whips either. I do not propose to conduct a seminar, though the temptation is enormous, on standards criteria for meeting them and methodologies for rating those criteria. However, I must set out the Government's position on the issue, which is both principled and rational.
The report from the Office of Public Service Reform, published earlier this year, clearly sets out government policy on the respective roles and responsibilities for those involved in the inspection of public services. It remains our view, as stated in that report, that the role of Ministers and their departments is,
"to set standards determining how the service is to be delivered and to make sure effective performance management systems are in place".
It also remains our view that it is wrong for the bodies responsible for inspecting services, in order to ensure that they comply with standards, to be responsible also for setting those standards, as these amendments propose. Furthermore, it is also entirely wrong for the Government to abrogate their responsibility for setting the standards of care for NHS
1120
patients and those in receipt of social care to independent commissions. That would be the effect of these amendments.
It is not clear to me what noble Lords opposite are trying to achieve. Amendments Nos. 284 and 288 give the healthcare standards-setting role to CHAI, while Amendment No. 286 seems to go half way to trying to restrict the publication of healthcare standards to those that the Secretary of State,
"considers to be of considerable significance."
We on this side of the House do not believe that healthcare standards can be carved up in this way.
It remains our view that, as Clause 45 provides, it is for the government of the day to determine the standards and framework within which the NHS should operate and to set the budget commensurately. Setting the standards for health and social care provision enables the department to match performance expectations with funding. It would be entirely inappropriate, even irresponsible, to divorce the function of setting standards for the performance of public services from the function of determining the level of funding that those services should receive.
I must point out to the noble Earl that I had a number of interesting discussions with the chairman of CHAI. He is totally comfortable with the idea that it is for the government of the day to set standards and it is for him, as under the Bill, to propose the criteria. He has no problems with that approach, which the noble Earl seems to have.
The publication of standards by government is also a vital tool for ensuring the democratic accountability of health and social services. Were governments to be prevented from setting standards for health and social care, it is difficult to see how they could be held accountable to Parliament for the performance of those same services.
In our response to Sir Ian Kennedy's Bristol report, we undertook to ensure the development of standards for the NHS. This remains a core function for the Secretary of State deriving directly from the department's responsibilities for securing resources and delivering healthcare services of an acceptable level. This has been no secret. It is not as though we suddenly announced that approach. When the Government announced the setting up of CHAI in Delivering the NHS Plan, we stated there would be inspection against clear national standards committing the Secretary of State to publish such statements of standards and to keep these under review. We fully intend to fulfil this undertaking.
Well before CHAI takes up its responsibilities, we shall have draft NHS standards in the public arena for consultation with interested parties, including CHAI. I can assure the noble Earl that they will be considerably fewer in number than the 700 or so that we have at present and that were around under his government.
It is obviously desirable that the Secretary of State should continue to update the statements of standards from time to time—perhaps reflecting advice and guidance provided by CHAI, which we are enabling it

1121
to do under Clause 53. A similar power is provided to CSCI in relation to social care standards under Clause 75 of the Bill.
As I have already said, the power of defining the standards will be an inclusive one. As I made clear in Committee, earlier this year, during the preparation of the draft healthcare standards on which we consulted, the Department of Health held numerous workshops and meetings. Those were attended by key stakeholders drawn from patients, clinicians, representatives of professional and voluntary organisations, NHS managers and many others. The advice from all those individuals is helping in the development of the draft standards, which we shall publish.
For English local authority social services, there is a long and well tested route for setting out standards as guidance under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. Guidance often takes the form of national service frameworks. Guidance issued under Section 7 is well known and respected by local authorities and, in the past, has been used in the assessment of performance by the Social Services Inspectorate. CSCI will continue that practice and will be able to take an overview of the quality of all social care services using the guidance issued under Section 7 and national minimum standards when; applicable— for example, under the Care Standards Act functions and local authority adoption and fostering functions—issued under the Care Standards Act.
The national service frameworks issued under Section 7 guidance are well respected. The amendments would place conflicting duties upon social care providers, who would be under duties to take into account both the Section 7 guidance and the standards drawn up by CSCI. It is unclear what would happen if CSCI decided to issue different standards from those already in place under Section 7.
We believe that the amendments will create confusion among providers and hinder the delivery of effective standards. We consider the present structure of the Bill to be appropriate with the Secretary of State setting standards and CHAI providing the criteria, which ultimately the Secretary of State must approve to ensure that the criteria are consistent with the standards set for the National Health Service.
5 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I am grateful, not for the first time, for the comments made by my noble friend Lord Peyton in my defence. I am also very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her helpful comments, particularly those which sought to point out the distinction between standards and targets. I thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her wise observations on the financial effects of standard setting.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, made a characteristically thoughtful intervention. I believe her hesitation would be understandable if we were talking about a few key clinically based standards emanating
1122
from government. Like her, I have less of a problem with that notion. The trouble is that we are likely to be considering a large number of standards, many of which may well be quite prescriptive and more appropriately classified as targets.
I listened carefully to the Minister's warnings about the amendments and the comments of other noble Lords. In the light of those, I have decided not to press the amendments today as I want to reflect further on the whole matter. I cannot guarantee that I shall not return to this issue at Third Reading but, for the time being, I believe it is appropriate that I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Standards set by Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 285 to 288 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Standards set by Assembly]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 17, line 3, at end insert "other than health care provided by English NHS bodies"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 289, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 324, 329 and 332. In Committee, we had a number of debates which drew attention to what one might term the "cross-border impact" of the Bill—that is, its effect on Wales as distinct from England and how, if we are not careful, one country will be directly affected by the provisions in the Bill which apply to the other country.
I admit that some of the amendments tabled in Committee were designed more to make a point about the perverse consequences of devolution than to offer up constructive answers to those problems. Nevertheless, the problems remain, and I regret to say that I do not believe that our debates thus far have resolved them.
The first issue relates to the standards which are meant to apply in English hospitals which treat patients under a contract from a Welsh commissioning body. On that issue the Minister said:
"In cases where English bodies provide healthcare to Welsh patients, they will be acting, in effect, as sub-contractors, as they always have done. As with any other contract, Welsh commissioning bodies would expect to be able to set the contract conditions, which, in this case, would be the standard to which healthcare is to be provided. In the same way, Welsh bodies contracting with English commissioning bodies to provide services to English patients in Wales would expect those services to match the standards set by the Secretary of State and CHAI".— [Official Report, 16/10/03; col. 1145.]
The question that arises from those statements is this: what will be the difference between the standards in force on each side of the border? The Minister said that, in practice, there would not be any difference. But she went on to say that in Wales things may well be done differently in an organisational sense and in relation to the priorities set there. She cited the example of more work being done through the medium of Welsh. Therefore, Welsh health bodies would be expected to work to a suite of standards, as I believe she put it—not simply clinical standards but others as well.
That is where the difficulties arise. If it is the case that different standards are to operate on either side of the border, English hospitals which are located near the border with Wales and which treat Welsh patients will have two sets of standards in force—the standards set by CHAI and those set by the Welsh Assembly. I submit that that is not a sensible way to proceed.
Without any disrespect to Wales and its right to devolution in health matters, Wales should not be in a position to impose Welsh priorities, Welsh organisational standards or Welsh national service frameworks on English providers. If those in Wales attempt to do so, confusion will reign. A patient in one bed will be eligible for a different standard of treatment from the patient in the next bed with the same complaint. Clinicians will be expected to work to standards of which they cannot take ownership.
If that happens, how is the delivery of services to be assessed, and by whom? We cannot have two inspectorates, one from each side of the border, visiting the same English hospitals; nor can we sensibly ask the Welsh Assembly to delegate its overseeing role to CHAI because CHAI would be placed in the impossible position of having to police standards to which it did not itself subscribe. Yet one or other of those is the logical consequence of the Bill as it stands.
I stress again that in no sense am I seeking to turn back the clock on devolution. Let the Welsh Assembly decide on the appropriate standards and priorities for Wales. But, the moment we allow that jurisdiction to spill over into England, even by means of cross-border commissioning arrangements, we shall introduce unnecessary and inappropriate burdens that will do nothing but waste resources and place professional people in difficulties. The rule should be that if we have Welsh devolution, as we do, then its force should be felt in Wales and nowhere else. I hope that the Minister can be a little more reassuring on these issues than she was on the previous occasion. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I quake when I hear the noble Earl, Lord Howe, describe the differences between England and Wales. Offa's Dyke is not a Berlin Wall; it is an administrative boundary which is permeable and across which patients flow in both directions. I shall return to the figures of patient flow.
Because of that flow, the Assembly inspectorate, which will be Health Inspection Wales, and CHAI must co-operate and collaborate. I have already outlined why there can be no difference in clinical standards between England and Wales. However, there are, indeed, differences in the way that the service is being prioritised within Wales, and these are the standards which differ. For example, the National Assembly for Wales has set a 24-hour wait to be seen in primary care, not a 48-hour wait. Different priorities are set for emergency care. There is a priority for screening, immunisation and vaccination, all within Wales, and there are free prescriptions, which are meant to be for Welsh residents. I fear that there
1124
may be some abuse of that service at present but that will be addressed by a Question and not within this debate.
The demography in Wales differs from England, and across Wales there are vast differences. Overall 2 per cent more of the population in Wales are over 65, but in Cardiff 14 per cent are over 65 compared with 23 per cent being over 65 in Conwy. So, the Assembly has huge challenges in its devolved functions in delivering appropriate healthcare. Mortality rates vary enormously with Merthyr having a 50 per cent higher mortality rate than some rural areas.
I have said how the configuration of NHS systems differs. The local health boards took over the commissioning in Wales in March 2003. Health Commission Wales was established in April 2003 and commissioned specialist services. It commissioned £40 million worth of specialist services in England, which is 10 per cent of its total budget. It is specifically for that reason that there must be collaboration with CHAI and CHAI must be involved in setting thematic reviews; for example, of cancer services, diabetic services and coronary heart disease.
The reason that the Assembly needs to have an inspectorate is to have this strong focus on Welsh health priorities but it must in the process collaborate with CHAI. I hope that that is the spirit of the wording of the amendments tabled in my name. In Wales we have community health councils, which are able to identify gaps in provision. The Welsh NHS structure needs to be considered. Assembly Ministers also need to be able to respond to the intense scrutiny they are now under through robust, transparent, thorough and speedy reviews that can withstand that scrutiny.
I shall move on to why the chair of an inspection service in Wales must be independently appointed. The appointment of the head of Health Inspection Wales should be by an independent process. I understand that the Minister should not be able to veto the appointment of the individual but only the whole process and require that it starts again. Health Inspection Wales must have editorial control over its reports and those reports must go simultaneously to the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales and to the Assembly Committee for Health and Social Services. They would also go simultaneously to CHAI.
The director should be accountable to a senior assembly director, who is not the director of the NHS in Wales and should have right of independent access to the Ministers and the Assembly Committee for Health and Social Services. Complaints should be dealt with by the Assembly complaints procedure and the Ombudsman. Delegation of functions will be through the permanent secretary, not the director of NHS in Wales.
Formal protocols are required for working between Health Inspection Wales and other parts of the Assembly, and formal agreements are required for working collaboratively between Health Inspection Wales and CHAI because of the cross-border flows.

1125
The inspectors should be made up of permanent inspectors and lay assessors. I hope that there will be an exchange scheme within the NHS within the whole of the UK including exchange with inspectors in the NHS Quality Improvement Scotland so that we establish methodologies and robust cross-border inspections as patients move across the borders.
For Health Inspection Wales the work programme should be generated by them and signed off by the Minister. Within Wales, co-operation and co-working needs to be with other bodies, such as the Audit Commission, the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales and Social Services Inspectorate for Wales, all working with the community health council. That means that Health Inspection Wales will take over inspecting all services which deal with patients in Wales, including those that have home care teams that are currently subject to inspection by other departments. I am not sure that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is aware that some teams have not been subject to health service inspections at present and have been inspected by bodies such as weights and measures, which is completely inappropriate. Health Inspection Wales will address all of that within Wales. However, when we come to the cross-border flows it must work collaboratively with CHAI as part of the contract monitoring process.
The simultaneous inspections will look at clinical and financial performance by all providers and that needs to be wherever the patients are cared for. The information from that process will be in the public domain and any inspections and information obtained by Health Inspection Wales will be fast-tracked back to CHAI.
I turn to the data. Last year 31, 500 Welsh patients were cared for by English providers; 20, 000 of whom were elective and 11, 500 emergency treatment patients. However, the flow is also in the other direction. There were 11, 500 English patients treated in Wales; 2, 800 electively and 8, 700 as emergency patients. So to try to separate the way that patients are cared for across Offa's Dyke does not become feasible.
The cost of Health Inspection Wales will be contained within the current envelope of £3.1 million and the collaboration should meet the criticisms of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raised in Committee, that the Secretary of State needs advice through CHAI. Health Inspection Wales reports which are on the web will certainly be immediately available to everyone. But the collaboration that must be established—I sought to provide for that in Amendment No. 330 tabled in my name—is to ensure that the minutiae of detail of intelligence that is available to Health Inspection Wales would be fast tracked into CHAI through their collaborative working arrangements and they would develop joint methodologies.
The amendments standing in my name support how the inspectorates within Wales are driven by the Assembly but also support collaborative arrangements in both directions across the administrative divide between the Assembly and the Department of Health.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is she saying that a hospital surgeon in a given hospital might have to operate different standards depending on whether a person came from Wales or England? That sounds as if it would be very difficult.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for raising the question and for the opportunity to clarify it. No, the clinical standards are absolute. The clinical standards to which the patient must be subject will be the same wherever the patient is but the way that the service is delivered and configured is different, particularly as regards community care. For example, patients who receive care in England for a transplant will be transferred back into Wales for their ongoing care and support. Protocols need to be established between providers in Wales and England concerning the point at which referral back to the English service is triggered and about what is delivered and conducted within Wales so that patients will receive long-term care close to their home. However, acute management, for example, of transplants, or specialist paediatric services, will be conducted under the contract of the specialised commissioning services within this £40 million envelope. The contract monitoring processes need to check that the flow of care on both sides of the border does not mean that patients hit a gap when they transfer from the English provider back to Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Generally speaking, we who live in Wales are very satisfied with the quality of care we receive if we have to go to English hospitals, which happened to me a year or two ago.
Perhaps I may illustrate one problem that might arise. About 12 months ago it emerged that Welsh patients were placed at the end of the waiting list in the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital in Oswestry. The result was that some 30 or 40 patients from Wales exceeded the time limits that everyone was striving for. The reason given was that the hospital was receiving less per patient from Wales than it received from the English authorities. That is the kind of issue that must be ironed out. I am therefore very happy to support placing proposals for collaboration on the face of the Bill, particularly Amendment No. 330, which ensures that there must be collaboration with CHAI on cross-border issues.
I speak only as a Welsh resident receiving care in England, but I am sure that examples could be found in the opposite direction. It is important that clinical standards remain the same on both sides of the border and that a proper inspection process ensures that that is so.
My second point is that I am very happy that the noble Baroness should seek to place in the Bill an absolute commitment that recognises the principle of devolution. Of course, the Welsh Assembly is in charge of health issues in Wales. If it commissions reviews, it is

1127
only right that the people who carry out those reviews should report directly to the Assembly. The Assembly is directly accountable to the people of Wales, who have elected its Members. That direct link should be made.
I hope that the Minister will be generous in his response on this matter, despite the fact that Wales defeated England yesterday in Brisbane in the Rugby World Cup. I know that England scored more points, but that is really not the issue. I hope he recognises who won that game.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is always good to start by welcoming a moral victory. I am absolutely in agreement with the noble Lord on that.
I am happy to respond to this group of amendments, which have been illuminated forensically by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and at a personal level by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It was useful to have some sense of the breadth of the issue. I welcome and appreciate the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about devolution.
We had a very lively debate on this issue in Committee. This group of amendments goes very much to the heart of the issue which we addressed at earlier stages. The amendments revolve around the functions that the Bill confers on the National Assembly for Wales to set standards under Clause 46 and, more importantly in a way, against those standards, to conduct reviews and investigations of health services provided by English hospitals for patients from Wales.
In the light of what I shall say a little later, I will not at this stage pursue in any detail the debate on standards. In her analysis, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has covered that issue. I would prefer now to talk about our response to some of those issues. It is both logical and proper, as noble Lords have said, that the Assembly, having commissioned services from organisations across the border, should be given the powers to ensure that they are being provided. This is not a unique or unusual power. It is identical to that given to CHAI under Clause 51, which gives CHAI the equivalent power in relation to services provided for English patients in Wales.
That is separate from the additional and very welcome function given to CHAI to conduct thematic reviews of particular types of healthcare—for example, for cancer, chronic heart disease and so on, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said—across England and Wales.
In Committee, noble Lords were concerned—and I understand their concern—about the possibility that the Assembly might choose to exercise its powers unreasonably, unhelpfully or inefficiently or that it might undertake reviews that conflict with or duplicate those being undertaken by CHAI. Amendments Nos. 289 and 234, which have been tabled by the Noble Earl, Lord Howe, seek to eliminate the issue by denying the Assembly the power to undertake those reviews under Clause 68 and consequently to deny the Assembly the power to enter premises in England.
1128
We understand the concerns about possible duplication or the lack of co-ordination. We also understand that there is a need for co-operation and, indeed, collaboration between the Assembly and CHAI. Obviously they would collaborate on the thematic reviews and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, it is very important to ensure that CHAI has all the relevant data and information in that respect.
I was slightly disappointed that the assurances that I gave here, and which were given in the other place, did not satisfy noble Lords. Those assurances were that the clear duty which Clause 141 places on the Assembly and CHAI to collaborate would ensure that such conflict did not arise. In fact, we have previous examples of collaboration. I refer briefly to the negotiation between the Community Health Councils—CHCs—and patients forums across the borders. We have some precedents there.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the flow of care is the important point. Given that we want cross-border arrangements to flourish, the duty of partnership, co-operation and collaboration should entail the flourishing of fundamental arrangements regarding adequate flows of data and information, data sharing, co-ordination of timing and scope, the relative priority and nature of reviews and the joint methodologies referred to by the noble Baroness. All of that should help to ensure that there is no duplication of work. It should therefore follow, for example, that inspections across the border by Health Inspection Wales are generally less frequent and more narrowly focused. Collaboration also covers the practical processes for improvement and redress. It would involve agreeing the mechanisms for dealing with reports of concerns about quality and safety.
It is of the greatest importance that the Assembly has the capacity to establish the effectiveness of local Welsh commissioning with regard to the expectations of the local health board, the medical staff and the patients themselves. I am grateful for the support given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the noble Earl's amendment. Without that capacity, which reflects local and expert knowledge, commissioning in Wales would inevitably be a less reliable and less responsible process.
I would suggest to noble Lords that taking a hatchet to the Assembly's functions is not the way to proceed. Noble Lords are concerned that the Assembly might not exercise its function in a way that meshed well with the exercise of the identical powers of CHAI. The answer to that is not to remove the powers, but to improve their operation.
In that spirit, I am prepared to reflect further on this issue and to return to it at Third Reading. I shall consider in particular whether the duty of co-operation between the Assembly and CHAI in Clause 141—which is rightly identified by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, as the key to this particular issue—might be strengthened to place on

