Sitting of 19 November 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported
    Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Chile) Order 2003, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order 2003 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House on 8 September 2003.
    I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Green Spaces
  Dr. Nick Palmer: What action his Department is taking to increase access to green spaces in urban areas. [139307]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): Parks and green spaces make a big difference to local communities. For too many years, they were left to decline. That is why the Government are investing £200 million over the next three years to regenerate local parks and green spaces in towns and cities across the country.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply, but although overall spending is no doubt helpful, is there a concrete way in which local groups can apply for support? Often, local groups know what is most needed.
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right—often, community groups, including bodies such as Friends of the Parks, are vital to the regeneration of local parks and green spaces. They can apply for the living spaces fund, which will provide £30 million to support about 1,500 projects over the next three years, because we think it
  756
  right that community groups as well as local authorities should benefit from more support to improve green spaces.
  Alistair Burt: Does the Minister agree that her Department is being even more successful in the policy of increasing access to urban areas in green spaces by demolishing large parts of the north in order to concrete over more of the south-east?
  Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is complete nonsense. I am sorry that his party is so little concerned about parks and green spaces. I checked the record of the shadow junior Ministers' interest in parks: they have referred to parks 56 times; unfortunately, 33 of those references were to car parks.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. David Chaytor: If he will make a statement on the boundary committee's timetable for publishing local government reorganisation proposals, consequent on the establishment of regional government. [139308]
  The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The boundary committee will publish draft recommendations for consultation on 1 December and is required to make its final recommendations no later than 25 May 2004.
  Mr. Chaytor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that where there is no consensus on the future shape of local government—as is the case in east Lancashire, for example—it is crucial that the boundary
  committee place before the electorate all the serious and practical options for the future shape of district councils? Furthermore, will he assure the House that the consultation will be genuine and that the committee will listen carefully to all representations made?
  Mr. Raynsford: I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is one for the boundary committee and that we have made it clear in our guidance to the committee that we expect it to review the options for achieving the best form of unitary local government and to produce options on which decisions can be made by the people in the referendum.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: First, let me say what a pleasure it is to find myself once again doing battle opposite the Minister. I seem to remember that we last tangled on the Transport Bill. Since that legislation passed, the railways have deteriorated and National Air Traffic Services has proved to be a disaster. Does he think that regional assemblies will be as successful as the railways and NATS were under his leadership?
  Will the Minister explain how much regional assemblies will cost? We are having boundary reviews to establish regional government, yet the cost in London is three times what was expected, and that cost is beings

  757
  passed straight back to the council tax payer through record increases in council tax. That does not augur well for the popularity of the right hon. Gentleman's policy.
  Mr. Raynsford: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position, and look forward to debating these issues. I am sure that he will have a fertile discussion with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is now the shadow Secretary of State and who in a speech in York on 29 September 2001 said:
  "There is much more of a case"—
  for regional government—
  "than we allowed in the 1980s…The only way of restoring representative government in relation to a wide range of functions carried out by the central government is at the regional level."
  I am delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman is part of a team and answering to a shadow Secretary of State who clearly supports the concept of regional government.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that we have spelt out in the White Paper our estimates on costs. The people will decide in the referendum whether our proposals will, as we believe, deliver good value for money and restore democracy to the regions.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: It is all very well to talk about regional government and changing unitary authorities. The law provides that county boundaries can be crossed. Will my right hon. Friend explain how that will appear on the ballot paper? There is great confusion in my area, including Cumberland and Morecambe bay. We do not understand how people will be able to vote on the issue.
  Mr. Raynsford: The boundary committee will make proposals on precisely that matter in two weeks' time. It will be entirely appropriate for people to have information about the proposed changes, their impact and the options available before they decide. When I was in Cumbria a while back talking to representatives of local government, it was clear to me that there were two or three clearly held views on what would be the best options. It was recognised that there were appropriate boundaries reflecting natural communities that could make good new boundaries for unitary authorities in those areas. I am sure that these matters will be decided properly by the people when they come to vote in the referendum on these matters.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Minister confirm that it is thanks to a Liberal Democrat amendment that local people will have both the choice and a vote on local government reorganisation? Will he reaffirm his previous commitment that the Government will publish a draft powers Bill before any referendums on regional assemblies? Will he confirm that the Government are considering devolving more power to future regional assemblies than was contained in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice"?
  Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased that we saw eye to eye with the hon. Gentleman's party over the benefit both of giving the option of regional government and of giving a choice to local communities on unitary local government. The proposals for the powers of elected
  758
  regional assemblies are spelt out in the White Paper. We have already demonstrated through the fire White Paper that we are prepared to change such arrangements in appropriate circumstances. We believe that it is right to go forward on the basis that we will be giving people more option to shape their future in the regions where they choose to do that.