1129
them a specific requirement to collaborate, particularly on cross-border reviews, perhaps with an emphasis on avoiding unnecessary duplication.
In the light of that assurance I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared not to press her amendment. I should perhaps add that I understand that the Assembly fully intends to have a memorandum of understanding. That will cover, for example, information and data from Wales which might be included in an annual report on the state of the NHS in England and Wales; national performance data to be published by CHAI; collaborative working on national reviews of England and Wales; and collaborative working on cross-border CHAI reviews. I hope that noble Lords will be greatly reassured by that.
Perhaps I can briefly turn to Amendment No. 325, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made it very clear that she thought that it was wrong in principle that the review anđ investigation of healthcare services provided by English hospitals to patients from Wales should be carried out by a politically-controlled organisation—the Assembly. I recall that she also thought it was rather inefficient. Amendment No. 325 addresses that same issue by seeking to bolster the independence of the HIW. I hope that I can persuade both noble Baronesses that their concerns are unfounded. Amendment No. 325 is unnecessary. It would require any body that conducted a review of healthcare in Wales to report to the Assembly. In fact, only two bodies will be conducting such reviews.
CHAI has the function of conducting thematic reviews. Clause 50 places a duty on CHAI to publish a report of such reviews; Clauses 52 and 53 require CHAI to report to the Assembly any failings that it identifies. It can also conduct reviews of healthcare provided by Welsh NHS bodies—again it is under a duty to publish a report. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, most investigations in Wales will be conducted by the Health Inspectorate Wales, but that is not to say that that will be a purely introspective exercise.
During the past 20 years—and predating the devolution settlement—Wales has developed a range of independent inspectorates that are now responsible to the Assembly. I mentioned the Education Inspectorate Wales. I did not know that weights and measures were involved; that comes as something of a shock. There is also the Social Services Inspectorate Wales, the Care Standards Inspectorate Wales and so on.
HIW will enjoy the same operational independence and safeguards as existing inspectorates. That independence is assured by several Assembly protocols and procedures. For example, under Clause 68 it will be required to publish a report after conducting a review. The head of HIW will have editorial control of such reports—just as does the Social Services Inspectorate Wales. They will be
1130
provided simultaneously to the Minister for Health and Social Services and the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee.
To ensure independence from political intervention, the head of the HIW—again, like the other inspectorates—will be accountable to a senior Assembly director, but will enjoy rights of independent access to the Minister for Health and Social Services. To return to the amendment, in all logic, as HIW will be part of the Assembly, it would be impossible and unnecessary to require it to report directly to itself.
On the chair of reviews, which is dealt with by the second part of the amendment, it would again be inappropriate to provide for that in the Bill, as the chair of reviews will in effect be the head of HIW, who will be a senior civil servant. Those appointments are conducted under Civil Service Order in Council 1995 rules, which involve open competition on merit, and so forth.
Those conducting the reviews and investigations for HIW will, like those on other bodies, be a mix of permanent and seconded peer inspectors and lay assessors. In addition to recruiting its own inspectors through open recruitment, the Assembly wants to establish an exchange scheme with other NHS inspection bodies, including CHAI and Quality Improvement Scotland.
I think that that in some way addresses the point about efficiency made by the noble Baroness. A duty to collaborate between CHAI and the Assembly in the exercise of cross-border functions would allow the sort of joint working and sharing of experience which maximises efficiency.
I have gone rather quickly through my response to the concerns raised, but I hope that it satisfied noble Lords on the issues and that they will not press their amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, strictly speaking, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, address slightly different points from my amendments. I do not think that they cut across the points that I sought to make, but the Minister's welcome offer to reconsider the whole question of cross-border co-operation—which I am sure will be welcomed by the noble Baroness—also goes to the heart of the concerns that I raised. I therefore for my part thank the Minister for her offer. I am all for co-operation across the, border; I encourage it and do not belittle the force of Clause 141, to which the Minister drew our attention once again, but if at the end of the process of co-ordination and co-operation there are differences in standards, how will we deal with them?
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I doubt that CHAI will be spending its time monitoring contracts. I do not see that as its central role. It is unfair on doctors and nurses to expect them to work to dual standards. That is a simple point. I am more than

1131
happy to accept that English patients in Wales should have to accede to what is on offer in Wales. There should be no problem about that.
So it is very welcome that the Minister will consider how to strengthen the provisions. I consider her offer to be more than sufficient reason to withdraw my amendment, and beg leave to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Introductory]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 290:
Page 17, line 17, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this case can be put briefly, but the amendment is serious. Enough has already been said during our proceedings to suggest that the partnership between the department and CHAI will not be all that comfortable or loving a relationship. I hope that the Minister will give the matter his serious attention.
We must face a harsh fact that endures through all governments: they are readier by far to delegate than to trust. They invariably move, as they have in the Bill, to do what looks to them like the right thing, but then get worried and hedge round what they have done with unnecessary and tiresome restrictions which only ensure one thing: that their original purpose will be frustrated.
As your Lordships are aware, the department's role concerning standards is set out in Clause 45. It is for the Secretary of State to prepare standards. CHAI's role is defined in Clause 47. It,
"has the general function of encouraging improvement in the provision of health care by and for NHS bodies".
I hope that I am not being too slow, but I thought that that was and remains the function of the department. Subsection (2) states that CHAI will be particularly concerned with,
"availability of, and access to, the health care;… the quality and effectiveness of the health care;… the economy and efficiency of the provision of the health care; … the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children; and … the effectiveness of measures taken for the purpose of paragraph (d) by the body in question".
Surely, all those measures will remain the active concern of the department.
I do not find it easy to imagine the department saying, "Now that the Government have set up CHAI, we are content to leave it at that", and not be constantly looking over its shoulder with advice and instruction, which may not be all that welcome or helpful. It is in the nature of the beast that a department is readier to expand than to retract its frontiers. I hope that the Minister will consider whether there is a way to improve those two clauses. My amendment would merely leave out subsection (1) of Clause 47.I have not suggested an alternative form of words because I thought that the Government would prefer to do that.
As the Bill stands, there is every possibility of misunderstanding and conflict between the two bodies. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind
1132
patients' needs and interests—I am sure that he will want to—and the concerns of those who, from time to time, make somebody feel slightly better. On the whole, government departments have no particular talent for making anybody ever feel better, and I doubt whether CHAI will either. It is important that there should be no conflict or friction between the two bodies, although I fear that there will be. It would merely make life even more impossible for those at the sharp end who look after patients and make them feel better.
Whatever the Minister may have thought previously, I am not being frivolous in any way. It is more than likely that there will be much friction between the two bodies. I hope that, while the Government have the opportunity, the Minister will think carefully about the need to remove that possibility in so far as he can. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Peyton made some extremely powerful points, which I hope the Minister will consider carefully. Although my noble friend did not dwell long on Amendment No. 359, it reinforces the compelling argument advanced in Committee that, once the Bill comes into force, the NHS and the independent healthcare sector should be judged according to a uniform set of standards. There was a wide measure of agreement from all noble Lords who spoke in favour of that level playing field. Amendment No. 358, which I have tabled, focuses on that issue.
As I see it, the case rests on two main planks: the fact that both healthcare sectors will shortly fall under a single regulator, and the fact that in recent years the NHS has moved from being a monolithic managed service to being much more a healthcare system commissioned to provide services in the round, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out. In so far as the taxpayer can access state-funded care either through NHS facilities or the independent sector, it makes sense to ensure that, wherever a patient is treated, the care that he receives will be assessed against exactly the same benchmarks and standards. The concordat and the Government's policy to give patients greater choice in where they are treated are both factors that strengthen the case for having that consistency.
It emerged from our previous debate and it was pointed out by the Minister that it is not always possible or appropriate to have identical standards operating in both sectors. For one thing, the range of activities provided by the NHS is much greater than that in the independent sector. Some NHS standards will be irrelevant to a private hospital. Some of the minimum standards applicable to an independent hospital may not be quite suitable for an NHS hospital.
The amendments that I moved in Committee did not find favour with noble Lords. I accept that they were unrealistic, for the reasons that I have given. I have therefore reformulated the amendment so that, although it speaks of a timescale within which CHAI must apply a uniform set of standards, it allows CHAI

1133
some discretion in how it applies that uniformity by reference to what is both practical and relevant. That is a better formulation.
The Minister said that over time he expected a common set of standards to be developed for the NHS and independent healthcare providers. That was welcome, but I am sure that he will have picked up the sense from the Committee that "over time" was not a phrase that carried the degree of urgency that some of us sought. We may not be able to be as prescriptive about the timescale as I would like; nevertheless, it ought to be possible to estimate fairly clearly how long it will take CHAI to introduce a common regime. The Minister said that he would take the matter away and consider whether he could be a little more reassuring on the point. I very much hope that he can.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 362, which is in many ways similar to the amendment to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just spoken. Although they are in the same group, they are different considerations to those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
Celebrations of the announcement that CHAI would inspect the independent healthcare sector and the NHS were premature given the sting in the tail regarding the two sets of standards. That was certainly our motive in moving a similar amendment in Committee. The Minister's reply is interesting. My construction is different from that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe—he thinks that the glass is half full, while I think that it is probably half empty. I did not understand the Minister's reply as the noble Earl interpreted it. It seemed that the Minister accepted more or less the case for a common set of standards. No doubt, this is where the Kremlinologists will have to come into play. He started by saying:
"It is not our intention that NHS care standards will totally subsume the national minimum standards for independent healthcare providers but we expect that over time a common set of standards"—
a common set of standards—
"covering both NHS and independent healthcare providers will be developed".—[Official Report, 20/10/03; col. 1385.]
I take it from that that there are common standards. Obviously, where independent healthcare providers do not provide particular services, they cannot be subject to standards, but common standards will apply where an independent healthcare provider chooses to provide a set of services that the NHS also provides.
I understand exactly what the Minister said about not having a prescriptive timetable. The interesting thing about the noble Earl's amendment and mine is that they are not prescriptive; effectively, they invite the Government to set down a timetable. I do not regard that as prescriptive. Surely, it is sensible to have a planning framework for the adoption of a common set of standards rather than giving people the impression, for example, that the common set of standards is being drafted, that it is just around the corner, or that it might be a long way off. The Minister has indicated at various times that a common set of
1134
standards is currently being drafted and that it is fairly realistic to expect that they will emerge sooner rather than later. I very much hope that he can shed more light at 5.50 p.m. than he was able to do at 10.15 p.m. in Committee.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think that I am always better at 5.50 p.m. than at 10.15 p.m., so I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord. He does not need to be too worried about Kremlinologists; you do not need them in interpreting what Department of Health Ministers say.
Before responding to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I wish to reassure him that I do not think that there will be friction between CHAI and Department of Health Ministers, as he suggested. Early discussions with CHAI suggest that there will be a businesslike working relationship in which each side knows its different roles. I do not expect many problems in that area. The noble Lord seemed unduly pessimistic.
The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, also implied that there was a spirit of expanding territory by the Department of Health. I remind him that we have already committed ourselves to shifting the balance of power, with a reduction of 38 per cent in the number of staff in the Department of Health. That is hardly aggrandisement; if it is, it is inept. We are not starting from those positions.
Amendment No. 290 goes against a fundamental purpose of inspection. Wide public consultation by the Better Regulation Task Force and the Office of Public Services Reform suggested that inspection is valueless without seeking to secure improvement. The functions with which we are providing CHAI under the Bill will influence and improve healthcare. CHAI will identify and report areas of significant failure; issue annual performance ratings; work co-operatively with other inspectorates in health and social care to ease the burden of inspection on front line staff; and demonstrate to the public how the additional investment that we are making in the NHS improves healthcare. Although we continue to believe that CHAI could not but help to encourage improvement in healthcare as part of its day-to-day functions, we feel that subsection (1) should remain, as a clear signal to healthcare providers, patients and the public of CHAI's primary purpose.
We also reject Amendment No. 357. It is entirely proper that the Bill should state clearly that CHAI has a more general duty to keep the Secretary of State— who is, as we have said, accountable to Parliament for the regulation of the independent health sector— informed about the general provision and the availability and quality of independent healthcare provision. That is a significant role for CHAI, and I envisage that it will want to use all the information that it has to hand about the performance of independent healthcare providers to advise the Secretary of State of issues relating to the availability and quality of care. I remind noble Lords that such provision is, in many cases, also used by NHS patients.

1135
The National Care Standards Commission is already under a similar duty under the Care Standards Act 2000. Tellingly, the noble Lord offers no viable alternative as to who should take the function forward, once CHAI has subsumed the commission's independent healthcare responsibilities.
Amendment No. 359 would place a duty on CHAI to encourage the improvement of the quality of independent health services provided in England to a level similar to that achieved by organisations in the NHS. That is similar to the intention behind Amendment No. 358 and the new clause proposed in Amendment No. 362. In short, the amendments propose a convergence of the quality standards and criteria for monitoring standards applied to the NHS and local authority services with those applied to the independent sector under the Care Standards Act 2000. The amendments are unnecessary. I repeat what I said with regard to an earlier amendment: it is not for CHAI to set standards for the health service, as Amendment No. 358 proposes. That is a role for the Secretary of State, and Clause 45 makes that clear.
First, the standards applied to independent services and local authorities are, under the Care Standards Act, already consistent. So, for example, an independent care home or children's home provider has the same quality standards applied to it as a local authority provider. There is no substantial difference. Furthermore, the National Care Standards Commission regulates local authority providers and independent providers against the same criteria, when determining whether standards are being met. That will remain the basis upon which CSCI will take over the regulatory work to be transferred to it by the National Care Standards Commission under the Bill. For that reason, the new clause is inappropriate to social care.
We will ensure that there is a significant read-across between the standards for NHS and independent healthcare, particularly as the latter will often provide independent care under contract to the NHS. In the draft standards that we will publish, there will already be considerable convergence. I shall not repeat all that I said earlier. We are trying to ensure that the standards apply, wherever possible, to the independent sector.
I repeat what I said in Committee: there will, inevitably, be some areas in which it is inappropriate to apply the same standards to the independent sector as apply to the NHS. Such differences will apply. A good example would be public health and accident and emergency services, which are not a function of the independent healthcare sector. We will provide for standards for the NHS in those areas.
As I said, we intend to consult on the NHS standards, and that consultation will include the independent sector. There will thus be ample opportunity for interested parties to comment on the proposed standards. They will be out in the public area well within the next six months—much sooner, in all probability. There is no need for the five-year
1136
timescale that noble Lords suggest in the amendments. I have given that assurance, and I am confident that the standards will be available for consultation in the near future.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his view, and there is nothing that I can say to dislodge it. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to accept that total harmony will always prevail between those who set standards and those whose duty it is to implement them. The people who set standards—the noble Lord's department—will always be looking over the shoulders of the people who implement them. They will be anxious to burden them with advice that will often look very like instruction.
I recognise that I will achieve nothing by going on. Reluctantly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 291:
Page 17, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) the availability and quality of information provided to the public about the health care;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 291 was tabled following our discussion in Committee of the areas to which CHAI should pay particular attention, in encouraging improvement in healthcare. We have also tabled Amendments Nos. 326, 334 and 353, relating to CSCI and the Assembly, to ensure consistency.
The amendments make it clear that it will be a function of CHAI, the Assembly and CSCI to be concerned about the quality of the general information on health services made available to patients and service users. They have been deliberately drafted with the intention of covering generic information that is not specific to an individual patient or service user— for example, leaflets, signage, telephone helpline services and other patient and service user information, such as information available about medical conditions generally.
The amendments do not extend a power for the inspectorates to evaluate the provision of specific information, such as medical advice given to patients in a consulting room, for instance. That might involve CHAI requiring far greater access to individual patient records than we consider necessary or expedient. Furthermore, it might place CHAI in a position in which it would be forced to make an assessment of whether the information given to patients in individual cases was clinically appropriate. That would be unsuitable.
As they are grouped with the government amendment, I could speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 309, 311, 336 and 337, although I am happy to wait until the relevant time. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 309, 311, 336 and 337 standing in my name in this group. They address a slightly different aspect of information to the public. We

1137
understand that the amendments to which the Minister has just spoken represent significant improvements in the way that information will be made available to the public. On that basis, I have no intention of pressing my amendments.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have nothing further to add.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 292:
Page 17, line 24, after "of insert "disadvantaged and vulnerable persons including"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 292, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 335, 360 and 361, which are similarly worded. Amendments Nos 292 and 360 relate to CHAI; Amendments Nos. 335 and 361 relate to CSCI. In exercising their functions, the Bill requires CHAI and CSCI to be concerned in particular with,
"the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children".
If it is necessary to mention one group whose rights and welfare need to be safeguarded and promoted, that implies that other worthy groups are of less importance. In Committee, we discussed other formulations; that is, "elderly people" or "other vulnerable adults" being added after "children". Today's amendments take a slightly different approach; namely, that CHAI and CSCI should safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of disadvantaged and vulnerable persons, including children. We are using children as a specified example of disadvantage or vulnerability rather than the only specified focus for CHAI and CSCI.
Perhaps I may be clear that we are not seeking to diminish the roles of CHAI and CSCI in relation to children. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, who knows much about the vulnerability of children, spoke in favour of the wording in the Bill because children get lost in hospital and those within the scope of social services are vulnerable. We have no problem with that; we agree with it. However, so much can go wrong for other groups that they, too, should have a special focus for CHAI and CSCI.
Not all elderly people are vulnerable, but that is not a good reason for excluding them. There are many stories of elderly people in hospitals who end up severely malnourished because no one ensures that they are fed. In care home settings, there are too many stories of abuse to be comfortable with the situation. Other groups, such as the disabled or those with learning difficulties, are not always treated fairly and properly in the health or social care systems.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider the skewed drafting and, as proposed in the amendments, be prepared to accommodate a more holistic approach to disadvantage and vulnerability. I beg to move.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I have no difficulty with the amendment. At no time have I felt that vulnerable persons should not be included. In
1138
general, adults are not necessarily vulnerable when using services. Children, per se, generally are because they are dependent. Of course, I have a great vested interest in not losing children from the face of the Bill. However, I work across the spectrum of people with difficulties and conditions. Therefore, I would be very happy with the proposed amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, following that extremely understandable comment made by the noble Baroness, it still seems that the Bill is odd. There may be good reasons for specifically selecting children, but the amendment puts the issue better in context. It reads better. I do not know whether the Minister will accept the amendment, but, as the Bill stands, it is slightly strange.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the amendments bring us back to our previous discussions regarding the need of inspectorates to pay particular concern to the needs of vulnerable people. I do not question the importance of the issues raised, but I continue to believe that the principle of CHAI and CSCI having regard to safeguarding and promoting the rights of all patients and service users is of paramount concern.
I hope that no one would call into doubt the integrity of Professor Sir Ian Kennedy. He has already outlined his intention that CHAI should promote a concept of "equal citizenship" by ensuring that the well-being and healthcare of vulnerable groups— including children, older people, people with mental illness or learning disabilities, people from areas of social deprivation or for whom English is not a first language—are fully reflected in CHAI's assessments and that rights are safeguarded. I am confident that such intentions are equally matched by Denise Platt, whose appointment as chair of CSCI follows a distinguished career in social services.
Having considered the issue further between Committee and Report, I continue to believe that it remains difficult to define precisely the term "vulnerable person". Therefore, it would be inappropriate to do so here. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I explained the problems of providing an adequate definition of vulnerable adults that would not include large numbers of people who would not want to find themselves considered vulnerable.
I am therefore surprised that a new term, "vulnerable person", has been proposed, which is probably even broader and more difficult to define. It remains the case that individuals may be vulnerable in some context, but not in others. That was the burden of my argument in Committee, which I shall not repeat.
In my personal experience as a former director of social services, all users of social services potentially could be classed as vulnerable at some stage. The more particular groups are picked out, the more we move away from the idea that CSCI and, by extension, CHAI, should be concerned with the individual and the unique needs of particular service users. Therefore, for reasons that 1 explained previously, we have chosen

1139
to continue to ensure that children—in our view, the most vulnerable group in society—are covered specifically. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is not with me on this occasion.
As I have already made clear, singling children out for particular attention does not mean that other vulnerable groups will not have their rights and welfare within the sights of both commissions. Resisting the amendment does not mean that the Government do not take their responsibilities for the well-being of individuals seriously. Having placed those reassurances on the record, I hope that this group of amendments will not be pressed.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may reassure him that, whatever else occurs, I am convinced that children must be on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. For the record, we are in no way doubting the integrity of Sir Ian Kennedy. That is far from what is in our minds. I have no doubt that Sir Ian Kennedy has all the issues debated in this context under control. The issue is not what Sir Ian Kennedy or Denise Platt would do in relation to CHAI and CSCI in the foreseeable future. The issue is what the Bill will drive CHAI or CSCI to do over the longer term or the implication it will carry to those without a detailed knowledge of our discussions in Committee. I regret that the Minister has chosen not to take this forward, but we shall not press the matter to the bitter end. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 293:
Page 17, line 28, at end insert "; and
( ) the implementation of any guidance issued by a Special Health Authority set up to provide guidance on health technologies and the clinical management of specific conditions"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we had a useful although somewhat inconclusive debate in Committee about CHAI's responsibilities for ensuring that guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is being implemented throughout the health service. I say that the debate was "inconclusive", because unfortunately I cannot say that I found the Minister's eloquence on that occasion wholly persuasive. I shall not repeat at any length my concerns about these issues, but they centre on what are commonly referred to as "postcode prescribing" and the postcode lottery of services, not only in relation to medicines but also as regards the availability of medical technologies in different parts of the country, and the geographical disparities in the management of clinical conditions. I cited the examples of statins and atypical antipsychotics. I also mentioned certain kinds of cardiac and orthopaedic treatments. My firm view is that, if ever a body should be tasked with monitoring and reporting on these matters, the body should be CHAI.
The Minister's answer was reassuring, but only up to a point. He sought to persuade us that the amendment was unnecessary by arguing that NICE guidance would assuredly be built into the national standards which CHAI would have to take into account when conducting its reviews. Further, CHAI will need to monitor the way in which NHS bodies comply with their statutory obligations, one of which is that they must implement NICE guidance within three months of it being issued.
However, my difficulty with those arguments is that CHAI's duty to monitor the implementation of NICE guidance will remain implicit rather than explicit. In certain circumstances, that could lead to insufficient emphasis being placed on the importance of NICE pronouncements. If the Minister's statements in Committee are correct, and I am sure that they are, NICE guidance will be only one of many ingredients contained in the standards by which NHS bodies will be expected to operate. While, under the terms of Clause 45, the national standards will carry some degree of statutory force in that NHS bodies will have to take account of them in fulfilling their duty of quality, that is not the same as giving CHAI the legal duty to ensure that NICE guidance is being implemented.
There may well be, for example, a time lag between the issuing of guidance by NICE and the updating of a particular standard. That might provide an excuse for NHS bodies—not many, but some—but they should not be able to deploy such an excuse. I hope that the Minister will feel able to take these concerns on board and perhaps review his position on what is, in our eyes, a critical issue for patient care. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I wish to support Amendment No. 293 and speak to my Amendment No. 300 which is grouped with it. These amendments go to the heart of the principle of evidence-based healthcare. Welcome and desperately important moves have been made under this Government to ensure that more and more of what is done is based on robust evidence. NICE guidance has received much publicity around its pharmaceutical recommendations, and a little on some concerning technical and medical devices, but it also issues guidance on service configurations.
The range of technical advice that has been subject to very careful scrutiny of all the research evidence is extremely wide. While I do not wish to detain the House, I shall cite two examples of completed reviews. The first relates to tension-free vaginal tape for stress incontinence and the recommendation that the procedure should be performed only by those with specialist training and who have ongoing practice. The second concerns the use of 2-D imaging ultrasound guidance for central venous catheter insertion into the jugular vein in adults and children in elective situations and, wherever possible, in the emergency situation. A strong recommendation goes with it that audio-guided Doppler ultrasound guidance is not recommended for

1141
CVC insertion. These are highly technical pieces of guidance, but they are extremely important because of the strong evidence behind them.
I am concerned that guidance is now also coming out as regards service configuration in my own field— here I declare an interest, having been involved in the consultations on it—on supportive and palliative care. That includes detailed guidance on care delivery processes.
If CHAI is not specifically charged with ensuring that evidence-based guidance is being implemented and is further not charged with ensuring that old and unsound practices are abandoned, then I ask the Minister this: who is charged with making sure that these very important review and evidence-based recommendations and standard-settings are being rolled out across the NHS for the benefit of patients everywhere?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise briefly to support both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in her Amendment No. 300, to which I have added my name. The Minister gave an interesting response to similar amendments tabled in Committee. I understood clearly his remarks to the effect that NICE guidance would be included in the work on standards. However, what was less clear—and on this I seek chapter and verse from him—was the reminder he gave to the Committee that NHS bodies are also under an obligation to provide funding for treatments and drugs recommended by NICE within three months of its guidance being issued. The Minister also reminded us that that is a statutory obligation.
However, as I understand it, a duty is imposed on PCTs by the Secretary of State to fund such developments, but I should be most interested to learn where the statutory duty comes from. Of course, if there is a statutory duty then much of what we are talking about would fall away, but there is a very big difference between an injunction from the Secretary of State and a statutory duty. One of the points of having been in this job for six years is that I can well remember the Secretary of State announcing that, in the future, he would require NICE guidance to be implemented within three months.
The reason why I am so particularly concerned about this—here I declare an interest as a trustee of CancerBACUP—is that ever since the NICE guidance was put into effect on a variety of different cancer drugs—as I recall, one of the first NICE guidances to be issued related to tamoxifen—CancerBACUP has undertaken surveys of how far "postcode prescribing" was still continuing—the problem that NICE was supposed to do away with.
The most recent CancerBACUP survey, whose results were released at the end of October, elicited an impressive reaction from the Secretary of State at the time. He pledged action via the cancer tsar and so forth. However, that seems rather peculiar in these circumstances. Why should it be for a charity such as
1142
CancerBACUP to undertake the monitoring at every stage? The charity has monitored the take-up of nearly all the cancer drugs for various conditions in respect of which NICE guidance has been issued. However, these amendments sensibly put that duty on to CHAI, which is the body that should carry out such reviews.
Let us consider the situation. The Secretary of State, on a one-off basis and probably as the result of a major cancer conference held a day or so previously, rushes to announce that he has decided to make various pledges and so forth. That is not to deny that the Secretary of State has taken swift action and it is not to deny that we have an extremely effective cancer tsar who is well aware of many of these issues. However, the process would be far more coherent if CHAI was the body which actually checked on whether NICE guidance is taking effect and whether PCTs are taking notice of it. We would then know about the situation and take action in a proper and methodical fashion. For me, that sums it up: we do not seek an extraordinary and draconian power for CHAI, we are trying to ensure a better health service.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I was really enjoying the oration of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, since he was becoming quite wound up. However, my response is going to be rather flat on this issue. The statutory basis here is the obligation on PCTs to comply with NICE guidance provided for in Section 17 of the National Health Service Act 1977, where it states that the Secretary of State may issue directions to PCTs and other NHS bodies. NICE guidance directions are made under that section. I am glad that the noble Lord did not know that, otherwise I would have missed his speech.
As regards the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I can reassure her that we are not in any way trying to resile on our commitment to evidence-based practice. I shall say a little more about why we are not convinced of the need for the amendments.
Amendment No. 293 seeks to place a duty on CHAI to pay particular concern to the implementation of guidance issued by a special health authority with respect to health technologies and the clinical management of specific conditions. That is what it does. The noble Earl made much of the fact that he was particularly concerned about the implementation of NICE guidance. In effect, that is what Amendment No. 300, tabled by the noble Baroness, provides for.
I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments but they are too specific. In fact, you could argue that they elevate the output of a special health authority such as NICE to a point over and above guidance issued by other eminent sources such as, for example, the Medical Royal Colleges and the UK chief medical officers, and also outputs from the Government's national service frameworks. This could lead to confusion in the minds of many in the health service as to what should be given priority in terms of implementation.

1143
As I previously outlined, NICE's formal remit is,
"the promotion of clinical excellence and the effective use of available resources in the health service as the Secretary of State may direct".
It is therefore central to our plans to modernise the NHS, and drive up standards.
As the Minister with key responsibility for NICE, I want to do nothing whatever to undermine its position. I wish to place on record the fact that it currently has the largest programme of clinical guidance and technology appraisals in simultaneous preparation in any country. I hope it gives some comfort to the noble Baroness that we are committed to continuing along a path of evaluating practice and ensuring that evidence of best practice is disseminated.
It is worth bearing in mind that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill make clear that it is envisaged that any statement of standards issued and published by the Secretary of State under Clause 45 is likely to be informed not only by NICE guidance but also by other relevant sources such as, for example, the national service frameworks.
I shall not go over the grounds of Clause 45 and the standards provision but, together with the duty of quality under Clause 44, it makes it clear that NHS bodies are to put and keep in place arrangements to monitor and improve the quality of care they provide or commission on behalf of the patients they serve. To make this crystal clear, Clauses 49, 50 and 51 state that CHAI must take account of those standards when exercising its reviews and investigations functions under those clauses. I am sure that it will want to take account of them when exercising its other functions.
As I said, NHS bodies are already under a statutory obligation to provide funding for treatments and drugs recommended by NICE within three months of guidance being issued. That takes account of the fact that there is still provision under exceptional circumstances—as has been done on one or two occasions—to vary that recommendation where there are capability issues within the NHS about its ability to fulfil the three-month deadline. I am confident that CHAI will take into account statutory obligations on NHS bodies when carrying out its reviews.
Let me gently say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Secretary of State did not overreact in relation to cancer. He did not run around; he merely asked the cancer tsar to carry out a review. It was a perfectly sensible response to a set of concerns expressed by the public.
In the light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that was a helpful reply. This is not an appropriate matter to press but, at the same time, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in particular, for having spoken in the way in which they did about a matter that has raised much concern.
1144
The Minister said that my amendment and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would give NICE guidance an unfair emphasis. My concern is that NICE guidance does not have enough emphasis. While the Minister was no doubt right to point to the importance and salience of guidance from the Chief Medical Officer and the Medical Royal Colleges, for example, I am not aware that guidance from those sources has given rise to particular concern as to its non-implementation. I am, however, aware that there is concern about the non-implementation of NICE guidance. So this is an appropriate issue for an amendment.
Nevertheless, we must take on board what the Minister said. There is time between now and Third Reading to give further consideration to the issue and it is right that, for now, I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 294:
Page 17, line 28, at end insert "; and ( ) the availability of and access to specialist services"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to a subject that we addressed in Committee. As in the amendments we have just debated, it is a subject on which there was a fair amount of ambiguity in the answer given by the Minister. Hence we return to it now.
The amendment concerns the role of CHAI in overseeing the accessibility and availability of specialist services within the new set up. In his response to points that I raised in Committee, the Minister spoke at length about the duty of co-operation between different trusts. He rightly put that forward as one way in which the issue of the availability of specialist services could be addressed. However, he did not sufficiently cover in his response the question of whose responsibility it is to ensure that specialist services, which are needed by only a minority of the population, are delivered equitably across the whole country. What happens if a specialism is considered to be so expensive that no foundation trust in a vast area of the country chooses to provide it? What happens to the people who need such treatment in that area?
We know that there are at the moment chronic shortages in some important specialist fields. For example, neurological and paediatric services are inadequate—there is no other word to describe them. The amendment seeks to elicit from the Minister a more detailed response on the role of CHAI in ensuring that the necessary specialist services are equitably distributed across the NHS. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, it is the responsibility of commissioners to ensure that specialised services are made available to meet the needs of their populations, whether

1145
individually or in co-operation with other commissioners. That is the short answer to some of the questions that she was raising.
I can understand the sentiment behind Amendment No. 294, but we believe it has already been adequately captured by the scope of the clause as it stands. CHAI will be able to concern itself with the provision of specialised services under subsection (2)(a). Furthermore, CHAI is also able to consider the quality and effectiveness of any such care under subsection (2)(b) of the clause.
Including references to specialised services on the face of the Bill is in our view unnecessary because this is already provided for. As I have said, no doubt CHAI will want to look at whether there are particular problems in particular parts of the country if it turns out that commissioners are not making adequate provision, but that will be picked up in the inspection of providers. It will be for CHAI to identify any such concerns in the reports resulting; from those inspections.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer, but I do not think that it fully meets the reality, nor is it likely to. A commissioner can commission services as they like, but if there are no suitably qualified people in the field of paediatric neurology to provide the services, under this future system—as now—they will not exist. That is the issue I am seeking to address. Who has the responsibility for making up for those deficiencies? I am not sure that leaving it solely to commissioning will be the answer, particularly in the new set-up of financial flows. However, I take what the noble Lord says on board— I believe his interpretation of subsection (2)(a) is somewhat more generous than mine would be, but I understand his argument and will not, at this stage, press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 295:
Page 17, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) the equity in provision of healthcare; and
( ) the implementation of ethical principles in decision making processes"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 328, which is in this group.
It is only fair to tell the Minister that I feel very strongly about these amendments. Equity lies at the heart of the philosophy of the NHS. It is equitable that people are prioritised by need, not by demand. It is equitable that they are not disadvantaged in the care that they receive by dint of any prejudice against the person on any grounds, by pre-judging their personal or social situation, by pre-judging them because of any pre-existing disability, or because they live in the wrong postcode area.
People with disability have spoken very openly and loudly about their fears of inequity in the service that they already receive. There have been discussions on the Floor of the House at many points during the Bill's proceedings over concern about a two-tier system. It is accepted by many in the House that things are not as they should be—there are areas of much worse care and areas of much better care. There are currently inequities in the system.
I have a major concern. Clause 47(2) states that CHAI shall be concerned in particular with,
"the quality and effectiveness of the health care".
I do not quibble with that. It also states that CHAI shall be concerned in particular with,
"the economy and efficiency of the provision of health care".
I do not quibble with that. However, there is no mention of equity.
The commissioning arrangements by primary care trusts and in Wales by local health boards must ensure that providers adhere to equity. Indeed, the commissioning arrangements themselves must not create "two-tierism" or, worse, three or "four-tierism" across parts of the health service.
When trusts were first established and the competition of the internal market seemed to reign supreme, inequities emerged which caused a great deal of anxiety. I hope that no such inequities will re-emerge as a result of the Bill. CHAI and the Assembly inspectorate must ensure that provision is equitable and that the contracts that are in place do not jeopardise that equity.
The Government have shown a commitment to patient choice and to informed decision-making by patients in partnership with professionals. However, the relationship between patient and professional contains an inherent and, sadly, inevitable imbalance. The patient is vulnerable—he may not have any knowledge of physiology, anatomy or disease processes. He is often fearful, and those fears are informed by anecdotes and personal witnessed events, either in his care or the care of his family and friends, or as portrayed in the media. Unfortunately, sensational stories in the media do not always present a balanced view and at times they do not provide helpful public education to improve health.
When CHAI and the Assembly inspectorate look at the processes of care, it is essential, in my view, that they can confirm that decisions are driven by the principles of bio-ethics, of informed choice, of actions guided by the patient's best interest, and by the just allocation of resources.
The inspectors will be in a unique position. They will be auditing clinical processes, they will have access to records, to patients and to staff at all grades. They will be able to detect inconsistencies. They must be formally charged with a duty to enhance good clinical processes. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, wholeheartedly, and should like to speak to Amendment No. 316 in particular.

1147
Noble Lords on these Benches were puzzled in Committee that matters such as economy and efficiency were of such importance that they were on the face of the Bill yet equity was consigned to the penumbra of regulation. I do not believe that we received at that stage a compelling answer from the Minister about why equity should not be a principle equal to those on the face of the Bill, and we remain unconvinced. The Minister will recall that I tackled equality in a number of different ways in Committee. He rejected most of them on the grounds that they were far too prescriptive. To contain a principle of equity is not prescriptive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is right that the health system as it stands is not equitable. However, the aim or the goal of equity is within the health service, and it should continue to be so, particularly when foundation trusts come into being and are not so tied to management structures as they would otherwise have been.
The noble Baroness is quite right about the potential skewing of healthcare towards those people who are knowledgeable and articulate, and capable of putting forward their demands in the right terms. It is beginning to happen in primary care and I have no reason to believe that it will not happen in acute care when foundation trusts become membership organisations.
I doubt whether anybody will be as disarmingly honest as the person whom I recently met from a PCT who said, "In our borough, we have highly articulate, very well off middle-class parents of children. That is why we are putting our money into children's services, not older people's services". It may sound breathtaking, but for once it was a joy to meet somebody in the NHS who told the truth straight up and did not dance around the subject. But there is always a danger that those who are not articulate or strong, and who have not worked out all the clinical angles, will not be included in the legislation. That is why we believe the matter to be important.
Finally, I imagine that the Minister will say, as he did in a previous debate, that equality legislation is in place and that, therefore, the amendment is not necessary. If equality legislation applied to healthcare, that argument might be right—but in not all respects does it do so. Tremendous strides have been taken in the health service, especially with the work on age discrimination and some of the other work included in the national service framework. However, an undertaking throughout the health service is not in place that everyone, no matter who, has a right and the same opportunity to have the same treatment, even though it is not specific to the group to which they belong. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has got the matter absolutely right. This is one of the most important aspects of the Bill.
Lord Warner: My Lords, it would be difficult to disagree with many of the points made by the noble
1148
Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I have no intention of trying to do so. I appreciate the sentiments and thoughts behind her amendments. However, in as gentle a way as possible, I suggest that there are real problems with the workability of the amendments.
My most important concern is the scope for the interpretation of the term "equity", and the actions that could result. The word could be interpreted in a variety of ways: in terms of fairness, equality, or subsets of those words. Not everyone will place the same interpretations on the word. Such words pose real problems for parliamentary draftsmen and for the inspectorates as to the possible interpretations that might be placed on them.
For example, if equity were interpreted to mean "fairness", there would be considerable uncertainty about how CHAI would apply such a concept to the making of clinical decisions in trusts. CHAI's judgments, in theory and possibly in practice, could cut across difficult clinical decisions involving a weighing up of all the relevant factors. Some will say that equity should relate to access to healthcare, which is what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said. However, we already state in subsections 2(a) and 4(a) of Clauses 47 and 68 that CHAI and the Assembly shall be concerned in particular with,
"the availability of, and access to, healthcare".
When appropriate, therefore, CHAI and the Assembly can already consider equity in the sense that I have described, so I am not sure what the word would add in those situations.
As for equity in terms of ethical decision making, we believe that, traditionally, many of those issues should be left to the General Medical Council, and to the other regulatory bodies of the healthcare professions. I have already mentioned, so I shall not repeat it, the point made by Sir Ian Kennedy, the chairman of CHAI, about promoting the concept of equal citizenship. That deals with many of the concerns expressed about putting equity into the terms of the Bill. The needs of all service users are adequately provided for in the Bill, and we see no reason to believe that CHAI would not champion those issues or ensure that they are properly pursued in the reviews and inspections that it carries out. I am sure that those sentiments will apply to the Assembly.
Amendment No. 316 to Clause 58 is similar to that previously considered in Committee. However, as I said at the time, noble Lords will know from Second Reading that we have made clear in Clause 47 that CHAI is to be concerned with all factors related to the quality of healthcare, when it exercises any of its functions for the provision of healthcare under Clause 47(1) or Clauses 48 to 56. It is our view that regulations under Clause 58 could require CHAI to be concerned with any of the factors listed in Clause 47(2) in connection with any new function, which is what the amendment deals with. To do so could be considered part and parcel of conferring a new function. We do not believe that the provision in the amendments is necessary.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am most grateful for the Minister's detailed reply, and for the gentle way in which he responded to my points. I am glad that he agrees with the sentiments and thoughts behind the amendments, which I feel very strongly about, and I accept that he has given me information about the workability difficulties with the wording as it stands, and the problems that the amendment's wording might pose for inspectorates.
I do not want to do anything that would make clinical decision making any more complex than it is already. Nor do I want to do anything that cuts across the role of the regulatory bodies, especially not the GMC—with which I am registered, so must declare an interest. That body has done a great deal to raise clinical standard setting and to ensure that clinicians are fully aware of the principles of bio-ethics, producing some excellent guidance on that matter.
In the light of that, I shall take further advice and read the Minister's words. However, I have a nagging concern that the economic factors have been put in place without ensuring that we do not create two-tierism. Therefore, while I will not press the amendment, I do not want to abandon the principle behind it completely. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 [National performance data]:
[Amendment No. 296 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Annual reviews]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 297:
Page 17, line 37, after "rating" insert ", in a form to be determined by the CHAI, "
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak to the other amendments grouped with it.
We return to a familiar, not to say perennial, topic of debate in this Chamber—that of star ratings. When I raised the issue in Committee on 20th October, I was grateful for the support that I received from around the Chamber for my criticism of the star rating system. The notable exceptions were the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the Minister himself, who resembled no one so much as Nelson with the telescope up against his blind eye. Apart from them, all noble Lords who spoke reflected the widespread disenchantment in the NHS about performance ratings in the form that they currently take.
To put the case at its simplest, star ratings are a crude and very blunt instrument. Not only do they often fail to reflect what is important in a hospital's performance, because by their nature they tend to average out a disparate range of indicators, but they also fail to distinguish adequately the hospital that is failing from the hospital that is succeeding. The successful hospital, according to the Audit Commission, will tend to be one that has competent management running it. Yet the commission also makes clear that the star rating system is only weakly related to either the level of performance or the quality of management.
Star ratings count for a lot in terms of the rewards that ensue from them, or the lack of such rewards, so they matter very much to NHS staff. A poor star rating can affect morale adversely, not simply because it is seen as a public sign of failure but because everyone knows that the rating is a poor mirror on reality. Hospitals feel, sometimes with justification, that they have been unfairly rated. The difference between a two and a three star rating can be a matter of a very few percentage points.
My belief is that the whole system needs a thorough-going rethink. There is no better body to do that than CHAI, under the chairmanship of Sir Ian Kennedy. I do not know whether the Minister saw Sir Ian quoted in last week's Health Service Journal. Sir Ian himself used the word "crude" to describe star ratings, and suggested that any kind of rating should use the language of improvement to illustrate how well an organisation is doing. The use of numbers, he said, is at best unhelpful. I believe that the performance ratings awarded by CHAI, and, indeed, the equivalent ratings to be awarded by CSCI, should be ones that are devised and formulated by those bodies themselves. Sir Ian's vision is clear. It is not so much to judge organisations as to hold up a mirror to them; not to be governed by a centrally imposed one-size-fits-all formula but to look at a hospital's performance more broadly, using localised targets where these are appropriate.
"The language of improvement" is a phrase I like because it gets us away from crude numbers to something more sophisticated and sensitive which, all being well, will achieve what we want to see from this system, which is a constructive tool for raising standards. The raising of standards would not be by means of hospitals being named and shamed and told what to do by other people, but rather by hospitals taking the initiative for themselves, taking ownership of their failings and being guided by CHAI towards the necessary improvements.
If hospitals can see that the targets they have are directly relevant to their own situation, there will be much more point in devoting management effort to them. As it is, a great deal of management effort is being channelled into chasing targets that often serve to distort clinical priorities and which are therefore regarded with some cynicism. Variations in performance between hospitals need to be exposed to the light of day but this has to be done in a sensitive and relevant fashion so that staff are able to sign up fully to the goals they need to reach.
I hope that the Minister can provide us with a little more comfort on this very important issue than he was able to do on the previous occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right to say that the current star rating system leaves a lot to be desired. There is much dissatisfaction with the lack of attention being paid to the clinical care angle of what a hospital provides. I should like to see a review of the star rating system. The difficulty lies in giving that job to CHAI. A thorough review and a lot more work are required but