  Neighbourhood Wardens
  Ms Candy Atherton: If he will make a statement on the work of neighbourhood wardens. [139309]
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): Neighbourhood wardens can play a vital role in the revitalisation of some of our most challenging neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood renewal funding is supporting some 500 warden schemes across the country, and other forms of funding have provided up to 3,000 wardens. That is why I announced on 14 August the extension of funding to all street warden schemes for one extra year. Wardens have been welcomed by the communities in which they work. They are successful and they have proven to be effective in reducing crime and improving community safety and the local environment.
  Ms Atherton: I thank my right hon. Friend. He is a good friend of Cornwall and a regular visitor. When he next comes to Cornwall, will he visit and congratulate the Redruth street wardens, who have recently received national acclaim, and perhaps bring some more money to this incredibly popular scheme?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I certainly enjoy visiting Cornwall on my regional visits from time to time. I am pleased that, in her constituency, the North Kerrier warden scheme received an award for its work that was presented by my hon. Friend. Last night, I attended the British Urban Regeneration Association—BURA—awards, at which the Falmouth Beacon regeneration partnership was given the sustainability award. The House will be interested to know that a community getting together was able to reduce house burglaries by 40 per cent., reduce accidents involving children by 50 per cent., reduce asthma and chest complaints, improve education results and achieve a £180,000 fuel saving from energy efficiency. It shows that when members of a community get together, they can make a real difference.
  Angela Watkinson: The London borough of Havering has a highly successful neighbourhood wardens scheme, which is coming to the end of its third year. I believe that I just heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that an additional year's funding has been allowed. When the Government funding comes to an end, hard-pressed councils such as Havering have the choice of putting up the council tax or withdrawing the service. What would the Deputy Prime Minister advise them to do?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady posed a fair question. On 14 August we decided to extend the programme by one year. The programme arose from the social exclusion unit's recommendation and was to be temporary, for one year. It has been so successful that we have extended it, but the intention is to feed it into mainstream departmental expenditure. So far, 60 per cent. of councils have achieved that, and we are negotiating with the rest. It is a successful scheme and we shall do all we can to make sure that the funding is continued.
  Rob Marris: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Jess Pickard and his neighbourhood warden team in my constituency on contributing to a very creditable drop in crime and antisocial behaviour and in hoping that that valuable work will continue?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes. I can guarantee that the work will continue. My hon. Friend has shown that wardens in his area have made a real difference. Without giving all the figures again, I can report that in one area burglary was reduced by 90 per cent. That is a result of the ordinary community getting together and doing something itself. The programme has turned out to be extremely successful, and my hon. Friend can be assured that I shall do everything to see that it is maintained.

  Outstanding Natural Beauty (Sussex)
  Tim Loughton: What his policy is on building on and around areas of outstanding natural beauty in Sussex. [139310]
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): Planning policies and development control decisions affecting areas of outstanding natural beauty should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. In all cases, the environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration, although it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the areas and their communities, including the provision of adequate housing to meet identified local needs.
  Tim Loughton: As the Minister knows, building land for houses in the coastal strip of Sussex is in short supply, wedged as we are between the sea and the downs. Many speculative development proposals are going through on appeal for building on the ribbon of land right up to the downs, adjacent to AONB land. Is he aware that the position will be made worse if the national park designation of the south downs goes through, and the AONB status of areas that fall just outside the national park boundary is revoked? What will he do to make sure that those vulnerable green areas are not concreted over in short order?
  Keith Hill: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the matter, but I hope to be able to reassure him. The national park will become the planning authority, should the proposal go through, and it will acquire jurisdiction over planning applications from the local planning authorities whose areas include areas of outstanding natural beauty. Of
  760
  course, local planning authorities are already constrained in their planning policies by the rigorous standards applied to planning applications in areas of outstanding natural beauty. To that extent, the position should not be changed by the national park proposal.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman knows well the difficulties that exist in West Sussex, with the number of new houses that have been imposed on the county by the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Minister reconsider the extraordinary number of new houses that West Sussex is being asked to accept, and will he have regard to the fact that these developments are wholly unsustainable by his own definition of sustainability? What will he do to reduce the number?
  Keith Hill: The Government are in regular discussion and negotiation with local authorities on these matters, but the hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that London and the wider south-east constitute the motor of the economy. The housing growth that the Government anticipate responds very much to indigenous growth in housing demand, as well as inward migration factors.

  Domestic Violence
  Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement on the role of local government in tackling domestic violence. [139311]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): The Government are wholly committed to tackling domestic violence. Such violence is first and foremost a crime, and stopping it and bringing perpetrators to justice are the overriding priority. Local government has a critical role in tackling domestic violence through the delivery of housing and social services, community safety and crime reduction partnerships.
  Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, in which he pointed out the role of local government in partnership with other organisations. Will he do all that he can to encourage local authorities to invest more in security in the home so that families and children can stay safe in the communities and schools that they are used to, rather than having to be moved on, away from the violent perpetrator of a dreadful crime?
  Phil Hope: I place on record our appreciation and recognition of my hon. Friend's tremendous work in championing the interests of victims of domestic violence. She is right that domestic violence can be a significant cause of homelessness, and we need better coordination between local agencies so that women can safely stay in their own homes if they undergo such experiences. This year, the Government published our strategy on domestic violence, which emphasises the importance of preventing such violence, supporting victims and bringing offenders to justice. I am pleased to

  761
  say that a new telephone helpline, which the Prime Minister announced last year, is on track to become fully operational next month.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Minister may have seen a disturbing report on television late last night about children being forced by the courts to visit perpetrators of domestic violence after divorce has taken place. Will he assure the House that the Government will look into this problem and advise the family courts accordingly?
  Phil Hope: The hon. Lady raises a difficult and sensitive issue in family relationships. We have a problem in that domestic violence affects not only women, the main victims, but children in those households. The Green Paper recently published by my right hon. Friend spells out a range of measures to provide greater protection for children to secure their safety inside and outside the home and to ensure that local agencies work together much more closely through new agencies such as children's trusts to make sure that children receive the support and help that they need if they ever experience such tragic events.
  Ms Debra Shipley: May I invite my hon. Friend to the annual general meeting on domestic violence this afternoon? I impress on him the fact that several hundred people will be there. Will he explain more fully the support services provided for children in particular? I suggest to him that they are lacking for children in domestic violence situations either in the home or in hostels, where very little support is provided. The Green Paper also lacks a voice on that issue.
  Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is well known in the House for championing the cause of children and giving them support. She is right to point out the physical, emotional and psychological impact on children of growing up and living in a family where there is domestic violence. I shall try to get to this afternoon's conference, diary permitting. What we need to do through the Green Paper is identify specific action that the Government and local agencies can take through the new children's trusts to ensure that children's needs are paramount and are put first when we make decisions on resources and needs.

  Housing
  Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on using pathfinders in providing housing. [139312]
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): Nine market renewal pathfinders have been set up in the north and the midlands to tackle the problem of low demand and abandonment. The pathfinders will rebuild thriving housing markets in those areas, and we have allocated £500 million over the next three years to fund this ambitious programme.
  Bob Spink: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intentions in respect of pathfinders. The initiative should help to reduce the pressure to build more and more houses in the south-east, which he is forcing on
  762
  constituents in already overdeveloped areas. But throwing more money at the problem will not solve it; we have got to get tough and tackle antisocial behaviour in those areas, to increase and strengthen private buyer confidence.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right: through the pathfinders, we are doing a great deal in the north to deal with areas that are in massive decline. But I believe that people in the south have a right to live there if they so wish, and that there are sufficient resources, such as land, to provide for that. We have already established a programme to deal with antisocial behaviour. Is he saying that the £96 million that we have just awarded to south-east Essex and to his own constituency is unacceptable? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should point out that it is far too noisy in the Chamber. It is unfair.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one tenth of all properties in east Lancashire are empty or abandoned, that there are properties in my area that cannot be given away, and that last year, 2,500 properties were sold for less than £20,000, which is more than in any other pathfinder? What we in east Lancashire want is not endless strategies but the resources that we need to do something about a housing problem that has been festering for decades.
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I certainly do not disagree with my hon. Friend's analysis, but the £500 million that we are giving to pathfinder areas is a unique sum that should be welcomed. It doubtless will not meet all the problems in all such areas, but we are attempting to find new solutions to these different and difficult problems. We are on the way, and several pathfinders have already been developed. They are being turned from strategies into reality, and my hon. Friend should perhaps welcome that.
  Mr. David Curry: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman how flattered I am that such an early reference was made to my speeches? I should hate him to waste civil service or political adviser time: if he would simply like to get in touch with me, I will make sure that he gets them free, gratis and for nothing.
  The pathfinders are good projects run by good people, but it is necessary to ensure that there is effective private sector investment. This is not just a housing programme; it is housing-led. In east Lancashire, employers have walked away. What joined-up government are we going to get to make sure that we bring back employment and economic opportunities, so that housing projects are part of a broad strategy of regeneration and do not simply hang on their own?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new job as shadow Secretary of State for his new cabinet. Apparently, there are seven shadow Secretaries of State within his own group, which seems to be another shadow phantom cabinet, in addition to the one designed by the Leader of the Opposition. I

  763
  welcome his saying that we should not waste the civil service's time, but perhaps he should have a word with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who has asked 31 questions on subjects such as the money I have spent on drinking water, expenditure on horticulture and gardens, and what I am doing about pest control. I do my best to control the Opposition, but perhaps he should reduce the number of such questions.