1151
I am not convinced that that should be done by CHAI. The Bill's present wording suggests that annual reviews,
"must award a performance rating to each such body".
It says nothing at all about how that performance rating will be carried out or what it should comprise. It does not prescribe how that should take place; it leaves it open. I believe that that is reasonable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the whole idea of the star rating system is to act as an incentive for the raising of standards. On the face of it, that is one way to do these things. However, there is nothing worse when you are actually working in the system than feeling that the system for rating your achievement— in this case the star rating system—is unfair. There is a widespread feeling—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, identified it on a previous occasion, as did others—that the star rating system is unfair because it is too blunt an instrument. It needs to be much more subtle, much more accurate and therefore much fairer. It has to be accepted as a good means of assessment so that if the hospital next door—or whatever part of the health service is being assessed— does better than you, you feel that that is right; otherwise, it acts as a disincentive. So far as I can make out, a good deal of disgruntlement in the health service is brought about by the feeling that this system is unfair.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful remarks of my noble friend Lord Turnberg. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that even in my visually challenged state if I put the telescope up to either eye and I look at targets, I can still see that they have done rather more for patient access to services than some of the measures that were taken in previous times. I acknowledge all the limitations of targets, but they have changed people's ability to get access to services when they really need them both in outpatient and inpatient departments. We should not lose sight of that in our rush to vilify targets and to review them. No one is arguing that the system cannot be improved but we should not lose sight of the benefits that targets have brought to patients.
Amendments Nos. 297 and 338 would allow both CHAI and CSCI the freedom to determine the form that performance ratings may take. Of course it is up to both commissions, as independent commentators, to determine expressly how the performance ratings will look and feel. This has always been our intention and I therefore feel that, given the reassurances I have placed on record, these amendments are unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 298, 317, 339 and 349 propose to remove the duties on both commissions to seek the approval of the Secretary of State, and in the case of CHAI the Assembly, before issuing relevant criteria under Clauses 49, 59, 79 and 83 of the Bill. I shall not go over the ground again but I have already said on numerous occasions in our deliberation of the Bill that we are giving Ministers the role of approving such criteria proposed by the two commissions in order to
1152
ensure that the statements of criteria reflect and are consistent with the national standards set by the Secretary of State under Clause 45. After all, the Secretary of State remains accountable to Parliament for the delivery of health and social care provision. These clauses as drafted seek to avoid situations in which CHAI or CSCI's criteria might inadvertently create an additional alternative set of priorities for NHS bodies or social care providers.
However, as I have already made clear, although Ministers will have ultimate responsibility for approving inspection criteria, both CHAI and CSCI will be responsible for drawing them up. This will allow both commissions plenty of opportunities to listen to the concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere and to use their expertise to ensure that the criteria against which health and social care providers are inspected are fair and reflective of the needs of service users. I am sure that both commissions will have in the forefront of their minds the needs of patients. I suggest that it would be a brave Minister who did not listen carefully to Sir Ian Kennedy and his colleagues regarding the criteria and methodologies that they propose.
Amendment No. 344 would prevent CSCI using the lowest level of rating as a measure of poor performance for advising the Secretary of State on the action to be taken to improve such services. The lowest level of rating is given only to authorities who are clearly failing to provide a satisfactory level of social services to their local community generally or where either children's or adults' services are of an unacceptable standard. CSCI, in making these assessments, will use a mixture of data that it has from its general reviews and investigations, statistical data, performance data it receives from the authority and any information available from local inspectors. These decisions are not made on the basis of snap judgments but on the basis of regular liaison with local authorities. Changing from this position to one where action can be taken only where there is significant cause for concern would not be in the best interests of service users. It could be seen to suggest that action might be taken only where serious harm had already been done to the welfare of children or vulnerable adults and that is not acceptable to the Government.
Clause 79(3) already imposes on CSCI an obligation to report to the Secretary of State where any social services authority is failing to discharge any of its functions to an acceptable standard. Therefore the star rating given to the local authority is not the only trigger for such a report to be made. We consider it right that there should be two bases for reports to be made to the Secretary of State, one where its overall level of service is such that it receives the lowest star rating, and a second where any particular service is below an acceptable standard. That two-part test is right, and the proposed additional test would not add anything.
7 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full and helpful reply. I shall reflect further on what he

1153
said as regards Amendments Nos. 344 and 349 in particular. I am grateful to him for confirming something that I am not sure emerged from our earlier debates, which is that CHAI and CSCI will themselves be tasked with responsibility for the performance-rating system. That is good news, and I am sure that it is the right way to go. I shall certainly not dwell on the amendments any further, other than to express my pleasure at the Minister's answer.
I still do not understand why, on the question of criteria, it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have a role in approving whatever CHAI and CSCI propose. Again, I shall think carefully about what the Minister said. His case seemed a little thin, but he took a good deal of trouble in answering the points, so the least that I can do is consider what he said fairly and fully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 298 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 299:
Page 18, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the CHAI, by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to the CHAI before the award of a performance rating under this section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to dwell briefly on the opposition amendments in this group, in order to explain my points on the government amendments. I am not in any way trying to inhibit other debate. The opposition amendments are the same as those tabled in Committee. They require CHAI and CSCI to give NHS bodies and local authorities the chance to comment on the contents of reports before they are published or shown to the Secretary of State. I argued in Committee that such amendments were unnecessary because it was already good practice to share copies of reports with the inspected bodies prior to publication. We are still confident that CHAI and CSCI will continue that practice.
However, I said that I would consider further the principle behind the amendments. Having given that further thought, I consider that it would be appropriate to include a provision in the Bill to formalise what will happen in any case through good practice. The government amendments tabled place a series of regulation-making powers in the Bill that will enable the Secretary of State to make provision for the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to CHAI or CSCI before the award of a performance rating or publication of a report.
It is more appropriate that such matters should be dealt with in regulations than by having an explicit duty in the Bill, in order to allow for the flexibility required. We envisage that a regulation-making power which would specify in some detail differing numbers of days that NHS bodies and local authorities would have to respond to reports by CHAI and CSCI in different circumstances is the right way forward. For example, where a body was deemed by CHAI and CSCI to be failing, or they were concerned that the
1154
safety and welfare of patients or service users was put at risk, we could specify that a lesser number of days should be given than was generally the case. That would ensure that CHAI, CSCI and the Secretary of State were still able to act quickly to protect patients and service users. As I said in Committee, one of our principal concerns with the opposition amendment was that it might hinder them from doing so.
The government amendments require consultation with CHAI and CSCI before any regulations are made. We would of course also carry out a full public consultation on those regulations, to ensure that the particular timescales specified for different circumstances are entirely appropriate. I should make it clear to the House, however, that due to the fact that the regulation-making powers are being added only at this stage, it is unlikely to be possible to carry out such consultation and have the regulations in place by 1st April 2004, although we will aim to do so as soon as possible thereafter. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister has already referred to Amendments Nos. 306, 307 and 345 in the group, which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Howe. Those amendments have been comprehensively upstaged by the Minister's own. He said in Committee that he would look again at the matter, and we regard the outcome as perfectly satisfactory.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Reviews: England and Wales]:
[Amendment No. 300 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 301:
Page 18, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the CHAI, by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to the CHAI before the publication of a report under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Reviews and investigations: England]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 302:
Page 19, line 10, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I am returning to an issue that we debated in Committee, which is the power granted to the Secretary of State in Clause 51(4) to require CHAI to conduct reviews or investigations.
The Minister sought to reassure us that such a power was right and proper. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, and he should therefore have the ability to instruct CHAI to investigate issues that are in the public interest. Although that proposition sounds reasonable, I actually think that it is questionable. If we believe that as a general rule CHAI should be free to set its own work programme within the resources allocated to it, and to set its own priorities, it is doubtful, at least to me, whether the Secretary of State should have an automatic right to override those priorities.
The Minister said that the power set out in the provisions did not impinge on CHAI's independence, because it would be used only sparingly. I would feel happier about that reassurance if there were something in the clause to qualify the circumstances in which the power could be used, but there is nothing—it is open-ended. In theory, the Secretary of State could direct CHAI's entire work programme. That may not be the Government's wish or intention, but a future government could approach the matter differently.
There is also a risk that CHAI may be unnecessarily side-tracked by having to fulfil instructions from the Secretary of State in situations that are highly politically charged. There might be, for example, a story splashed all over the press of a hospital chapel being used as a temporary mortuary, as indeed happened some time ago. There was a huge fuss about that story, and immense outrage expressed in all the tabloid newspapers. Actually, although the situation at the hospital was highly regrettable, it hardly fell into the category of a major health concern. Yet one could easily imagine a Minister in such circumstances feeling browbeaten and deciding that he needed to "do something". If the provisions applied, the result might well be an instruction to CHAI to drop everything that it was doing and investigate what, in CHAI's own eyes, it did not regard as a pressing matter.
That is one sort of danger but, looking at the picture more broadly, I do not see why the Secretary of State needs a power to instruct CHAI in that way. If something important needs investigation and CHAI is unaware of it, it is always open to the Secretary of State to bring the matter to CHAI's notice. If the situation really is an emergency, one cannot envisage CHAI wanting to delay looking at it. There may be other issues arising at that moment which CHAI considers to be even more pressing. Why should it have to submit to the overriding request of the Secretary of State? The case has simply not been made.
The Minister will therefore see that several strands of thought run through the amendment. I am not saying that CHAI should have extra independence just for the sake of it. I hope that the Minister will respond constructively. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, the amendment would remove the Secretary of State's specific power to require CHAI to undertake reviews and investigations in certain circumstances. It is important that the Secretary of State, who remains accountable to Parliament for the provision of healthcare, has the ability to be able to require CHAI to undertake a review or investigation where there is a crisis of confidence in public services. That power does not apply to cases that may pop into the headlines, such as a chapel being used as a mortuary. However, it could be applicable to a specific NHS body, such as Bristol Royal Infirmary or Alder Hay, where a specific type of service or problem area such as retention of organs needs to be investigated. Such matters are of
1156
great public concern and the ramifications for the NHS go wider than the specific place to which they relate.
In those circumstances—nine times out of 10 and 99 times out of 100—we would expect CHAI, which would want to identify and actively respond to such concerns, to fit that into its programmes. However, circumstances could arise where the Government have to intervene and reshape slightly the priorities of CHAI where there was a crisis of confidence of the kind that I have mentioned and it is important that the Minister has that reserve power. I hope that my answer clarifies matters for the noble Earl. The Government certainly have no intention to interfere with the work of CHAI every day. As I pointed out earlier, the number of staff who will be around in the Department of Health to interfere in anybody's workload will be substantially reduced in the review that we are carrying out.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I would feel happier if the wording were less open-ended than it is. The wording is not qualified in any way. I was of course glad to hear the Minister say that if there were a crisis of confidence of some kind, such as Alder Hay, CHAI would normally set about the task of looking into those matters of its own accord. I still question whether the Secretary of State needs a power to instruct CHAI, but I shall not press the matter further. I hope and believe that the clause will be read in conjunction with the Minister's helpful remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 303:
Page 19, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the CHAI, by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to the CHAI before the publication of a report under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 304 to 306 not moved.]
Clause 52 [Failings]: [Amendment No. 307 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 308:
Page 20, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the CHAI, by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to the CHAI before the publication of a report under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Functions relating to Secretary of State and Assembly]:
[Amendment No. 309 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Clause 54 [Functions relating to regulator]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 310:
Page 21, line 14, leave out "is to keep the regulator" and insert "and the regulator are to keep each other"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 310, but merely as a means of expressing my appreciation to the Minister for tabling superior amendments which satisfy the point that I made in Committee by way of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes): My Lords, if Amendment No. 310 is agreed to, Amendment No. 311 could not be called by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have nothing more to say on the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 311 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 312:
Leave out Clause 54.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 312.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we cannot allow the Minister to get away with the amendment. Amendments Nos. 312, 318 and 376 are grouped with Amendment No. 310. The noble Lord said that he wished to speak to the government amendment separately from the one that was tabled by my noble friend, and I suggest that he might like to do so.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am always happy to satisfy the thirst for knowledge in your Lordships' House, but I thought that noble Lords would want to move along towards the dinner hour a little more briskly. Amendments Nos. 312, 318 and 376 were tabled in response to concerns raised in Committee, as the noble Earl has acknowledged.
Your Lordships sought to ensure that CHAI and the independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts should keep each other informed. The amendment would have placed an undue burden on the bodies. It is unlikely that the independent regulator will be regularly in receipt of information about the quality of healthcare provided by and for individual NHS foundation trusts, as it will not inspect the healthcare provided. That remains the role of CHAI.
We understand that the independent regulator may occasionally receive information that impacts on the provision of healthcare by NHS foundation trusts and that it is appropriate that that information is shared with CHAI. Therefore, subsection (2)(b) of Amendment No. 318 clarifies that such information should be shared.
It remains our expectation that CHAI will be regularly in receipt of relevant information concerning the provision of healthcare. CHAI remains under a duty under subsection (2)(a) to keep the independent regulator informed. That will support the regulator in
1158
carrying out its duties of granting authorisations to foundation trusts and keeping such authorisations under review.
Subsection (1) of the amendment would ensure that CHAI and the independent regulator must "co-operate with each other" in carrying out their functions. Subsections (1) and (2) would ensure that the provisions in Clause 54 are carried forward. Amendment No. 312 deletes Clause 54 as that clause is replaced by Amendment No. 318.
Amendment No. 376. would delete Clause 121(2), which allows CHAI to provide assistance to the regulator. The duty to co-operate has subsumed the duty in that clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Co-ordination of reviews]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 313 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 314 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 313:
Page 21, line 28, leave out "may promote" and insert "has the function of promoting"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 313, 347 and 352 have been tabled following our discussion in Committee about the feasibility of placing CHAI under an explicit duty to promote the effective co-ordination of reviews or assessments carried out by public bodies or other persons under Clause 56. We continue to believe that it would be inappropriate to amend the Bill in the manner proposed by Amendment No. 314 tabled by the noble Lords opposite. We have, however, consulted parliamentary counsel on this matter. He advises that the most appropriate way of giving the clause a more mandatory flavour is to amend it—and by extension, and to ensure consistency, Clauses 80 and 81—to give CSCI and the Assembly a function of promoting the co-ordination of reviews.
As with all other functions in the Bill, it will be for each commission to determine the precise manner in which the function will be discharged and which particular bodies and reviews it will seek to co-ordinate. I trust that noble Lords opposite will find that acceptable. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I have tabled Amendment No. 314, which I am pleased to regard as trumped by the Minister's Amendment No. 313. I am grateful to him for taking the matter away and finding a solution which satisfies that most difficult of individuals, parliamentary counsel, in achieving what we agreed in Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Studies as to economy, efficiency etc]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 315:
Page 22, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the CHAI, by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to the CHAI before the publication of any recommendations or the result of any studies under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Additional functions]:
[Amendment No. 316 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Criteria]:
[Amendment No. 317 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 318:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
"CO-OPERATION BETWEEN CHAI AND THE REGULATOR

(1) The CHAI and the regulator must co-operate with each other in the exercise of their respective functions under Part 1 and this Chapter.

(2) In particular, for the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) the CHAI must keep the regulator informed about the provision of health care by and for NHS foundation trusts;

(b) the regulator must give to the CHAI any information it has about the provision of health care by or for an NHS foundation trust which it considers would assist the CHAI in the discharge of its functions."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 319:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
"CO-OPERATION BETWEEN CHAI AND THE AUDIT COMMISSION
The CHAI and the Audit Commission must co-operate with each other in relation to matters in respect of which both have functions."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, throughout the passage of this Bill we have discussed the role that CHAI and the Audit Commission will have in relation to NHS bodies. We are clear that CHAI will be responsible for value-for-money studies in individual English NHS bodies or across a range of such NHS bodies.
The Audit Commission will, however, retain the function of undertaking studies for improving financial management in English NHS bodies. It will also appoint and guide the work of auditors of many NHS bodies and those auditors will cover at a local level many of the areas and issues within CHAI's remit. Amendment No. 319 seeks to strengthen the relationship between the two bodies by placing a duty on the bodies to co-operate in relation to those matters in respect of which they both have functions. In doing so, it also seeks to ensure that the bodies work together in reducing the burdens of inspection on the NHS.
Given the recent utterances on reducing inspection burdens by the Audit Commission and its chairman, I am confident that this amendment has their support. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the Minister's comments. It is eminently sensible and in line with the observation contained in the Better Regulation Task Force report. One of the issues we
1160
have debated throughout the passage of the Bill is the split of functions not only between CHAI and CSCI but also between CHAI and the Audit Commission. I believe that this duty of co-operation is sensible. They may have been the two Titans about which we spoke earlier, but perhaps this is a different set of Titans—my memory fails me. However, I am sure that both bodies will find it a welcome duty.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Right of entry: supplementary]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 320:
Page 25, line 39, leave out "a" and insert "an anonymised"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 320 relates to the way in which electronically held records are handled. The Minister's amendment deals with many of the concerns that have arisen during previous stages as regards the way in which CHAI and CSCI can access confidential information. I am grateful to the Minister for having corresponded with several of us about these issues and outlining the meeting he had with Sir Ian Kennedy to discuss them further. The amendment in his name appears to link with the code of practice that has been drawn up with Sir Ian Kennedy, the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the National Consumer Council, about which there will be wide consultation.
The Minister's amendment does not deal specifically with electronic records and I have tabled Amendment No. 320 in order to ensure that anonymisation occurs. Anonymising electronic records is quite easy—simply with a substitution for different terms and fields which can render them anonymous quickly. However, hand-held records are extremely difficult and cumbersome to anonymise effectively. Given the legislation around electronically held records, it struck me as being important that there is a specific assurance that there will be anonymisation. It may be that the Minister in speaking to his own amendment will be able to give me the reassurances I seek. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment No. 320A. We had an interesting debate in Committee which was informed by the Minister's notes to us. Again, the Minister has helpfully written about the code of practice. That is a significant step, but I should like to hear further from him on the role of the Secretary of State. There is the possibility of a considerable disagreement on the thrust of the code of practice. CHAI, the GMC and other bodies concerned with the protection of confidential information will have different interests. Who will resolve them? Who will be the referee? That is the key issue.
Amendment No. 320A is designed to answer those questions. I am not sure that the Minister's amendment yet does so, but I shall be interested to hear from him who will resolve the difficulties. It appears to us on these Benches that CHAI is solely in the saddle on this matter and other parties, perhaps

1161
not with equal powers but with override powers, can be brought into the equation if major problems arise in reaching agreement on the code of practice.
This is an important area of the Bill. The use of personal information is becoming increasingly important and we must be sure that this part of the Bill works.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I, too, have an amendment in this group; it is Amendment No. 323A. I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the code and putting it on the face of the Bill. He will remember that my solution was somewhat different from that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He suggested the Secretary of State and I suggest the Patient Information Advisory Group, which was set up two years ago to look at patient information that was not anonymised and on which patients could not give their consent. The body was set up to scrutinise those applications.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Minister's amendment, although helpful, still puts CHAI in the saddle. One of my concerns is that CHAI will acquire the information; it will publish the code; it will consult persons it considers appropriate; and it will keep the code under review. I do not consider that to be a very good practice. I believe that we need an independent body. It seems to me strange that, where we have such a body which we know to work well, we do not use it.
I turn to the progress made by the Patient Information Advisory Group. It is interesting that, when that body was first set up, it was considered bureaucratic. Research applicants did not like it. The PIAG refused many applications because, I understand, the applications were so poor. The reasons given as to why patient consent could not be obtained were that it would be too difficult to do so or that patients would not want to be bothered. However, there was a strong suspicion that it was the applicants who could not be bothered.
I still appear to be the sole standard-bearer for the Patient Information Advisory Group, and am perhaps somewhat isolated in that context. However, I believe that in the PIAG we have an established organisation which is practical and which has a membership respected throughout the National Health Service with people of extremely high quality. We have a mechanism that works, and I am very disappointed that the Minister does not feel that we should use it, thereby avoiding a situation where CHAI would become judge and jury in its own case. That is not a good principle and certainly not a tradition in this country.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, very briefly I want to say to my noble friend that she need not feel isolated. I hope that the Minister will consider constructively her amendment in relation to the Patient Information Advisory Group. Surely the code of practice and the regulations need to be looked at independently. I have
1162
not been specific in my own amendments and I am not particularly speaking to them. However, I sympathise very much with what my noble friend said. I also thank the Minister for taking away this issue and dealing with it so constructively.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his remarks. It is always a pleasure to be able to facilitate contact between the Opposition Front Bench and their Back-Benchers.
I shall speak, first, to government Amendments Nos. 381 and 382 to explain the Government's thinking. I shall then respond to the points raised by other noble Lords. Amendments Nos. 381 and 382 place a new statutory requirement upon CHAI and CSCI to prepare and publish a code of practice in respect of their access, handling, use and disclosure of confidential personal information. As we discussed in Committee, Sir Ian Kennedy has involved the GMC, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Consumers' Association in discussions about such a code on a voluntary basis. Perhaps I may refresh the memory of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I believe that the two Titans to which he referred were the GMC and CHAI. I should not want him to have forgotten that memorable contribution.
However, I realise that noble Lords have remaining concerns that, unless the code is placed on a statutory basis, future chairs of the organisation might choose not to have in place such a code. I recognise that the handling of personal information is an extremely sensitive issue, particularly with respect to medical information, and it is right that organisations such as CHAI and CSCI, which have wide powers in respect of such information, should account for how they intend to handle it.
These amendments respond to noble Lords' concerns and will have the effect of placing the two commissions under a duty to prepare and publish codes of practice and to consult appropriate persons before doing so. Sir Ian Kennedy has informed me that it is intended that the CHAI code of practice should be in place on a statutory basis by April of next year.
Although the concerns about information expressed in Committee were focused principally on CHAI, the issue of CSCI's access to information was also raised. We believe it is appropriate that both commissions should be under a statutory duty to have a code in place. However, I want to be clear that the circumstances in which CSCI will need to access and use personal data are different from those for CHAI. It will need to do so on a more routine basis in order to ensure that vulnerable individuals are adequately protected.
Perhaps I may make it clear that CSCI will not routinely need to access personal medical records, although it may do so on occasion. It will, however, require regular access to social services records held by local authorities and social care records held by care

1163
homes. Those records may contain some medical information, such as information about a resident who needs equipment to enable him to get out of the bath because he has an artificial hip. CSCI will need, as the Social Services Inspectorate and National Care Standards Commission currently do, to look at social services records as a standard part of an inspection of a local authority, as poor record-keeping is often an indicator of poor social work practice.
Shadow CSCI came into being later than shadow CHAI and is now beginning work on a code of practice. I have written to the chair, Denise Platt, to ask about a possible timescale for putting a code of practice in place. I hope to be able to provide noble Lords with more information on that at Third Reading.
That is the background to the Government's thinking and the Government's amendments. Perhaps I may now turn to some specific points raised by noble Lords. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also provides a role for the Secretary of State to approve such a code. I find it interesting that the Secretary of State, who would have been pushed out of the Bill if a number of other amendments from Opposition Benches had been passed, is now brought in as the wise arbiter on this issue. We do not believe that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to approve the code. We consider that CHAI and CSCI, as independent commissions with expertise in their respective fields, should be trusted to draw up their own codes, in consultation, as I said, with appropriate bodies. Our amendments make provision for that.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, concerning the Patient Information Advisory Group. As I said, our amendments provide that both CHAI and CSCI should consult appropriate bodies in drawing up a code of practice and that they should determine that procedure. I am sure that we would encourage CHAI and CSCI to utilise the Patient Information Advisory Group as a resource, but it will not be the only body with an interest in this area; nor do we believe it is right that either the Patient Information Advisory Group or, for that matter, any other single body should have a right of veto over the information that CHAI should be able to access through the code following an appropriate basis of public consultation.
I turn now to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about computerised information. We believe that the noble Baroness's proposal would cause significant problems for CHAI and the Assembly in carrying out their functions. For example, if they were investigating a case such as that of Dr Shipman, such a requirement could be detrimental to patient safety. On the other hand, the approach that we have taken means that the codes of practice will be able to deal with the issue of computer
1164
records, together with the issue of when it would be appropriate to anonymise them, but it would leave the bodies with the flexibility not to do so when doing so would prevent them exercising their functions properly and protecting the public.
In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel more confident and comfortable about not pressing her amendment. On the basis of the explanation that I have given, I commend the government amendments to the House.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is the correct moment for me to ask a question. I probably should have raised it before the Minister sat down.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, if I am not speaking out of turn, perhaps I may comment on what the Minister said. His words about the code of practice are welcome. When he spoke about computerised records, I hope he meant that in general practice they will be anonymised so that no clinician will have to work counter to the GMC guidance, which states that only where it is essential for the purpose may identifiable records be disclosed. That is where there is really significant danger of death or serious harm such as abuse. In those instances it would not be appropriate to anonymise the data. Like all noble Lords I sincerely hope that we never have another episode such as Shipman. However, I fear that there may be need occasionally for named records to be viewed.
Therefore, I am happy to withdraw my amendment but with the caveat that I shall seek reassurance from the Minister that it will be normal, routine practice for the records to be anonymised unless there are strong stated reasons otherwise.
Perhaps I may comment on the independent review of the records. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, highlighted a group with which those drawing up the code of practice would be well advised to consult. That group now has experience of considering various applications and formats of records. I would have hoped that on guidance too the Minister's words would have been a little stronger concerning the role of the Patient Information Advisory Group. However, I accept the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 320 and in the mean time beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Power to require documents and information etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 320A and 321 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.41 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Date of Next Assembly Poll) Order 2003
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2003, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2003 and the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications No. 2) Order 2003.
These orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and have or are being made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, Section 34(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Section 6 of the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 respectively.
The Northern Ireland (Date of Next Assembly Poll)—Order 2003 setting the election date as 26th November was made on 22nd October by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. As noble Lords know, the Secretary of State made a Statement to the House that day setting out the progress that had been made over the previous days and weeks towards a restoration of devolved government on a stable and inclusive basis.
Although it was not possible to rebuild the atmosphere of trust we had hoped to see at the start of the election campaign, major steps forward have occurred. After the election the British and Irish Governments will work with the parties to resolve the issue as quickly as possible so as to enable devolved government to be restored to the people of Northern Ireland. We remain optimistic that that will be achievable, building on the progress we have made.
Noble Lords may be wondering why this election is being held on a Wednesday. The election has been called at short notice and we have sought to minimise the disruption to electoral office staff that would be caused by continuing counting into the weekend. There is also the advantage that the results should be known by the weekend as the two-day count will take place on the Thursday and Friday.
I also point out that for political and practical reasons this is the most realistic week in which we can hold an election. If the date was set any later there would be obvious implications because of the season with colder, darker nights and the onset of Christmas.
The Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2003, which was also made on 22nd October, changes the date from 1st December 2003 to 1 st February 2004 that the revised version of the electoral register, following the annual canvass, should be published by. It also provides that no notices of alteration need to be published during the four months prior to February 2004.
It may be helpful if I explain some of the background to this necessary change. The new electoral register was due to be published on its usual date of 1st December. However, because the Assembly election has been called, the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff will be involved fully in election preparations. All noble Lords will recognise that this effectively means that the Chief Electoral Officer will be unable to publish a new register on 1st December. This order puts back the publication deadline to 1st February 2004.
Furthermore, the order modifies legislation to stop a resettlement allowance being payable to former MLAs who have given a termination notice under a determination made by the Secretary of State. MLAs who have given such a notice would have already received payment equivalent to a resettlement allowance by virtue of the termination notice. It effectively ensures that such persons do not receive a double payment.
The draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2003 amends rule 32 of the parliamentary elections rules set out in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 as it is applied by Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 for the purposes of an election to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The effect simply adds electoral commissioners, members of staff of the Electoral Commission and persons appointed by the Electoral Commission for the purpose of attending at polling stations on behalf of the commission. The order is being introduced now to be in use for the Northern Ireland Assembly election on 26th November and will apply to all elections to the Assembly unless amended or revoked. A similar order is due to be introduced for the whole of the United Kingdom next year in time for the European parliamentary elections.
We believe that allowing the Electoral Commission access to polling stations would be beneficial. It will allow the commission to report fully on the conduct of the election and will help provide clear evidence as to how electoral office staff implement key aspects of the Electoral Fraud Act, such as checking photographic identification. Furthermore, a number of Northern Ireland politicians have indicated to us that they are unhappy at inconsistencies in polling stations and the commission will be able to judge whether these complaints have any substance.
The final order before the House is the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications No. 2) Order 2003. This purely technical order modifies Section 118A(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, as it is applied to Northern Ireland Assembly elections by the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 in connection with provision made by Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003.
The effect of this simply ensures that the election expenses of individual candidates in relation to the forthcoming Assembly election are regulated in

1167
accordance with the statutory regime. It also ensures clarity as to when a person becomes a candidate for the purposes of that election.
I conclude by saying that we hope that the election campaign will be positive and constructive, and that after the elections we can build on the good working relationships between all the parties in Northern Ireland which have developed from their work together in the Executive and subsequently in the negotiations that have taken place since suspension.
I apologise for taking some time. These are important issues. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for moving the order and for clearly explaining to your Lordships its purpose. From the beginning, this side of the House has supported the election and wishes to support the Government in all they are doing to make these elections more straightforward, honest and peaceful than perhaps some have been in the past.
The date was clearly explained by the noble Baroness. We are completely happy with it. On the question of altering the date of the new register, that clearly does not interfere with the election. When I first read the order I though that it might. It does not because the register would not have been produced anyway until 1st December. That clearly is a good decision.
The access of the commissioners to the polling stations seems ultra sensible and indeed very necessary.
I have one or two questions. I do not wish to get involved in anything to do with the election. First, I should like the noble Baroness to assure the House that all those measures enacted in what is now known as the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 are up and running and that we can look forward to a more honest, straightforward and trustworthy result than perhaps we have been used to in Northern Ireland elections.
I sound one perhaps salutary note. This is an election to the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is as far as it goes. It is the Government's desire and our desire on this side of the House that, after the election, the Government will be able to reinstate the various institutions associated with Stormont and the agreement. But we should not kid ourselves. This is by no means a certainty. The IRA still have to do one or two things before all those institutions can be set up.
My party and I sincerely hope that that will happen in due course. We sincerely hope that we will have good, fair and well attended elections. By "well attended", I mean that there will be a good poll and a good turnout from the population of Northern Ireland. I sincerely hope that after these elections we
1168
can see devolved government in all its states, with all the institutions up and running and in full swing. I support the Government's orders.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing these very important orders. Perhaps I may say with the greatest of respect that the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council should have introduced them, given their huge symbolic and substantive significance to Northern Ireland. I trust that this is not an augury of things to come. I do not believe that the late and very lamented Lord Williams of Mostyn would have missed this trick.
Today the "sage of Ulster" in his weekly column in the Irish Independent presented a pessimistic scenario regarding the Assembly elections. Dr Maurice Hayes predicted a low turn out, which would be quite unprecedented: Northern Ireland traditionally has high levels of voter turnout. This is not surprising perhaps, given the suspension of the Assembly for over a year. What was particularly debilitating was the decision—for no good reason as it turned out—not to hold the elections last May when they were due. The past six months have not merely been a waste of time, but have contributed to a loss of political momentum and will have fostered a great apathy and indeed some cynicism among the electorate.
The election campaign is under way and the people will make their choice. When the Assembly reconvenes, London and Dublin would be well advised to stand back and play a very modest role, leaving it to the parties to form an executive. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives. If they fail to form a power-sharing executive—and I predict that this will take many months—in the end there will be a return to direct rule. But not as before. Does the Minister agree that the status quo ante is not an option? As I have said before, it will be direct rule, run by London in very close partnership with Dublin. In effect, a condominium. I say that to Ulster Unionist colleagues. No one with any democratic spirit will like that, and it is up to the newly elected Assembly to hammer out an agreement by which an executive can be resumed.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I too am very grateful to the Minister. If I appear to be slightly critical—not of her but of the legislation—the purpose is to allow her to provide reassurance and explanation, because there is a degree of confusion on the ground.
It may be that there is some compelling reason for Parliament giving retrospective approval to many of these instruments. I concede that the practice of retrospective approval is not entirely novel or unusual; for example, in matters such as road traffic, speed limits or pub closing hours.
However, running through these orders is the notion that the candidate is required to conform to the provisions, so that they can appear on ballot papers and on lists of candidates. I assume that that authorisation may be a mere technicality, but I am not certain that that is understood. I was canvassed this

1169
morning by a candidate. I teased him by asking, "What are your credentials? I mean, are you a candidate?" "Oh, yes"—he said—"I am a proper candidate". I asked, "Well, how is it that their Lordships' House tonight is going to approve the procedure and the lists to which you are referring?" He was stumped for an answer. I did not indicate which way I was going to vote. I just left him to mull that one over.
It does no service to democracy to imply or suggest that the validity of candidates is dependent upon your Lordships giving or withholding approval tonight. What is the electorate to make of candidates canvassing last week and today, who have every reason to believe that they are validly nominated, when Parliament is only now—and presumably the other place has yet to tackle this issue—getting around to making these candidates honest men and women?
In one of the orders there appears to be a let out for someone not yet validly nominated, but enabled to declare himself or herself nominated. It is a kind of a do-it-yourself device in one of the clauses. It is in paragraph 2(2) of the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications No. 2) Order 2003. I wonder whether this has anything to do with the departure from the established practice. It confers on the candidate that,
"if on or before that date he is declared by himself or others to be a candidate at the election".
I am uncertain that that sits tidily with the Representation of the People Acts as I used to know them when I was a humble election agent aware of all the pitfalls.
Your Lordships will know that respect for democracy is already at a low ebb—mainly, but not only, in Northern Ireland. The perception is that conjuring tricks make too much impact on the body politic, especially in Northern Ireland. I assume that the Government share my view that democracy has just about survived a pretty fierce battering in recent months. Her Majesty's Government and Parliament must resolve to put an end to what the electorate already regard as a bit of sharp practice. A return to respect for democracy and democratic principles is urgently needed if we are to avoid further loss of faith in electoral verdicts and, as has already been said, look forward hopefully to the future after the election to establishing workable devolved government in Northern Ireland.
On those grounds, I beg all concerned to remember that after four weeks of confusion in Northern Ireland, democracy there is a tender plant.
8 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree that the degree of trust in the future that electors feel when they go to elections is important. I therefore return to the issue of decommissioning. The Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and Mr Trimble were clearly expecting that hard facts and figures would be given by the commission on the latest quantity and nature of the arms supposed to
1170
have been put beyond use. But in the event, General de Chastelain said that under the agreement with the IRA he was committed to give no detail either publicly or, as it turned out, even to the two Prime Ministers.
However, the decommissioning scheme based on the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, states at paragraph 26:
"Disclosure of information received by the Commission may occur where disclosure is necessary … for reasons of public safety"—
I should have thought that that would apply given the present situation in Northern Ireland—or,
"to fulfil the Commission's duty to report to the two Governments".
In August 2001, it was the commission, announcing the putting of some arms beyond use, that said without giving any detail that it was,
"satisfied that it would not further the process of putting arms beyond use to provide further details of that event".
That was a unilateral decision by the commission; it was not based on the legislation. That is one more example of the commission—unwittingly and for entirely honourable but, I think, innocent motives— following the IRA's agenda.
I raise that point because it concerns the issue of trust. The Government are still free to advance that matter and insist that something should be said. It makes nonsense of the whole issue of decommissioning if people cannot know what is the outcome. The Government believe in transparency, and I respect that. They owe it to the people about to vote using their legislation to say exactly what was decommissioned and how often the commission carries out the duty placed on it by the legislation to inspect all the arms caches that it has been shown.
That is one issue. The other is that on 3rd November, Mr Adams said in New York:
"anti-Agreement Unionists must accept an all-Ireland agenda if they want to see the return of devolved Government".
That is a formidable threat, and a clear one. He continued:
"Efforts to restore the institutions of the Agreement must proceed urgently after the election".
I can agree warmly with that; I hope that the Government do too.
My last question has been posed in a general way by my noble friend Lord Glentoran: has the machinery to ensure against vote-rigging that was planned almost two years ago—the computerised method—been put in place? Is it working? The last time we asked about that we were told that it required testing and was not quite ready. I should be reassured to know whether it is now ready and able to work.
Lord Laird: My Lords, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to several issues regarding the orders before us today.
We must all bear in mind that when the Assembly election was postponed in May, the Secretary of State insisted that we needed to see acts of completion. The Prime Minister himself made that clear in October

1171
2002. That leads one to wonder exactly what acts of completion have taken place recently that would encourage and provide a foundation for the calling of the Assembly election on the 26th November.
Does the noble Baroness accept that the 26th November is merely a date that has been set for an election? The reality is that suspension has not been lifted from the Assembly. As such, can we take it that the Government are still insistent on there being transparent acts of completion before the suspension of the Assembly can be lifted and the executive re-established?
Secondly, I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the rather odd sequencing of events of Tuesday 21st October concerning transparent acts of completion. The date for the election was announced at 7 a.m.— rather earlier than we had been led to expect. Moreover, we had been led to expect that General de Chastelain would have been able to provide considerably more detail about the IRA's act of decommissioning than he did later that afternoon. There was no transparency, no clarity, and no itinerary of weapons. As a result, confidence in the process was severely diminished. It was that which led the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party to, in his words, put the process on hold.
The Government, for reasons that are still not entirely clear, chose to waive the only leverage still available to them that would have helped to ensure the transparency we all sought. They chose to make the order for the elections to proceed. The Government had the opportunity to pull this process back to ensure that confidence and clarity were injected.
I do not want noble Lords to misinterpret my words as a statement against the elections. I and my party very much want power to be returned to the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, your Lordships must remember that while we are holding elections to the Assembly in a few weeks, the immediate re-establishment of the power-sharing institutions is not in fact guaranteed. Noble Lords must appreciate the potential for the Government's gamble to fail and for electoral results not to be favourable for the resumption of devolved administration.
All we have at present is an election date. Suspension has not been lifted. Can the noble Baroness tell us now whether suspension will be lifted once the votes have been counted? If we fail to retrieve the situation soon, we could find ourselves back in this House and another place in, say, six months' time, once again looking at orders such as those before us.
The noble Baroness must be very aware of the questions that I am raising, yet I ask her once again: why did the Government leave the fulfilment of Sinn Fein's obligations to carry out transparent acts of completion to chance, when they could have taken the initiative by insisting on the transparency that they insisted was a prerequisite for holding Assembly elections?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I was saddened, unusually, by the comments of the noble
1172
Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton. I assure him that I have deputised—I hope, satisfactorily—for previous holders of the office that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, now holds. I assure the noble Lord that the noble Baroness is fulfilling another important duty.
I thank all noble Lords for expressing support for the orders. I shall deal, first, with the issues that all noble Lords raised to some degree. We consider that the statements by the leader of Sinn Fein and by the IRA were major steps and confirmed commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The act of decommissioning overseen was very welcome; however, unfortunately, as noble Lords have recognised, it did not achieve the public confidence necessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and others referred to that. We now have the Independent Monitoring Commission to give an independent and authoritative view on whether commitments are being upheld to ensure that the promise of a full and final closure of the conflict is a reality.
Noble Lords asked whether the lack of revelation of the detail of the decommissioning process was proper. It is for the IICD acting as an independent body to account for its actions, but we believe that General de Chastelain and his colleagues have acted throughout with integrity and professionalism. We have no reason to doubt that they have acted in line with their obligations.
In response to the noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton, Lord Laird, Lord Glentoran, and others, after the election, the British and Irish Governments will work with the parties to resolve the outstanding issues as quickly as possible to enable devolved government to be restored to the people of Northern Ireland. We intend to restore the institutions in Northern Ireland as soon as there is a realistic prospect of an inclusive executive being formed. We remain committed to the Belfast agreement as the only way forward for inclusive political progress. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in another place, we will make proposals for the conduct of the review of the operation of the agreement before the end of the year. But the fundamental principles of the agreement are not a matter for negotiation.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked whether we agreed that there should be a condominium between London and Dublin if we have to return to direct rule. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, also touched on that issue. Naturally, the Government share the noble Lord's hope that it will be possible to restore devolved government quickly. It would not be proper for me to speculate in detail during the election campaign on what will take place in hypothetical scenarios. The Government remain committed to the agreement as the only sustainable basis for progress in Northern Ireland. Perhaps it would be appropriate to note at this stage that I am being extremely careful in the light of the fact that we are in an election period.