  To be serious, the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and we are addressing that issue. The programmes are not just housing programmes; they recognise that there must be a partnership with the private sector. Increasing the value of the houses in that area is an important change that we need to make, working with the public and private sectors. Creating a sustainable community means dealing with jobs as well. We are putting those two elements together, and having some success.
  Mr. Curry: When the hapless and unhappy Minister for Sport and Tourism introduced the Bill on regional development agencies, he said that the Government would be judged by whether there was a closing of the regional economic imbalance. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the communities plan in the southeast, however necessary, will contribute to closing the economic balance between the south-east and the northern regions, or to widening it?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: Regional development agencies are important in developing prosperity in all regions; that is why, unlike the previous Administration, we did not limit them to certain regions. We said that all regions need RDAs to develop their indigenous assets and increase prosperity. Since we increased the number of RDAs, there has been a considerable increase in prosperity in northern areas. I recognise that there is a growing differential, but all areas are far better off. Unless he is prepared to change his proposal to abolish RDAs, things will get worse.
  Mr. Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know from his visits to Burnley that the problem of empty houses in Burnley in east Lancashire is, in percentage terms, worse than in any of the other district councils. He will know that Elevate is putting together its bid under the housing renewal pathfinder project. He will also know that, to regenerate those areas and to make them attractive areas in which to live, that bid addresses not only the need to demolish houses but the key problems to which he has referred. Will he assure me that he will give a positive answer to that, so that work on the ground can commence at the earliest possible date?
  The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. We certainly are doing that. I have visited his area where houses were being sold for about £1,000 each. It is the collapse of the private market that has created great difficulties for us. We are trying to regenerate the area, the houses and the communities. In some cases, we will have to demolish but in others we can rebuild. Different experiments and changes are under way.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Mr. Philip Hammond: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 November.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before I list my engagements for the day, I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing our deep condolences to the Turkish Government and to the families of those who were killed in the terrorist atrocities in Istanbul last Saturday, and also to the families of the 17 US soldiers who lost their lives in the tragedy involving two Black Hawk helicopters in Iraq at the weekend.
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
  Mr. Hammond: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer and I hope that worrying about what is going on here in his absence will not spoil his enjoyment of the banquet tonight.
  Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the point is of deploying 14,000 police officers on the streets and creating an air exclusion zone over London if he cannot even guarantee the security of the President in his own bedroom?
  The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on the numbers of police being deployed, but it is important that we pay tribute to the work that the Metropolitan police do for us day in, day out. In respect of the incident at the palace, I know that the Home Secretary will make a statement on that later. I think that it is important that we establish the facts first.
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government's new tonnage tax reforms have been of huge benefit to British shipping in general and to the P&O shipping group in particular? How does he reconcile that big boost for British shipping with the relatively small number of seafarers' jobs created and with yesterday's devastating news that Jeffrey Sterling wants to sack 600 people from cross-channel ferries in his P&O fleet at Dover? Does my right hon. Friend share my sickening feeling of déjà vu?
  The Prime Minister: It is important, as my hon. Friend rightly acknowledges, that we are seeing a continual revival in UK merchant shipping after a very long period of decline. That is immensely welcome. Obviously, I regret very much the announcement of redundancies at P&O ferries, which I understand is connected with a decline in demand on the Dover to Calais route. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are in discussion with the company and we will do anything we can through the rapid response service to make sure that anyone who is made redundant is found alternative

  765
  employment. I can say from the experience in my own constituency that where that service has been deployed it has been immensely successful.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Once again, I sadly join the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences on behalf of my party to the victims of both the atrocities to which he referred.
  On the Conservative Benches, we join the Prime Minister in warmly welcoming President Bush to this country. Indeed, it is good to see that the President is so popular on the Government side that Labour MPs have flown back from all over the world, from as far away as Australia, so that they can be in London today to welcome the President in person.
  May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the closeness of his relationship with the President? Does he share my view that a strong and close relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is in the interest of both our countries and of the world as a whole?
  The Prime Minister: I assume that we have just seen the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his statesmanlike mode. I am sure that everyone who has the best interests of this country at heart recognises that the strength of the alliance between Britain and the United States of America is important for world peace and security, and for the future of both our countries.
  Mr. Howard: I very much welcome the Prime Minister's response. However, how can he support as his party's candidate for London Mayor someone who said this week that the President was
  "the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen"?
  The Prime Minister: I did say that we had just seen the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his statesman-like mode—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] He cannot resist—[Interruption.] He cannot get to his feet and say that it is a good thing that the President is here and that the alliance is good for our country without trying to make mischief out of it. However, there will be people—in my party and elsewhere—who oppose what the President of the United States has done. I happen not to be one of them. Instead of making mischief, perhaps this should be the time when both the Leader of the Opposition and I stand firm in support of the alliance between this country and America.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: When my right hon. Friend meets President Bush later this week, will he ask him to put all possible pressure on the Israeli Government to stop building the security wall, and to reunite the Palestinian people with their ancestral lands?