1173
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about the electoral registration computer system. The requirements of the new electoral register led to the installation of a new £1.5 million computer system in the summer of 2002. It has already proven to be successful in handling the requirements of the new legislation and producing the register on time. The system, which has introduced several security checks, has the capacity to reduce the likelihood of electoral fraud to an absolute minimum.
The new registration system necessitated a move to individual registration and away from household registration. In effect, it doubled the number of forms needed—from 650, 000 household forms to 1.2 million individual forms. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I hope that the figures are correct; if there is a problem, I will speak to the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Smith of Clifton, afterwards.
To a certain extent, all noble Lords echoed the sadness that the Government share. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, that democracy is always to be treated as a tender plant, particularly in these circumstances. The noble Lord asked me about people declaring themselves candidates. Section 118A of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which the order modifies, refers to the possibility of a person declaring himself a candidate.
The noble Lord also commented on the date. I can assure him that the orders were agreed in the other place on 29th October through the urgency procedure. The noble Lord may have further detailed questions. Like him, I was an election agent many years ago, and I would never dare to answer a question off the cuff, lest the noble Lord be dissatisfied. It is complicated law, as all noble Lords taking part in the debate would agree.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I must say that in no way was I casting aspersions on her. As always, she has done a thoroughly competent job introducing Northern Ireland business. I am sure that the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council has a heavy diary, but I just think that her advisers missed a trick tonight.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I do not think that that needs a comment from me at this stage. I join all noble Lords who have expressed strong support for the proper conduct of the democratic process in Northern Ireland. I join all noble Lords in hoping that the result of the election will lead to the possibility of an urgent return to the full implementation of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.
On Question, Motion agreed to

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2003
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2003
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications No. 2) Order 2003
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 29th October be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.41 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.19 to 8.41 p.m.]

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 66.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 322:
Page 26, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) the Office for Standards in Education;
( ) the Department for Education and Skills;
( ) the CSCI."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee I asked the Minister which of the statutory bodies would take the lead on children's issues and, in particular, child protection matters. He said that it would be CSCI. However, I still think that we must be clear about the means by which, in practice, CHAI will access personal named data relating to children, to which the Minister alluded earlier.
It may be that data in which CHAI has a direct interest and needs to access under the code of practice are held not by an NHS body, but by CSCI or Ofsted. Therefore, Amendment No. 322 explores that issue. It is a probing amendment, which I do not intend to press. I have considerable concerns about the free exchange of personal data between government agencies, which, although not possible at present, is implicitly envisaged in the recent Green Paper, entitled, Every Child Matters. The ability of CSCI to access personal data is being considered in the context of the Laming Report. Therefore, I accept that there is little that the Minister can say about that at the moment.
However, he mentioned that Ofsted would be asked to develop a protocol on joint working and information sharing. While that is highly desirable, it brings us back to the concerns raised in the earlier group of amendments. Who will decide whether the protocol is acceptable? Where will the safeguards lie in relation to its use? How is the Data Protection Act to be complied with?
On the previous occasion, the Minister made the point that the duty of co-operation and joint working was already in the Bill; therefore, there should be no need to write in a duty, as proposed in my amendment. Again, I am worried by that comment because it seems to imply that a duty of co-operation on its own would be enough to provide legal cover to either CHAI or CSCI—indeed, also to Ofsted—for the sharing of privileged information. I hope that he did not mean that, but that is how it reads in Hansard. The whole issue seems to be fraught with problems. Perhaps the Minister can shed a little further light on how these matters are being addressed by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure whether I will satisfy the noble Lord, but I shall press on. The amendment would expand the list of specified bodies to which the subsection refers. I shall try to address each of the suggested new bodies in turn.
We continue to believe that placing Ofsted under a duty to provide information in this manner to CHAI is not appropriate. Noble Lords will already be aware of the co-operation provisions in the Bill, as the noble Earl mentioned. Given the increased remit in relation to children that the recent Green Paper, entitled, Every Child Matters, proposed for Ofsted, it is proper that both bodies should develop together appropriate protocols about joint working and information sharing, rather than effectively making one body subservient to the other. Further, it is worth bearing in
1176
mind that we have put this Green Paper out to public consultation and we are awaiting the responses. It would not be altogether appropriate to pre-empt that consultation.
Noble Lords opposite have expressed surprise that we did not intend to place both parties under specific duties of co-operation. We fully expect that CHAI and Ofsted, as lead inspectorates in the areas of health and education, will want to work co-operatively and so believe that we do not have to spell this out on the face of the Bill. Ofsted is already able to co-operate with other inspectorates and has often done so, for example, as part of the Street Crimes Initiative. Certainly, as part of my recent experience as chairman of the Youth Justice Board, I saw that Ofsted co-operated very well with criminal justice inspectorates as regards the inspection of secure facilities for juveniles.
Like the Social Services Inspectorate and CSCI in due course, Ofsted is also a member of the local authority inspectorates forum, members of which co-operate and share information as a matter of good practice where this is necessary to promote joined-up working. Members of that forum will co-operate with CHAI where appropriate as a matter of course.
Secondly, this amendment proposes to place a duty on the Department for Education and Skills to provide information to CHAI. In our view, this would not be appropriate. Government departments such as the Department of Health and DfES will need to have regular contact with CHAI and, indeed, CSCI. Should the inspectorates require information held by these government departments, there is no reason why it should not be provided as long as the requirement is justified. There is no need or justification for placing a duty in law on the Secretary of State.
I should also like to draw the attention of the noble Earl to the fact that this power under Clause 66 is designed to enable CHAI to obtain information from inspected bodies, not government or, in the case of Ofsted, non-ministerial departments.
That finally brings me on to the reference to CSCI. As I have just outlined, this clause is intended to allow CHAI to obtain information it requires from inspected bodies—we have made it clear in subsection (2) that this relates to NHS bodies in England and Wales as well as cross-border special health authorities and other persons providing healthcare for or exercising the functions of such bodies or local authorities.
Both CHAI and CSCI are already under duties to co-operate with each other where it seems to them to be appropriate to do so under Clause 118. Such co-operation would include the sharing of information and, again, I therefore consider this amendment to be unnecessary.
I have sought to give a full explanation why I do not think that this amendment is either necessary or appropriate. Turning to the matter of data protection, all I would say to the noble Earl is that these are all public bodies and the requirements of data protection legislation would apply to them in the normal way.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said, this was intended as a probing amendment to tease out whether there would be a free exchange of data between CHAI and CSCI. It certainly appears that I have succeeded in my aim. It worries me that the duty of co-operation set out in the Bill is apparently sufficient to override common law duties of patient confidentiality. That is how I interpret the Minister's reply and I am somewhat shocked.
Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps I should have made the position more clear. CSCI and Ofsted will be constrained by the requirements of the common law duty of confidentiality as well as the requirements of data protection as regards information they will be able to share. It is not true that the common law duty of confidentiality is set aside.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is very reassuring and I am glad that I gave the Minister the opportunity to put it on the record. I shall consider these matters further, but the Minister has been most illuminating. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 323 and 323A not moved.]
Clause 68 [Reviews and investigations relating to Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No.326:
Page 27, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) the availability and quality of information provided to the public about the health care;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 327 to 330 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Reporting to Secretary of State and regulator]:
[Amendment No. 331 not moved.]
Clause 70 [Right of entry]:
[Amendment No. 332 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 333 not moved.]
Clause 74 [Introductory]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 30, line 39, at end insert—
e availability and quality of information provided to the public about the services;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 335 not moved.]
Clause 75 [Information and advice]:
[Amendments Nos. 336 and 337 not moved.]
Clause 77 [Annual reviews]:
[Amendments Nos. 338 to 340 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 341:
Page 32, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the CSCI, by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to the CSCI before the award of a performance rating under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 [Other reviews and investigations]:
[Amendment No. 342 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 343:
Page 32, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the CSCI, by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to the CSCI before the publication of a report under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Failings]:
[Amendments Nos. 344 and 345 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 346:
Page 33, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the CSCI, by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to the CSCI before the publication of a report under this section."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Studies as to economy, efficiency etc]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos.347 and 348:
Page 33, line 32, leave out "may promote or undertake" and insert "has the function of promoting or undertaking"
Page 34, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the CSCI, by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representations to the CSCI before the publication of any recommendations or the result of any studies under this section."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 83 [Criteria]:
[Amendment No. 349 not moved.]
Clause 88 [Power to require information etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 350 and 351 not moved.]
Clause 93 [Studies as to economy, efficiency etc]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 352:
Page 38, line 35, leave out "may promote or undertake" and insert "has the function of promoting or undertaking"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [General considerations]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 353:
Page 39, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) the availability and quality of information provided to the public about the services;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Transfer of functions to CHAI and CSCI]:
[Amendments Nos. 354 to 356 not moved.]
Clause 101 [General functions of CHAI]:
[Amendments Nos. 357 to 360 not moved.]
Clause 102 [General functions of CSCI]:
[Amendment No. 361 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 362 not moved.]
Clause 108 [Boarding schools and colleges]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 363:
Page 46, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) In exercise of its functions by virtue of this section, the CSCI shall—

(a) prepare a report on the discharge by the school or college of relevant functions;

(b) without delay send a copy of the report to the school or college; and

(c) make copies of the report available for inspection at its offices by any person at any reasonable time;

and may take any other steps for publicising a report which it considered appropriate.
( ) Any person who asks the CSCI for a copy of the report shall be entitled to have one on payment of a reasonable fee determined by the CSCI; but nothing in this subsection prevents the CSCI from providing a copy free of charge when it considers it appropriate to do so."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the course of a long Committee stage one of my favourite quotations was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, when addressing the precursor to the amendment. She said:
"I must confess that the amendment has taken a slightly different direction from the one I anticipated".—[Official Report, 20/10/03; col. 1391.]
With my noble friend Lord Addington sitting behind me, her comments have a kind of analogy with the Welsh rugby team, the centres taking a rather different line from the one anticipated by the English team yesterday. My noble friend Lord Thomas has already alluded to that game, and yet I was supporting the English team at the time.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, used an elegant phrase and referred to, I believe, "the superior set of amendments that follow". I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say in regard to the remaining amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, there is no doubt that at this time of night the Chamber assumes the proportions of a confessional in so many ways. It may be that one of these days the noble Lord will be supporting the things made in heaven.
I hope to be able to give the noble Lord all the good news that he seeks. I have tabled Amendments Nos. 364 and 365 in direct response to the concerns he raised in Committee. I hope that they will enable him to withdraw his amendment as they seek to achieve the same effect.
If I understood correctly what the noble Lord said in Committee—and he had undertaken some superb detective work—he was concerned that the power under Clause 109 is not sufficiently broad to require the CSCI to report on all aspects of how a particular
1180
school or college has discharged its functions. In particular, he was concerned that the clause required the NCSC—and, in future, the CSCI—to report only on the fact that it had exercised its powers of entry under Section 87(5) of the Children Act and not on what it had found in the course of exercising these powers.
Parliamentary counsel has confirmed that under the existing drafting the clause achieves the effect that the noble Lord is seeking. However, we are anxious to avoid future misunderstanding and, to ensure that the effect of the clause is absolutely clear on the face of the Bill, we have tabled Amendments Nos. 364 and 365 as clarifying amendments. I hope that meets the noble Lord's concerns.
As I promised in Committee, I have also tabled Amendment No. 366 to make it clear that CSCI is required to send a copy of any report to schools and colleges and make copies available at its offices for inspection by any person. As I said in Committee, we would expect it to do so in any case, but this amendment places it on a statutory basis. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. There have been considerable difficulties in relation to some boarding schools where it has been difficult to have reports in the public domain. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this issue and to the Government for clarifying it.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, with the form of words that the Minister has used, both in correspondence and tonight, she is effectively saying that the Government believe that the clause means what we thought it meant, but, to put it beyond peradventure, they will amend it accordingly. I am very happy with that as a compromise and very happy that the Government have put down further amendments. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109 [Boarding schools and colleges: reports]:
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 364 to 366:
Page 46, line 10, after "subsection (5)" insert "in relation to a child"
Page 46, line 10, at end insert "on whether the child's welfare is adequately safeguarded and promoted while he is accommodated by the school or college"
Page 46, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert—
"(9B) Where the Commission or the National Assembly for Wales publishes a report under this section, it must—

(a) send a copy of the report to the school or college concerned; and

(b) make copies of the report available for inspection at its offices by any person at any reasonable time."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 367:
Before Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
"COMPLAINTS
(1) Complaints under this Act may be made by an individual or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
(2) A complaint may be submitted in respect of—

(a) the exercise by an NHS body of any of its functions;

(b) the provision by any person of health care for which the body is responsible;

(c) the provision of an NHS service by a health professional supplied under private contract; and

(d) the provision of services by the body or any other person in pursuance of arrangements made by the body under section 31 of the Health Act 1999 (c. 8) (arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities) in relation to the exercise of the health-related functions of a local authority.

(3) A complaint may be initiated by—

(a) the person aggrieved;

(b) his personal representative;

(c) a member of his family;

(d) an independent advocate, or

(e) some body or individual suitable to represent him"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am rather sorry that we cannot continue these discussions in a similar vein. I think the form of words that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones was searching for was that the Government agree with what he proposed at an earlier stage. Had that been the Minister's response this time, we could have settled this issue very quickly.
We considered in Committee the key area of complaints. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, gave a characteristically full and detailed response at that stage, for which we were very grateful. Therefore, it is somewhat disappointing to see the limited nature of the amendments which the Government have tabled as a result. The noble Baroness understood the points we were making about the need to have clarity about the process under which people can bring complaints.
We on these Benches start from a standpoint of wishing to see complaints, and, in particular, resort to litigation for complaints within the NHS, minimised. Litigation is a plague within the NHS, and we are seeking ways in which we can prevent matters escalating.
In Amendment No. 367, we have set out what we think is a clear, coherent format for a complaints procedure which would satisfy the large majority of people who bring complaints against the NHS. We also welcome government Amendment No. 370 which states that there must be clarity about those to whom complaints may be made. That is very necessary, given the plethora of bodies involved in assisting people with complaints. However, we on these Benches find Amendment No. 373 somewhat inadequate. It does not go into detail about the way in which complaints will be effectively handled.
Amendment No. 372 is a proposal that we discussed last time, whereby small ex gratia payments to an upper value set in regulations could be made in respect of lesser injuries that have occurred to people and could avoid more complex complaints and
1182
investigations. As I said earlier, it would often obviate the necessity of taking legal action. We believe that is important, because a lot of people are currently being taken in by adverts for no-win, no-fee claims; when the process is completed, the claimant ends up with very little indeed. It would be preferable for those in the NHS who deal with such matters, and for those bringing complaints, to have a mechanism for that, as it would keep them out of long and costly legal proceedings.
An expert group convened by the Scottish Executive has recommended introducing ex gratia payments into the Scottish NHS complaints procedure. While one need not always follow nations that are proud, often right but hopeless at rugby, it is from time to time to be commended. In England, the Clinical Disputes Forum has recommended compensation should be available through the NHS complaints procedure. We believe that is a wise way forward. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 368 and 369, which would require the first regulations under Clauses 111 and 112, setting up the new complaints procedures, to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I am afraid that it is confession time: I must apologise to the House for failing to heed the Minister's strictures in Committee about forgetting Wales. I confess that the amendments are defective in that respect. However, with that acknowledged defect, I hope that they may be treated as probing amendments.
We had a useful debate about complaints procedures in Committee, where the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, gave comprehensive responses. She reminded us not only of the significant issues that will be dealt with under the regulations setting up the new complaints systems but also that it will be the first time that complaints procedures will be the subject of regulations, direction-making powers having been used in the past.
In Committee, we tabled amendments requiring all orders to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In the light of our discussions in Committee I have modified that to relate only to the first regulations. Many detailed issues need to be worked out and many sensitive areas, such as confidentiality of data, need to be got right in the regulations. The Minister was not, of course, able to give us chapter and verse in response to various detailed questions in Committee because the draft regulations are not available. We believe that the importance of the first regulations is such that Parliament should have an opportunity to scrutinise them under the affirmative procedure. I concede that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not recommend that but, equally, the Government's memorandum to the committee did not fully reveal the extent of the changes that the new regime would bring about.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 372, which stands in my name. The amendment would ensure that compensation systems

1183
and complaint systems were kept separate. Complaints and compensation systems serve entirely different purposes. Compensations act to make good, in so far as money can, the harm caused through actual negligence. The patient pursuing compensation must demonstrate harm caused by a shortfall of care, not simply that the care was unacceptable to the patient.
By contrast, the complaints procedure should be designed to explain exactly what has happened and why. Patients should then be free to pursue a legal claim for compensation if that is what they choose, armed with the facts. Linking complaints and compensation is likely to deter clinicians from being open. The award of compensation will inevitably be seen as a reflection of culpability and the severity of the error made by the doctor. Awards could well be reported in the local press, and adverse publicity will reduce public confidence in the NHS. That goes against the declared wish of the Department of Health to move away from the current blame culture to a more open NHS, in which everyone works together to learn from adverse incidents and near misses.
Incorporating compensation into a complaints procedure creates the significant risk that complaints will not be readily resolved, leading to a greater bureaucratic burden on the NHS. It could result in a two-tier system, with claims worth less than £5, 000, for example, being determined on some woolly notion of acceptable standards, and those over the threshold being considered against more rigorous standards. The link between the two could also create a disincentive to be satisfied with an apology, which is a matter to which I referred in Committee. It is an uncosted proposal that could cost the NHS vast sums of money.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the Liberal Benches regarding this amendment but perhaps I can offer an acceptable explanation.
Clause 111(1) is intended to set out in general terms what a complaint may be about. Amendment No. 367 would broaden who may make a complaint and set out in slightly more detailed terms what a complaint may be about.
The proposed subsection (1) would allow complaints to be made other than by individual patients. That is where the problem starts. I am not sure that the noble Baroness intended that complaints could be made, for example, by contractors providing services to the NHS, but that would be one effect of the amendment. It may be, however, that the intention is to allow complaints to be made on behalf of one or more patients by a representative body—and I understand the reason why this might be put forward. However, there is a problem with that approach. The focus of the complaints system must be on the individual patient—that is what we have been about in the consultation process—and his or her particular care and circumstances. There are other and more appropriate means by which groups of patients or carers, or representative bodies may raise their
1184
concerns about care, for example, through the newly established patients forums, or directly with the health or social care organisations involved. We very much value and welcome the effort they make to support patients who make complaints.
Proposed subsection (2) raises fewer concerns, but I am afraid that I must return to what I said in Committee—that it would put too great a level of detail on the face of the Bill. We believe that regulations are a better and more effective way of doing this. As regards proposed subsection (3), I assure the noble Baroness that it is our intention that regulations will make provision for all those listed in paragraphs (b) to (e) to make a complaint as representatives of a complainant. We believe that regulations are the right way to do that for the following reasons.
The amendment would allow almost anyone to represent an individual patient but makes little reference to the patient him or herself, his or her consent to having the complaint made and the involvement he or she might have in the process. The amendment is too narrow. We consider that regulations are needed in this area to provide important detail to deal with issues of consent, incapacity or cases where a judgment has to be made about the suitability of a representative. I therefore believe that this amendment would not add any value to the Bill. Regulations, on the other hand, subject to appropriate consultation—I stress that—would actually increase the overall effectiveness of its provisions. I hope that the noble Baroness will look kindly on that explanation.
I turn to the probing Amendments Nos. 368 and 369. I am shocked that the noble Earl forgot Wales again considering that he seems to be completely preoccupied with it in other parts of the Bill. These amendments would have the effect of requiring that the first regulations made under these clauses are treated under the affirmative resolution procedure. We believe that that would cause problems.
Section 191(4) of the Bill stipulates that any power to make regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument. This has been normal practice in relation to the regulation-making powers of all such legislation covering the regulation of health and social care services. It is also normal practice for the negative resolution procedure to be used for the making of these regulations. It was significant that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee remarked in its report of September 2003 that since its inception the NHS has left a great deal to subordinate legislation subject to the negative procedure and directions—it is worth reiterating that—and that the basic framework has been maintained on successive reorganisations, including those effected by various enactments of recent years. The committee concluded that it did not consider that the number of delegated powers in the Bill was cause for concern.
As regards the complaints clauses, noble Lords will be aware that the committee drew to the attention of the House the fact that disclosure is authorised to

1185
enable complaints to be considered notwithstanding any common law rules of confidence that would otherwise prohibit or restrict disclosure. We had a full and frank exchange of letters with the committee and it was satisfied with the explanation. It has not recommended changes to the regulations on complaints.
That indicates a degree of satisfaction with the process. In addition, in terms of transparency and public interest, we have been very open throughout our debates about the reasons for reforming the way in which complaints are handled under the procedures. We set out a very clear programme, NHS complaints reform—Making things right, which was published in March. It sets out the way forward for reform. In Committee, I stressed that we were aiming for a system that streamlined and simplified the complaints system, clarified roles and responsibilities and involved patients and service users. The clauses make clear our intentions on how that will be covered in regulations.
I reiterate assurances that we are committed to involving all stakeholders in the public discourse to ensure that we get the details of the procedures right. I stress again that we will be consulting on the content of the regulations to ensure that they reflect the needs of patients, service users and others. That will, of course, include consultation with the Data Protection Commissioner. That is a very important part of what we are going to do.
As I made clear in Committee, and as the noble Lord mentioned this evening, the clauses provide for the first time for the details to be subject to regulations. It is important that the regulations will build on the structure of the existing provisions. That vastly improves the current provision, whereby the complaints procedures are subject in some cases to regulations and in others only to a variety of directions. That change will strengthen the complaints procedure.
The regulations will provide for who may complain and about what, what people can expect. by way of a full and prompt response and, where appropriate, a review of the complaint by a body completely independent of the organisation complained about. They will also place responsibility with health and social care organisations for making effective responses to complainants.
For all those reasons—those on the practice and those relating to the provisions that we are making for comprehensive consultation—I hope that noble Lords will be persuaded that it is not necessary to make the regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
I shall turn to Amendment No. 372 and the words of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Barker. We dealt with a similar amendment in Committee when the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was unable to be with us. I am pleased that she was able to speak to the amendment this evening. Amendment No. 372 is to do with making financial redress available through the complaints procedure for severe inconvenience caused by administrative error.
1186
As I said in Committee, NHS bodies are already able to make ex gratia payments where legal liability would otherwise be conceded, and NHS bodies will continue to have that flexibility under the reformed NHS complaints procedure. The amendment would also apply to social care but, again, there is already provision for payments to be made by local authorities where they consider that their actions amount to maladministration. None the less, the noble Baroness makes the valid point that NHS bodies, unlike other similar public bodies, are not able to make financial redress available for severe inconvenience caused by administrative error. That issue would benefit from further deliberation.
I say that because, as I mentioned in Committee, the Chief Medical Officer has carried out an extensive review of the way in which the NHS handles cases that may involve clinical negligence. The consultation document, Making Amends, was published in June 2003. It included recommendations designed to draw the systems for dealing with complaints and clinical negligence more closely together. Subject to the result of that consultation, we shall be considering the alignment of the complaints and clinical negligence systems. We shall do that in terms of process—for example, the recommendation that the possibility of legal action should not halt the complaints system, bringing it to a crashing halt, as it does now—and in terms of outcome, examples of which are explanations, apologies and compensation.
On compensation, I should say that the consultation on Making Amends will also consider the link between complaints and payment. It will look at the arguments for and against. I can therefore assure both noble Baronesses that we will consider the points raised by the amendment as part of the consultation on Making Amends.
I turn finally to our own amendments. They have received a slightly meagre welcome, but I shall press on with them.
Amendments Nos. 370 and 371 are essentially technical drafting amendments recommended by parliamentary counsel. Amendment No. 370 has been tabled for the sake of completeness. It makes clear that the regulations stipulate not only who may complain and about what, but also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, to whom the complaints may be made.
Amendment No. 371 is necessary to ensure the consistency of the clause with Clauses 111(1) and 112(1), which concern the handling and consideration of complaints. Amendment No. 373 makes clear that regulations under the Bill may make provision requiring persons handling complaints to make information available to the public. That is our response to an amendment proposed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. We pointed out that we were sympathetic at that time. The noble Baroness seems not to be quite satisfied, but we have made a gesture in response to her points and we hope that it will be sufficient.

1187
The intention of our policy has always been—I do not think that I need to remind noble Lords of it—that information about the complaints procedures should be made available to members of the public free of charge. The amendment makes that commitment explicit in the Bill.
I hope that the noble Lords will withdraw their amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, as ever the Minister has put in an impressive performance and addressed every point one by one. I draw comfort from the fact that one of the main reasons for her resisting Amendment No. 367 was the existence of patient forums. In light of our debates earlier this afternoon, I take that as a heartening sign.
It has been useful to go over the ground again. I accept the noble Baroness's identification of a deficiency in the amendment; namely, the absence of any mention of consent and incapacity. She will know that I will again be discussing those issues in another place tomorrow afternoon. That is a fair criticism.
I am heartened to learn that the regulations will recognise the intent of subsection (3). Most people who are in acute hospitals are so ill that they are in no condition to make a complaint. It is the people about them who see what is wrong who, for good reason and reasons linked to incapacity, need to make complaints.
I also take heart from the Minister's comments about the alignment of the complaints and negligence procedures. I hope that there is a positive outcome to that. Perhaps I should not have been so ungracious in my reception of her amendments. Following her fuller explanation, I welcome them a lot more warmly than I did about 10 minutes ago. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 [Complaints about health care]:
[Amendment No. 368 not moved.]
Clause 112 [Complaints about social services]:
[Amendment No. 369 not moved.]
Clause 113 [Complaints regulations: supplementary]:
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendments Nos. 370 and 371:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) the persons to whom complaints may be made;" Page 48, line 38, after "making" insert ", handling"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 372 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 373:
Page 49, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) The regulations may require any person or body who handles or considers complaints under the regulations to make information available to the public about the procedures to be followed under the regulations."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 373A:
Before Clause 118, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF DELIVERY, SCRUTINY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARRANGEMENTS
The Secretary of State must order a review, within 18 months of the commencement of this Act, of the delivery, scrutiny and accountability arrangements of the Department of Health, and public bodies including executive and non-executive non-departmental bodies already involved in the regulation and inspection of health care, including the case for an NHS agency, as a non-departmental public body, for England."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I may first dispel possible confusion about there being two amendments in my name, one of which has been withdrawn. They were grouped together. I shall move Amendment No. 373A, to which I shall speak, and withdraw Amendment No. 411. I withdraw it because it was pointed out to me that Amendment No. 411 was a wrecking amendment. I do not wish to wreck the remains of the Bill and I am sure that the Government feel that sufficient damage has already been done to it.
The amendment would continue my campaign to find a mechanism to distance the NHS from the day-to-day interference from Whitehall.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to sporting analogies. My game is not so much one of rugby; it is more a game of tennis with long, boring, monotonous rallies. I gave your Lordships a health warning that I would bore for Britain and I fear that I am getting rather good at it. But I am encouraged because in Committee the Minister, in his courteous reply to me, said:
"I sympathise entirely with the noble Baroness's wish to avoid excessive central interference in the running of the NHS".
He went on to say:
"I am sure we can all agree with that overall intention".
He also said that it is an idea,
"which I freely acknowledge has had appeal in many quarters over many years.—[Official Report, 7/10/03; col. 168.]
He later said that:
"the rationale… has always been the same; to improve the quality of NHS management by removing it from nefarious political micromanagement".—[Official Report, 7/10/03; col. 169.]
The Minister cited previous commissions and inquiries, which after discussion rejected the idea, beginning with the Guillebaud report in 1950. But in 1950 we were recovering from the Second World War and we were still coping with rationing. He went on to quote the Royal Commission of 1979. In 1979 we were still in the grip of the trade unions and the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was elected Prime Minister for the first time. Clearly, her priorities were to get the economy right and sort out the trade unions.
The Minister then quoted Sir Roy Griffiths. I worked with Sir Roy Griffiths as a member of the NHS Policy Board. Sir Roy relied on the regions to act as the umbrella to safeguard the service through the flak raining down from above and to prevent the NHS from causing problems upwards to Ministers. As a regional chair, I remember the pressure and the

1189
unpopularity, but I believe that we were a useful service. However, regions are no longer with us. My point is that quoting the past is not always helpful in that the climate, the environment, the altitudes and the priorities were different 20 years ago.
Later in the debate, I asked the Minister what the Government meant by "devolution". He replied:
"We are trying to give more local autonomy and freedoms to manage assets and design services around the needs of local people".—[Official Report, 7/10/03; col. 198.]
I thought that that was an admirable definition, especially as I did not give notice of the question. That is exactly my intention, but I recognise that I have tried to proceed too quickly: too quickly for a Government who have had such a recent conversion from centralised control to the merits of local autonomy within the NHS.
When in Committee, noble Lords debated the concept of an agency. The Minister expressed fears that the new agency would itself impose a centralised model of control over the whole system. I find that strange when the Government have set up 192 different agencies in other areas of their former responsibilities. Despite some early struggles, they appear to work well.
However, I recognise that my impatience has not been helpful. I need to pace these reforms in order to win government support. There are many other people, within Parliament and beyond, who share my intentions and methods, not least the independent King's Fund of which I am a senior associate. As the Minister will be aware, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, chaired a group at the invitation of the King's Fund which made sensible recommendations advocating an NHS agency for England. Tomorrow, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, is due to publish his review of Defra, which advocates the principle of greater separation between responsibility for policy development and implementation. The noble Lord is convinced that this will improve delivery, accountability and clarity of roles and responsibilities. I know that he sees this work as a parallel with the NHS.
On 30th October, the Secretary of State for Health, Dr John Reid, appeared before the Health Select Committee and gave a commitment to "look" at the members of staff working in the arm's length health and social care agencies as well as "their role". My amendment builds on this commitment. I seek to expand the remit of such a review and, most importantly, ensure a more independent perspective on the questions raised. I believe that the model provided by the review of rural policy undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, will provide an excellent template for an appropriate approach to a comprehensive review of the Department of Health and the public bodies, including executive and non-executive bodies associated with the NHS.
The Secretary of State clearly does not want the NHS to be managed from Whitehall but he wants Whitehall to ensure that realistic national standards are set and achieved. He seeks the commitment of NHS staff and wishes to ensure enough freedom for
1190
them to innovate and be responsive to patients' needs. That is a tricky balance and it requires three things: realism when it comes to managing public expectations; staff and public ownership of standards and targets; and a system to ensure clear and separate accountability for policy and delivery. It takes more than devolutionist intentions to achieve a new and better relationship between government and the NHS.
In conclusion, I welcome the Secretary of State's intention to hold a review of the newly restructured Department of Health and the myriad of new arm's length bodies spawned by the Government in both health and social care. The pity of it is that the review is to be conducted by the department itself, and it is hardly a disinterested bystander. I believe that keeping the review narrow and in-house and identifying the problem and the solution before the work has started gives a startling illustration of the problem.
The remit needs to be broadened. The review needs to take into account the relationships between government, the Department of Health, Parliament and non-governmental public bodies, including the possibility of an NHS agency for England. It needs to be independent; it needs to be transparent; and it needs to be modelled on the lines of the review undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing her amendment so eloquently. In the course of our Committee debate on her earlier amendment, many practical issues were raised about how an agency would work. More recently, we have had the interesting publication by the King's Fund. That publication takes the thinking further but it is still not a blueprint. All who have thought about this matter know that many issues require further debate.
I believe that my noble friend's amendment presents an elegant way forward. The details of delivery, scrutiny and accountability of healthcare are most intimately known by the Government and the Department of Health. By asking the Secretary of State to order a review of those matters for all the elements of the public sector involved in healthcare and by including the case for an NHS agency, we have an excellent opportunity to take the debate to another level. It will be a level that is informed by practical knowledge of operating the current system.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her Amendment No. 373A. I confess to having felt considerable scepticism in Committee about a charge towards an NHS agency or NHS plc. I looked on it as a potentially monolithic approach to reform of the health service. However, what has emerged from that debate has considerable merit, particularly in the way in which it is phrased, talking, as it does, about the review of the delivery, scrutiny and accountability arrangements of the Department of Health.
Even during the past five or six years, we have seen considerable changes in the Department of Health. When I first became health spokesman, we had a Permanent Secretary and a chief executive of the NHS,

1191
and those two jobs were different. Then, of course, came the merger between the two jobs and I believe that that has had a considerable impact on the micro-management aspect of the NHS. The review would tease out precisely whether that is the best arrangement for the future. As the noble Baroness mentioned, the Government are conducting their own review and it is a fairly radical one, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has reminded us on Report.
The other aspect of the amendment that I particularly welcome is the fact that it would review the system of regulation. We have dwelt, not only in Starred Questions but also during debates on the Bill, on the question of the sheer volume and weight of regulation currently in the health service with so many bodies entitled to inspect, regulate, enter upon NHS premises, and so on and so forth. The amendment would provide for a valuable review of all of that and of whether consolidation of regulation could take place. That, again, would be an enormous advantage. If nothing else, it should propel the Government into some sort of consideration of the track down which they are going as regards regulation, which seems to become ever more complicated as the number of bodies created multiplies, not least as a result of the Bill.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, some powerful points have been made in support of the amendment, which I also support. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the re-wording of the amendment. I had my name added to the previous one and, if I had had time, would have added it to this eloquently worded amendment. I shall not reiterate the arguments. I have a great fear that the number of bodies being created will cause overlap and gaps in the aspects of the service they inspect, which such a review may well identify.
On a much lighter note, one talks about a twinkle in the eye prior to conception. I begin to wonder whether the regulator is the twinkle in the eye. This is an independent body. It seems to be set up quite separately. I wonder whether we may find in future years that the regulator is the germ from which the independent NHS agency may eventually grow to leave us with less political interference in the NHS.
Lord Warner: My Lords, no one can but admire the consistency and persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in this area. I pay tribute to her willingness to run a marathon. Perhaps I may gently suggest that whatever training schedule she undertakes, even one as demanding as that of Paula Radcliffe, I am not sure that at the end of it she will necessarily have convinced us in this particular area.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his views on the radicality of the Department of Health review and the review of arm's length bodies. All I would gently say to people who ask for an independent review is that it is fairly common practice in the public and private sectors for
1192
organisations to review themselves before turning themselves loose on an independent review. It is common practice to take stock of where you have got to in the history of your activities to see whether you should change practice. That is what the Government are doing as regards the Department of Health review and the review of arm's length bodies.
Although Amendment No. 373A would not establish an agency, it would make it a requirement for an independent review to be carried out on the delivery of the Government's health policies, including the case for setting up an agency. It will not surprise noble Lords that the Government think that it is for Parliament to debate the arrangements for the delivery, scrutiny and accountability of the Government's health policies. That is just what this House and another place have done during the passage of the Bill in relation to the creation of NHS foundation trusts.
I also remind the noble Baroness of the existence of the Select Committee on Health, whose function as defined in its terms of reference is to examine on behalf of the House of Commons the expenditure, administration and policy of the department and its associated bodies.
How would a review into how this Government deliver, scrutinise and account for their health policy be any different to those reports already undertaken by the health Select Committee? There is also the issue of stability, which we tried to put on the record at the last discussion of this issue. How will a review within 18 months of commencement of the first provisions of the Act—or, indeed, according to this wording, possibly within 18 months of the commencement of the last provision of the Act—help to create stability for people working within these organisations, and for those on the outside? That would be a destabilising move. The requirement that the independent review look into the case for setting up an NHS agency is a matter for the Government. I believe that in Committee I set out good reasons why such an agency was not necessary. I do not intend to repeat those reasons over and over again. I would just briefly say that the issue of accountability to Parliament is for Ministers.
Secondly, there is the possibility—and I repeat this despite the fact that it is unacceptable to one or two Members of your Lordships' House—that an NHS agency could create just the kind of centralised model of control over the NHS that we all do not wish to see. One cannot guarantee that setting up that agency would not have that particular effect.
We do not believe that it is right to move in the direction—
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am absolutely fascinated by the Minister's analysis. Can he answer this question. How many NHS reform Bills have there been since the Government came to power? The

1193
Minister was talking about creating instability and so on. That does not seem to have been a consideration of any previous Secretary of State.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the sinner who repents, I would have thought, should be welcomed in this House.
Amendment No. 373A would require us to carry out a review within 18 months of commencement of the Act. We do not think that that is appropriate. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about reducing the number of regulatory bodies, the Bill reduces the number of bodies which inspect and review health and social care. As we have said on previous occasions, there is the Better Regulation Task Force, to which the Government will be responding before the end of the year.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for supporting the amendment. Noble Lords will remember that when we discussed this issue in Committee only one noble Lord, besides the Minister, rejected the concept.
I like the idea of the regulator being the twinkle in the eye. I am sure that that will attract many people to the post. The purpose of the review is to sort out the relationships between Parliament, between government, between regulation, and between all the new bodies that have been set up. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is absolutely right. From time to time we get more bodies added. Yet, it is like Topsy; we do not know where it is going, how it is growing or what the implications will be when it is seen as a whole.
I reject totally the Minister's suggestion that it is only for bodies to look at themselves internally, especially when they are accountable to the nation as a whole. I think the noble Lord has only to look to see what Defra has done. An independent body was set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, to do something which the Government clearly thought was very sensible indeed.
We think that perhaps the National Health Service has an even greater role to play in the nation's affairs than Defra. The National Health Service affects so many lives. It seems to us right that this internal review should take place. I shall think very seriously before bringing the matter back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 121 [Power to assist]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 374:
Page 54, line 3, leave out "body" and insert "authority"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 374 and 375 are technical amendments designed to ensure that, as was always intended under Clause 121, CHAI and CSCI might provide assistance to individual persons such as Ministers or inspectors of schools.
Amendments Nos. 374 and 375 remove the reference to a "public body" and replace it with a reference to "public authority". Parliamentary counsel advised that there was a risk that "public body" could be construed as referring only to corporate bodies, and exclude individual persons such as Ministers. "Public authority" ensures that individual persons are included. As I said in earlier debates, that will allow the Secretary of State to ask CHAI and CSCI to work with other inspectorates on work such as the street crimes initiative. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments No. 375 and 376:
Page 54, line 4, leave out "body" and insert "authority"
Page 54, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 126 [Reports: CHAI]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 377:
Page 56, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) a statement showing the ways in which the CHAI has taken steps during the year to minimise the regulatory impact of its activities."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 378. The amendment reprises in a slightly different form the case that I attempted to make in Committee that CHAI and CSCI should be required as a statutory discipline to demonstrate that they are making conscious efforts to minimise the burdens that they place on those whom they inspect and audit.
The Minister made some powerful points in Committee and Sir Ian Kennedy has said some encouraging things about ensuring that CHAI does not descend on an organisation when it does not need to. We can only welcome that approach. Nevertheless, we will not always have Sir Ian Kennedy at the helm of CHAI. The best run organisation can easily start to slip backwards and adopt less than desirable habits.
The principles of good regulation—which are not the same as economy, efficiency and effectiveness— should be followed by every regulatory body, year in and year out. Those principles are transparency, accountability, proportionality, consistency and a duty to act only where necessary. To require the body to state in its annual report the ways in which it has sought to adhere to those principles—in other words, the practical steps that it has taken to do so—does not seem a great deal to ask.
The Minister said that he would read my previous amendment and consider whether anything more needed to be done in the light of the Better Regulation Task Force report. I look forward to hearing what he has to say in that regard. I beg to move.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, although accepting that all regulation must be efficient and effective, I hope that the noble Earl does not assume that inspection and regulation always have a negative impact. We should also recognise the value

1195
and benefits to service users; we should not always consider the difficulties caused but also the benefits in quality and improvement of service.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, in Committee, we debated amendments that would have required CHAI and CSC1 to publish updated regulatory impact assessments showing the effect of their activities on the bodies that they regulate. As I mentioned during that debate, the Better Regulation Task Force report on independent regulators recommended that all regulators should make available for scrutiny a regulatory impact assessment on all new major policies or initiatives. It did not, though, recommend an annual regulatory impact assessment.
I then offered to consider further what we might be able to do in light of the report. The Government will be responding to the report before the end of the year and will probably begin to implement the recommendations that we accept during 2004.
In the case of CHAI and CSCI, if the Government decide to accept the task force's recommendation in relation to a regulatory impact assessment for new policies and initiatives introduced by regulators, my view is that that will not require an amendment to the Bill. Instead, under Clauses 128 and 129, the Secretary of State could direct CHAI and CSCI to have regard to the Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force report, if that was felt necessary to ensure that the commissions did so. We are already considering whether we can indicate our likely response to that particular recommendation in relation to CHAI and CSCI.
The new amendments as tabled would require an annual statement about the activity of the inspectorates. It could be an additional burden on the regulated bodies. As I said, the Better Regulation Task Force has not recommended that, and, in my opinion, it would be unnecessary. In any event, the inspectorates could include in their annual reports any information about regulatory impact that they deem necessary to carry out their functions under the current provisions in the Bill.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. I had hoped that the merits of such an amendment might be seen as self-evident, not just for the sake of businesses and voluntary organisations, important as they are, but for the good of the NHS. I take absolutely the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth; the impact of CHAI and CSCI should not be measured purely in negative terms. On the contrary, I am the first to recognise that they will be a force for good. There is an issue about burdens, but I shall not press the point. I am glad that it has been registered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 127 [Reports: CSCI]:
[Amendment No. 378 not moved.]
Clause 128 [Duty to have regard to government policy: CHAI]:
[Amendment No. 379 not moved.]
Clause 129 [Duty to have regard to government policy: CSCI]:
[Amendment No. 380 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 381 and 382:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
"CODE OF PRACTICE: CHAI

(1) The CHAI must prepare and publish a code in respect of the practice it proposes to follow in relation to confidential personal information.