  The Prime Minister: First, I can tell my hon. Friend that we hope very much that the President will again give his strong support to the middle east peace process, and to the need to develop a process that will allow us, ultimately, to have an Israeli state that is confident of its security and an independent, viable Palestinian state. That is what we will work towards. Obviously, any measure being taken at the moment that inhibits those
  766
  developments is not good for the long-term future of that process. In the end, however, the process in the middle east will not succeed until there is the clearest possible security plan that allows us to make sure that the terrorism also stops, so that we can create the confidence in which Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for her question. I think that she is right to stress the importance of the matter, but I do not believe that there will be proper progress in the middle east until we resolve the security situation. We have to do that because, in the end, it is in the interests of the Palestinians as well as of the Israelis.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister give the House some sense of which issue he is more hopeful of making progress on during his discussions with President Bush this week? Will it be the continuing detention without trial of British citizens at Camp Delta, or the illegal imposition of tariffs against our steel industry by the Americans?
  The Prime Minister: Our position on both matters is very clear, and we will discuss them again. I have set out our position regarding those detained at Guantanamo Bay to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions. In respect of steel, there is a disagreement between Britain and Europe on the one hand, and America on the other. We want that to be resolved, and hope that the Americans will abide by the World Trade Organisation ruling. It is important that they do.
  Of course there may be difficult issues between Britain and America, but I would have hoped that, when the right hon. Gentleman got to his feet, he would also say how pleased he was that the alliance between our two countries was so strong. Ultimately, that is in the interests of both countries. Yes, there is a trade issue between us over steel tariffs, but let us be clear: the trade between our countries is worth something like $2,000 million. That goes on the whole time, and is of enormous benefit to both nations.
  Mr. Kennedy: A good constructive alliance between the UK and the US is, of course, in everyone's interest, but I want to press the Prime Minister on the most testing aspect of the alliance at the moment—the revised American position in respect of Iraq. Will he assure the House that, when he discusses that with the President over the next couple of days, the British priority will remain the establishment of democratic and durable institutions in Iraq? Will he also ensure that that matter is not being driven by the domestic electoral timetable in Washington?
  The Prime Minister: I do find that a remarkable question to ask me. We have been working very closely with the United States of America to ensure that two things happen: first, that we get a programme for proper, democratic accountability and elections in Iraq, which will enable the Iraqis to be governing their country by the middle of next year, in due course with a proper constitution and elections. I hope that the right

  767
  hon. Gentleman recognises that none of that would be possible if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed from the Government of Iraq. Secondly, we will carry on working with the Americans in the fight against international terrorism.
  Let us be clear about what is happening out in Iraq. The people bombing the United Nations and the Red Cross and killing ordinary Iraqis, the people who, when we proposed an independent judiciary for Iraq, assassinated two of the people who were nominated as judges, and those who are killing people in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other parts of the world in these appalling acts of terrorism are not the British or the Americans but appalling terrorists linked to some of these appalling regimes. It really is about time that we started to realise who our allies are, who our enemies are, and to stick with the one and fight the other.
  David Cairns: Despite the fact that unemployment in my constituency is now around 6 per cent. compared with 25 per cent. in the mid-1980s, does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to tackle the problems of hidden unemployment, particularly those affecting people who have been left languishing on incapacity benefit for many years? To that end, will he ensure that the pathways to work pilot programmes that are being run in Inverclyde are properly resourced and structured so that everyone is helped to find a job and never again do we hear the excuse that unemployment is a price worth paying?
  The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will resource the pilot projects satisfactorily. Indeed, as he rightly points out, many people have been helped off benefit and into work, in particular by the new deal. It is an absolute outrage that the Conservative party is committed to abolishing the new deal, which has helped hundreds of thousands of people off the dole and into work. Overall, about 1.5 million extra jobs have been created in the British economy since 1997 and that compares with the figure when a certain person was Employment Secretary for the Conservatives, with 3 million unemployed, and 1 million extra under him alone.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: From the figures on the Government's website of total permanent staff on a full-time equivalent basis in the Department of Trade and Industry, including its agencies, the Government inherited staff numbers of 8,398 in 1997. A staggering 1,422 staff have been added in the six and a half years under the Prime Minister's watch. As the right hon. Gentleman and his Chancellor now declare 500 of those jobs redundant, as reported in The Times on Monday, does the Prime Minister agree with the arithmetic that that still leaves 922 jobs over the number inherited? Is it any wonder that business is fed up with the waste and inefficiency of government under this Prime Minister?