(2) The code must in particular make provision about the CHAI's obtaining, handling, use and disclosure of confidential personal information.

(3) Before publishing the code, the CHAI must consult such persons as it considers appropriate.

(4) The CHAI must keep the code under review and, if it considers it appropriate, from time to time publish a revised code (and references in this section to the code include any revised code).

(5) For the purposes of this section "confidential personal information" means information which—

(a) is obtained by the CHAI on terms or in circumstances requiring it to be held in confidence; and

(b) relates to and identifies an individual."

After Clause 137, insert the following new clause—
"CODE OF PRACTICE: CSCI

(1) The CSCI must prepare and publish a code in respect of the practice it proposes to follow in relation to confidential personal information.

(2) The code must in particular make provision about the CSCI's obtaining, handling, use and disclosure of confidential personal information.

(3) Before publishing the code, the CSCI must consult such persons as it considers appropriate.

(4) The CSCI must keep the code under review and, if it considers it appropriate, from time to time publish a revised code (and references in this section to the code include any revised code).

(5) For the purposes of this section "confidential personal information" means information which—

(a) is obtained by the CSCI on terms or in circumstances requiring it to be held in confidence; and

(b) relates to and identifies an individual."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 383:
Before Clause 146, insert the following new clause—
"REGULATIONS UNDER PART 3
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 191(5), the first regulations under this Part shall be made in a draft of the regulations laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the consequential amendment to Clause 191. As I forecast at the time, we have learnt quite a lot more about the Government's proposal to extend the scheme for the NHS treatment cost element of successful motor insurance claims to employers' liability, personal liability and product

1197
liability. As we learned it at a time when most sensible people were tucked up in bed, we were perhaps not quite as responsive as we might have been.
We know well how the current scheme operates. So far as concerns this amendment, we now know two things about the new scheme. It will take not one but nine different statutory instruments to operate it. When I spoke in Committee, it was eight, but the Government in their wisdom—I accept their wisdom—will very shortly add an extra set of regulations in Clause 189, under Amendments Nos. 385D and 385F.
We know that the provisions will not come into effect until after the Department for Work and Pensions has completed its review of employers' liability. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, that will be in the autumn. Armistice Day is upon us, and by my calendar, he has just three weeks to deliver. Given that it has taken four years just to agree with the Law Commission that the extended scheme is justified, the prognosis cannot be good. Even if the Department for Work and Pensions report is produced soon, it will take time for the department to consider it and then to draft the orders. Most importantly, the longer the operation takes, the more need there will be to scrutinise the orders properly. As we all know well, praying against them is a hit-and-miss affair, especially as noble Lords' attention will naturally be elsewhere after the Gracious Speech.
When the Bill arrived here, all eight orders were to be made by negative resolution. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform commented adversely on two of them, and the Government graciously conceded. They moved amendments in Committee to say that the Secretary of State may not alter the exempted payments in Schedule 10 without laying an affirmative instrument—one of the things that I called for in an amendment in Committee. When I asked for all the eight regulations to be affirmative, not surprisingly, given that my proposal was overkill, I got a dusty answer from the Minister. That said, he opened the door just a chink for this amendment by moving that the first regulations made under Clause 149(2), which covers the information required in the certificates needed to operate the new scheme, would be made by affirmative resolution.
So far, so good—but not good enough. Regulations are to govern the appeals procedure under Clauses 153, 154 and 155. Regulations are to govern the provision of information under Clause 156. Regulations are to be made regarding the method of payment to individual hospitals or ambulance trusts, under Clause 158. More are to be made covering lump sums, periodical payments and so forth. Yet more are to be made to limit the liability of insurers.
As if that were not enough, regulations are to be made regarding treatment at non-health service hospitals. According to evidence given to the Select Committee, this last is likely to come on stream long after the others. Now there are regulations to govern qualifying claims under the new subsection. How can
1198
the Minister say that they all exist? I also challenge him to say that those that exist now will not differ by virtue of extending the scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, the fact that we were able to offer what seemed to the Government to be a pragmatic response to the concerns of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform about Clauses 146(12) and 149(2) does not mean that we conceded anything in any way with regard to the regulation-making powers elsewhere in Part 3.
The Select Committee was concerned about two specific issues. One was that the powers in Clause 146(12) could expand the scope of the scheme, and the other was that the powers in Clause 149(2) included setting the tariffs for the new scheme. The Select Committee felt that those issues merited the closer scrutiny attached to the affirmative resolution procedure, and the Government were content to offer a compromise solution in response to those concerns.
With hardly any exceptions, the other regulation-making powers in Part 3 simply reflect powers that already exist in the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Act 1999. Regulations made under that Act are all subject to the negative resolution procedure. I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord feels that that is inappropriate to this Bill, given the exceptions on which we have already made concessions.
I see no reason why this House and the other place need to get involved in debates on the technical details of such a scheme. We would be spending time not on matters of principle but on the minutiae of the scheme's operation—arrangements that, in many cases, have already been thought through in relation to the road traffic scheme and operate perfectly well. Noble Lords opposite always complain about the Government micromanaging the NHS—a suggestion that we refute. Now, they seem to want to bring Parliament into the micromanagement business.
The Government have recognised the legitimate concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee and have responded to them. If the Select Committee is content for the majority of powers in Part 3 to remain subject to annulment procedures, I can see no reason why that should not also be good enough for the rest of your Lordships.
I have already given the reasons why the Government do not accept Amendment No. 383. It would also be illogical to accept Amendment No. 409. To do so would be to backtrack on our commitment to the Delegated Powers Committee on Clause 149(2). We cannot accept either of the amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it seems to have escaped the Minister's notice that the reason we are suspicious is that the scheme is being changed. The

1199
Minister was good enough just now to say that, by virtue of the change, many of the nuts and bolts, I think he said—
Lord Warner: Minutiae.
Lord Skelmersdale: "Minutiae"—that will do very well. He said that they were already reflected in existing regulations but, none the less, these things will change. We simply do not know what will happen. I recognise that my second amendment was purely consequential and that my first amendment was defective, which the Minister did not tell me. I shall read carefully what he said and we shall decide whether to come back to this issue for a final push at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 146 [Liability to pay NHS charges]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 384:
Page 64, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) This section does not apply in cases of clinical negligence."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, extending the proposed NHS costs recovery scheme to clinical negligence cases will be counter-productive. It will damage the morale of clinicians and is liable to add further to the cost of NHS bureaucracy, with no hope of any savings. General practitioners work without the full range of expert diagnostic equipment. Not surprisingly, delayed diagnosis claims are the most common in primary care. A delay in diagnosis can be negligent, but it is misleading to describe it as "wrongdoing", as it was described in Committee. It is an error that occurs despite a GP's best efforts to help the patient. Under the scheme, in a delayed diagnosis case, a GP could be liable to pay a hospital tens of thousands of pounds, with a hospital doctor as the arbitrator of the cost of treatment. That is likely to damage relationships between hospitals and community doctors and damage morale further.
Disease is specifically excluded from the proposed recovery scheme because the Department of Health has accepted that it would be difficult to quantify the cost due to the complexity of the treatment path and the period of treatment. Inclusion of clinical negligence within the scheme would create exactly the same problems. By its very nature, clinical negligence occurs from the clinical management of a pre-existing condition or disease. Determining the proportion of costs, which should be attributed to treatment of the original disease as against treatment resulting from the negligent act, would be a lengthy and complex process and could cost the compensation recovery unit more money in terms of bureaucracy than it would raise.
In effect, general practitioners are small businesses. The burden of the initiative will fall on the GPs rather than the primary care trusts with which they contract. Their situation is therefore different from that of hospital doctors employed in the NHS. Their case should be reviewed in that light.
I apologise that I was not present in Committee for the previous discussions on this part of the Bill, but I was sick. I apologise, too, if I misled the House with my previous comments. I was present for the earlier parts in Committee, but I did not speak to the clauses which we recently discussed.
Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps I may gently remind the House and the noble Baroness that, as presently constructed, the costs recovery scheme will provide £150 million per year for patient care within the NHS. We do not accept that including clinical negligence in the costs recovery scheme will set one doctor against another. Costs recovery is contingent on a successful compensation claim being made. There is no reason to suppose that hospital doctors treating a patient who has made or subsequently makes a claim against a GP will know anything about that claim unless and until they are asked to provide a clinical opinion in relation to the claim itself.
They are highly unlikely to be asked to provide any information for the purposes of NHS costs recovery if the claim is successful. That information is purely factual and generally is provided by clerical staff, not clinical staff. That being the case, it is difficult to understand how it can be seen as detrimental to open reporting or damaging to doctors' morale. At present, under the road traffic NHS charges scheme, all a trust has to do is confirm that the patient received treatment at a hospital run by that trust, on what dates, and whether the treatment was given on an in-patient or an out-patient basis.
Doctors rarely even know that NHS costs recovery is taking place, nor does the driver against whom the claim is being made. It is largely an administrative matter dealt with by the insurers. In most cases, it is unlikely that the situation will be any different either for hospital doctors or for GPs under the extended scheme.
It is also not right to suggest that clinical negligence is related only to pre-existing conditions or diseases. Failed sterilisations, hip operations or emergency operations to set broken limbs that go wrong are just a few examples of potential clinical negligence claims that have nothing to do with pre-existing conditions.
I shall not go through all the other arguments against this amendment, but I have outlined the main points. If general practitioners and other primary care providers make mistakes or if they fail to the extent that a patient or anyone else to whom they owe a liability has had to have hospital treatment to put matters right, then how can it be wrong for them to have to bear the proper cost of their negligence? Having said that, it is not, of course, GPs who will usually bear the cost; rather it will be whatever professional indemnity organisation they belong to, so it is not right to say that the additional costs per se will fall on GPs themselves.
We do not think that the amendment is appropriate and I hope that, in the light of the arguments that I have outlined, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
10 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I must admit that I have not been convinced by his arguments on negligence. I can see how a road traffic accident may be clear cut, and that clerical staff may provide the information, but certainly in clinical practice, a delay in or failure to make a diagnosis is an all too common occurrence. Such cases are often negligence where someone has failed to put together all the pieces in the jigsaw and reach the diagnosis—which may be a barn door diagnosis and quite clear.
A further difficulty arises in the failure of bones to heal after fracture. That may not be due to negligence, but perhaps because the patient's clinical condition mitigates against healing taking place or, indeed, that the patient's activities have mitigated against healing.
It would be inappropriate to pursue this matter on Report, but I would like to discuss it with the Minister away from the Floor of the House. It may be helpful if we set up a meeting to discuss some of these issues in more detail. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 385 not moved.]
Clause 149 [Information contained in certificates]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 385A:
Page 68, line 17, at end insert "or regulations under subsection (8B)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those who took part in the Committee debate on Part 3 during the middle of the night will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, made a number of interesting and important points about the way in which personal injury claims are resolved these days. He argued persuasively that in a climate where the courts are busy encouraging the parties to a claim to try or at least to think about other ways of dealing with it, there was a case for considering whether some of the alternative dispute resolution procedures, in particular mediation, ought to be included among the processes that could be accepted as a means of confirming contributory negligence findings for the purposes of calculating NHS costs.
Arguably, by focusing on a range of court-endorsed processes, the Bill could be perceived as working against the drive in other parts of government to move away from dependence on the court system. I agreed to discuss the noble Lord's concerns with him in a separate meeting, but by the time that meeting took place, as a result of further research and consideration of his points, the Government had already reached the view that his arguments were sound and that it would be right to include mediation in the Bill as another acceptable means of identifying contributory negligence within a settlement.
These amendments give effect to that decision. Amendments Nos. 385D and 385F allow mediated agreements to be taken into account where they meet prescribed criteria. Amendments Nos. 385A, 385B, 385C and 385G are consequential on Amendments Nos. 385D and 385F.
One issue that we shall need to guard against is the risk of creating an unintentional loophole that would allow some less scrupulous compensators to abuse the mediation process just to get an exaggerated agreement on contributory negligence or, indeed, where both parties to the dispute might collude to do so. It was to avoid that kind of problem that we originally felt that formal court endorsement of the arrangements was necessary.
To be able to protect against it in mediated settlements, the amendments have been framed so as to give the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers powers to prescribe in regulations various aspects of the mediation process. We are still looking at the best way to do this but it might include, for example, specifying the qualifications of the mediator, or the nature of the process or its outcome that would be acceptable, as well as setting out exactly what evidence would need to come from the mediation in relation to contributory negligence. It would not be enough for the mediation report simply to say, "The parties agreed that there was an element of contributory negligence and this has been taken into account". There would need to be an explicit indication of the extent to which it had been taken into account.
Nevertheless, although there are still some quite important issues that we will need to consider further when drafting the regulations on this, the Government are now satisfied that, in terms of principle, including mediation is the right thing to do. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I thank the Minister not only for what he has said tonight but also for the speedy way in which he made himself and his officials available for urgent consultation. I am grateful for the manner in which he has come forward with these amendments.
I accept that there is a need to guard against abuse and I share his resolve to ensure that there is no loophole. I also welcome the way in which he has framed the amendments because it is necessary to ensure that the mediation is of a prescribed description. As he will know, I shall be arguing that there are a number of kinds of alternative dispute resolution that should be recognised, but I agree that it is only when it is carried out under the guidance of a fully accredited mediator that one can have confidence in the process. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has come forward so quickly with these amendments.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can well understand why my noble friend Lord Hunt is so pleased with the Minister's actions in this regard. I am, too. But, to put a little barb into the Minister, I should say to my noble friend that I hope he remains alert because the regulations referred to in subsection (8B) of Amendment No. 385D will be introduced by negative resolution.
On Question, amendment agreed to
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 385B to 385D:
Page 69, line 31, after first "under" insert "or by virtue of
Page 69, line 46, at end insert "or regulations under subsection (8B)"
Page 70, line 9, at end insert—
"(8A) For the purposes of subsection (8B), a claim made by or on behalf of an injured person is a qualifying claim if—

(a) it is settled by mediation of a prescribed description, and

(b) the damages payable under the settlement are to be reduced to reflect the injured person's share in the responsibility for the injury in question.

(8B) Regulations may make provision as to the circumstances in which the amount (or amounts) specified in a certificate relating to a qualifying claim is (or are) to be that (or those) which would be so specified apart from the regulations, reduced by the same proportion as the reduction of damages."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 385E:
Page 70, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) Before making any regulations under subsection (2), the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers (as the case may require), or both, shall consult with such persons as they think appropriate."]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, perhaps I may take a more formal opportunity to thank the Minister for meeting with my colleague Paul Parke of Beachcroft Wansbroughs and I, together with Alistair Kinley, Policy Adviser, Liability, with the Association of British Insurers. During the course of that meeting—and in a letter which I understand has been placed in the Library— the Minister very kindly set out in some considerable detail his response on a number of points.
The members of the Association of British Insurers will be greatly reassured that the Government have clearly restated their intention not to extend the recovery of NHS treatment charges retrospectively and, moreover, that insurers will be consulted as and when implementing regulations are to be drafted and when any changes are subsequently made. It is also very helpful that the Minister has made it absolutely clear that this will not happen until after the employment liability reviews are completed.
However, I seek to draw the Minister further. When we debated the issue of consultation in Committee, the Minister said that it goes without saying that the Government would consult. I know "it goes without saying", but it would be helpful and reassuring to have the Government's commitment now to consultation, not only with members of the Association of British Insurers but also with all interested parties.
I am also greatly reassured that the Minister has set out what I believe is the Cabinet Office's code on written consultation. I have not yet had the opportunity to peruse this code, and it would be helpful if the Minister could make it available to me. I am sure there is probably a fast route to obtaining it, but it would be helpful to see it between now and Third
1204
Reading. On the basis of the reassurances that I know the Minister is about to give, I do not think it will be necessary to press this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments; I understand why he was concerned. As I said to him when we met and discussed the matter, the Department of Health, like every other government department, is fully committed to the principles, practices and, indeed, the spirit of the Cabinet Office's code of practice on written consultations. I will endeavour to let the noble Lord see a copy of that code of practice as soon as possible.
The code makes clear the expectation that consultation should take place on any matter which would have an impact on business, charities and voluntary organisations or the general public. The regulations governing the operation of the NHS cost recovery scheme clearly fall into that category and I can see no reason why the Government would want to go against the Cabinet Office guidance on this. However, the fact remains that the principle of consultation is now so firmly embedded in our collective consciousness that I do not believe it needs to be specified on the face of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will feel that the assurances I have given, which will cover many of the interests about which he is concerned, will be covered in that consultation process, and that he is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I am, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 152 [Review of certificates]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 385F and 385G:
Page 72, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may make provision as to the circumstances in which the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers must review a certificate relating to a claim which, after the certificate is issued, becomes a qualifying claim (as defined in section 149(8A))."
Page 73, line 6, after "under" insert "or by virtue of
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 385H:
Page 73, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) But the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers may not vary a certificate so as to increase the amount, or the aggregate amount, specified unless it appears to him or them that the variation is required as a result of his or their having been supplied with incorrect or insufficient information by the person to whom the certificate is issued."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those who took part in the debate on Part 3 in Committee will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke eloquently in support of the principle that it would be unfair for compensators who had acted in good faith and provided the scheme's administrators, the Compensation Recovery Unit, with accurate and appropriate information to have to pay the price if the CRU then made mistakes in the processing of that

1205
information. Although we were not at that time able to accept the noble Lord's amendments on this matter, I promised him that we would re-examine the issue in the light of his comments. We have kept that promise and, after careful consideration, have been persuaded by his arguments.
This amendment gives effect to our revised view on the matter. It will mean that if the CRU issues a certificate of charges which is subsequently found to be too low because the compensator gave; it incorrect or insufficient information, the CRU will be able to issue a fresh certificate for the correct higher amount. If, however, the compensator gave the correct information but the CRU made a mistake while processing it, no fresh certificate can be issued. I commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, again, I am very grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment, which produces a much fairer situation. In thanking
1206
him, may I, through him, also thank his officials who not only were very impressive but showed a remarkable understanding of some very complicated and technical aspects? I commend them for that. I think we do not praise often enough the hard work of officials behind the scenes in seeking to cope with highly technical and rather legal points. We are greatly reassured by the speed with which they were able to handle this matter. Hence this amendment, which I warmly welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.

  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  Northern Ireland Compensation Agency
  Northern Ireland Compensation Agency
  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment
  Northern Ireland: Police Recruitment
  Iraq: Madrid Conference
  Iraq: Madrid Conference
  International Development Funding
  International Development Funding
  Parliamentary Website: Languages Other Than English
  Parliamentary Website: Languages Other Than English
  London City Bond Prosecutions
  London City Bond Prosecutions
  Prisoners: Repatriation
  Prisoners: Repatriation
  Home Office Bills
  Home Office Bills
  Civil Courts
  Civil Courts
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Children in Care: Imprisonment of Parents
  Children in Care: Imprisonment of Parents
  Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003
  Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003
  Fresh Frozen Plasma
  Fresh Frozen Plasma
  Food Supplements Directive
  Food Supplements Directive
  Nutrient Safety
  Nutrient Safety
  Arms Dealers
  Arms Dealers
  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Business Link
  Business Link
  Tax and Pension Credits
  Tax and Pension Credits
  Civil Registration
  Civil Registration
  National Savings Bank
  National Savings Bank
  People Over 60: Employment
  People Over 60: Employment
  Child Trust Fund
  Child Trust Fund
  Employment Service Estate
  Employment Service Estate
  Civil Service: Impartiality
  Civil Service: Impartiality
  Inspectors and Regulators: Fee-related Income
  Inspectors and Regulators: Fee-related Income
  A14
  A14
  Water Directives
  Water Directives
  Licensed Premises: Noise
  Licensed Premises: Noise