  The Prime Minister: Business welcomes the economic stability that has been achieved under this Government. It welcomes the low inflation, low interest rates, low
  768
  unemployment and high levels of employment. It welcomes the fact that we have been through the recent downturn better than any other country in the G8. I think that business remembers, too, that when a certain Opposition party was in power, it had 15 per cent. interest rates, 3 million unemployed and double-digit inflation. [Interruption.] Perhaps when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) gets to his feet, he will apologise for that record, since he was the author of it.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Since the invasion of Iraq, how many weapons of mass destruction have been found?
  The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, the Iraqi survey group is in Iraq. It has already produced an interim report, which details at least 10 to 12 breaches of United Nations resolutions. I simply point out, in respect of the UN resolution that was passed last November, that it was a matter of common cause with all countries that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the world. I believe that he does. I also believe that the intelligence that we have received on this matter is right. The Iraqi survey group should be allowed to continue and complete its work.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Does the Prime Minister think that it says something about his Administration that even after the Minister for Children's humiliating climbdown this week, he still thinks that she is the best person for the job?
  The Prime Minister: I think she is. If we look at the Minister's record on child care places, if we look at the extra investment that is going into nursery education for three and four-year-olds and if we look at the plaudits given her by many people working in the field, I believe that, yes, she is the person who is best for the job, and she has answered properly the claims that have been made against her.
  Mr. Howard: Let us just be clear about what happened. The Minister used the full authority of her Government position to write to the chairman of the BBC to try to suppress an investigation into her conduct. In doing so, she falsely described a victim of child abuse as an "extremely disturbed person". Is it right that someone who tried to bully her way out of trouble should still be Minister for Children?
  The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said and I am sorry that he has joined in what I regard as a wholly unfair campaign against the Minister concerned. She has apologised to the particular individual. She was entitled to raise issues given that she was the subject of such criticism and, as I said, I believe that it is important to look at her record not merely as the present Minister for Children but previously as children's Minister, when by common consent she did an excellent job protecting and advancing the interests of children. I would have

  769
  thought it better, rather than simply discussing the individual Minister, that we discuss the policies of the two parties.
  Mr. Howard: No.
  The Prime Minister: Oh yes. I understand entirely why the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to do so; the Minister for Children has made the case for extra investment in child care that is yielding better child care throughout our country, and of course when he was shadow Chancellor he voted against every part of that extra investment.
  Mr. Howard: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that this is not a matter on which he should be held to account? He may care about vulnerable Ministers—we care about vulnerable children. [Interruption.]Is not it the case that the Government always bully people who get in their way? The 94-year-old Rose Addis, lying on her hospital bed, was described as a racist. [Interruption.] Martin Sixsmith was described as money grubbing and unfit to be a civil servant.
  Chris Ruane: Derek Lewis?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Ruane must not shout—it is quite a habit that he is getting into.
  Mr. Howard: It is not surprising that Labour Members do not want to hear, Mr. Speaker.
  Dr. David Kelly was denigrated by the Prime Minister's office as a Walter Mitty character, and now a victim of child abuse is smeared by the Minister for Children. Is the Prime Minister proud of that pattern of behaviour? Has he lost all sense of shame?
  The Prime Minister: Now we see the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his true colours. If he wants to talk about vulnerable children, let us have a look at the record of the two Governments on vulnerable children. Let us remember that when he was a Cabinet Minister in the previous Government the number of children in poverty trebled—[Interruption.] Yes, they were vulnerable children when the Conservatives were in power. When one in five households in this country had no one working, was not that bad for children? When investment in education was cut under the last Government, what did that do for vulnerable children? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against increases in child benefit, what did that do for vulnerable children?
  We know where—
  Hon. Members: Hypocrite.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. An unfortunate remark was made. The word "hypocrite" was used. Will it be withdrawn?
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.
  Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I call for calmness on both sides of the Chamber.
  The Prime Minister: If we want to—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That includes the Chief Whip—[Interruption.] Especially the Chief Whip.
  The Prime Minister: Especially as she has other work to do.
  If we want to talk about vulnerable children, let us talk about the numbers of children languishing in poverty when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was a Cabinet Minister under the last Government and about the children—500,000 to 600,000 of them—helped out of
  poverty under this Government. When we look at the real record, not the synthetic anger, we see where the shame lies.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Ever since oil and gas were first discovered in the North sea in the early 1960s, we have exercised national control over the exploitation of these assets through licensing arrangements and so on. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the inclusion of energy clauses in the draft treaty on the European Union constitution could lead to the ceding of competence over these matters to the European Union? Will he draw an end to uncertainty on this matter by making it a red line issue in the forthcoming negotiations?
  The Prime Minister: We have made it absolutely clear that there cannot be any question of the European Commission getting those powers, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be one of the issues that we raise in the course of the negotiation we are about to enter into—and I have no doubt that, as with other things, we will be successful.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Last month in this Chamber, the Prime Minister talked about reasonable council tax increases. For next year, what is a reasonable increase?
  The Prime Minister: It is not for the Government to set the amount of council tax increase; it is for local councils. But as I said last month and have repeated on many occasions, it is reasonable for the Government to fund local authorities properly. We have given real-terms increases to local authorities over the last few years—a record that stands in contrast to the cuts under
  the previous Government. Therefore, obviously it is a matter for local authorities to set their council tax, but the Government have done their bit by funding local authorities properly.
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I am sure that the Prime Minister is fully aware of the significance of the Crossrail project, its importance to

  771
  Londoners and the benefits it will bring to business and in helping to reduce overcrowding on public transport in London. I know that the Secretary of State for Transport is supporting the project, and it is popular with the people and has cross-party support. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the money will be available for this project and that work will start as soon as possible, unless it is already too late?
  The Prime Minister: As I said in the House a short time ago, what we do believe is that Crossrail is an important project for London and could have real benefits for Londoners. As my hon. Friend knows, a review panel of experts is examining the proposal by Cross London Rail Links to establish how it could be funded, and we expect the panel to report in the new year.
  Mr. Michael Jack: If the Prime Minister wants to help British manufacturing jobs, may I refer him to a report from the Ministry of Defence which concluded that it would he feasible for Britain to assemble and maintain its fleet of 150 joint strike fighters? To that end, may I ask him to raise with President Bush the release of the necessary technologies to the United Kingdom to make a bid for that work feasible, and thus safeguard tens of thousands of aerospace jobs, particularly in the north-west?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this issue obviously has implications for British manufacturing and skills. We are raising the issue with the American Government. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary raised it with his counterpart last week, and I have no doubt that I will raise it with President Bush over the coming days. It is important, particularly in view of our relationship with the United States, that we are able to secure not just as much of the technology but as many of the jobs as possible.
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: When, at the end of this week, President Bush visits the north-east, will my right hon. Friend tell him the importance of steel-making for the north-east economy? Will he ask the President to respect the World Trade Organisation rules, so that he can take some form of action, in order to demonstrate his commitment to being our strong ally, at least to scrap the illegal steel tariffs that he has introduced?
  The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will raise this issue with President Bush. I said, in answer to an earlier question, that there was $2,000 million-worth of trade between the two countries; it is actually $2,000 billion-worth. Of course from time to time such trade issues come up in the relationship between Europe and America—I remember they did under the previous President of the United States as well—but let us not forget that in commercial and trading terms it is still an enormously important relationship for our two countries.
  I just point out that, according to the latest figures, about 1 million people in Britain are employed by American firms. So it is a very good two-way deal, but
  772
  we want it to become a perfect one. Obviously, it is in our interests, and we will argue very strongly for the WTO ruling to be obeyed.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: May I tell the Prime Minister that, after a bogus consultation exercise, the Post Office has now announced that it is closing five post offices in my constituency, including the main one at Upperton road? Is that what his Government mean by "network reinvention"?
  The Prime Minister: No, it is not, but there obviously have been post office closures—there were under the previous Government as well—and the question is what we can do to minimise the likelihood of that happening, because they are happening, I am afraid, for reasons to do with the state of the commercial market. The reasons are not to do with Government policy; they are to do with the need of the Post Office to adapt in the different world in which we live today, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are putting somewhere in the region of £300 million-worth of support into the post office network. It is difficult for us to do more. We are doing what we can. I am sorry if there are post offices in his constituency at risk, but it would not be honest for the Labour party—or, indeed, any party—to pretend that we can avoid all post office closures, because we cannot.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: One of my constituents is a close family relative of two young children who were abducted and murdered more than 10 years ago. No one has yet been convicted of either of those murders, and the family is understandably keen to see changes to the double jeopardy rule, precisely as envisaged in the Criminal Justice Bill that is now to be considered in another place. Will the Prime Minister stand firm to ensure that that Bill comes through in precisely the way that my constituent would like? Will he also stand firm against any Lords pressure on problems to do with serious fraud?
  The Prime Minister: First, in relation to double jeopardy, yes, we will, and I hope that we have now got agreement on that. The point about serious fraud, though, is absolutely vital because, at the moment, the Conservative party is refusing to agree that we should remove jury trials in serious fraud cases—something that was recommended by Roskill about 25 years ago and, most recently, by Sir Robin Auld. That is absolutely essential to deal with serious fraud trials that can go on for months and concern organised criminals. Every single section of law enforcement in this country is in favour of doing that, and we will not get the proper measures necessary to convict serious criminals if we do not support that proposal. I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that if his party is to be credible on law and order, it should do what the police, the Serious Fraud Office and Customs and Excise want and get that legislation through.
  Mr. William Cash: The Prime Minister raised the question of statesmanship. In relation to his own ministerial code and public trust, would he be good

  773
  enough to give the House a straight answer to a straight question? Who is right—himself or Kevin Tebbit, or General de Chastelain or himself?
  The Prime Minister: Well—[Interruption]—that is not exactly a straight question. In respect of the first, the hon. Gentleman should await the outcome of the Hutton inquiry. In respect of General de Chastelain, I stand by what I have already said.
  Ms Oona King: Does the Prime Minister agree that unemployment, glass ceilings and the pay gap keep women out of the job market; unfortunately, out of Parliament; and, it seems, off the Opposition Front Bench? Does he agree that, in a democracy, it is really important that we have women not just in the Government, where a third of Ministers are women, but in the Opposition, where, unfortunately [Interruption]—lovely though they are, 92 per cent. are men?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has nothing to do with the Opposition; he has got enough to worry about.
  The Prime Minister: Were you saying, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have to answer for the Opposition? Thank goodness. The point that my hon. Friend makes about
  774
  the numbers of women in the work force is obviously important. Employment of women has gone up by almost 1 million since this Government came to power, but more importantly, through a series of measures on the work-life balance relating to maternity pay, maternity leave and extra help on child care, we are beginning to try to narrow some of the gaps between the job opportunities for men and the job opportunities for women. We shall certainly take that agenda further.
  Pete Wishart: Following all the shuttle diplomacy, the conflict itself and the appalling aftermath of the war, have the Prime Minister and the President of the United States come to any agreement as to why this war happened in the first place? Surely it has not got anything whatever to do with weapons of mass destruction.
  The Prime Minister: We went into conflict because we believed—in my view, rightly—that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his region and to the wider world, and we are proud of the fact that people in Iraq today, for the first time in decades, have got the chance of stability, prosperity and democracy. What everyone should realise is that if people like the hon. Gentleman had had their way, Saddam Hussein, his sons and his henchmen would still be terrorising people in Iraq. I find it quite extraordinary that he thinks that that would be a preferable state of affairs.

Buckingham Palace
12.31 pm
David Davis(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the serious breach of security at Buckingham Palace.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): The House is rightly concerned about the reports in the Daily Mirror today, which involve the security of the royal household, the Queen and the President of the United States. I am, of course, addressing those concerns, but let me begin by setting this matter in context.
The day-to-day critical work of security has been and continues to be carried out with skill and professionalism. The security of the royal family involves a wide range of measures. Physical security and the personal protection provided by the police form a critical part of that process. Clearly, however, the checks on those who work closely alongside the royal family are key, too.
As you would expect, Mr. Speaker, there is a comprehensive system of checking for those who, in the course of their work, have close contact with the Queen, members of the royal family and those visiting them. That process involves both security and criminal checks in addition to the sort of employment checks expected from any employer. Clearly, in these circumstances, that is even more vital. In the case of Ryan Parry, the key security and criminal record checks were carried out robustly and correctly, but the employment checks proved insufficient in this case. The palace has already announced that it is reviewing that aspect of the vetting procedure. The House should also know that as part of the preparations for the visit of President Bush, further robust security and criminal record checks have been carried out on all those staff, both permanent and contractual, working at the palace and beyond.
Nevertheless, I am concerned that the system as a whole needs to be reviewed urgently. The Prime Minister, with the support of the royal household, is therefore asking the Security Commission, which is an independent body responsible for overseeing breaches of security, to conduct a thorough review. I am still in the process of agreeing the precise terms of reference and timetable for its work, but I would want an interim report by the end of the year. I would expect that to cover all aspects of the process of checking those who form part of the royal household.
All of us would wish to ensure that gaps exposed in the protection that we offer are closed as quickly as possible. One of the strengths of our democracy is that such breaches are open to scrutiny, we can learn quickly from them, and nothing is swept under the carpet.
David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for his answer. I am sure that the whole House will share his concern at another serious breach of security at a royal residence less than six months after the last incident at Windsor castle. On that occasion, the Metropolitan police owned up to a series of one-off blunders. This new incident—in which, at a time of heightened national
776
security, a journalist has been allowed free and unfettered access to virtually all areas of Buckingham palace—is in many ways far more serious.
All the available evidence suggests that this is less a series of blunders than a potentially fatal weakness at the heart of security covering the Head of State. I welcome, in particular, the Home Secretary's announcement of a review by the Security Commission. However, he must explain why the system has failed and, in doing so, must answer a simple question: who does he hold responsible for this serious lapse that has revealed a woeful gap in security at a time of heightened terrorist threat?
After Chilcot's recommendations, security at the palace became the responsibility of the palace, the Metropolitan police and the Home Office, but who is in overall charge? Who is responsible for co-ordination to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks? Has this been reviewed since the security failures at Windsor? In particular, who is responsible for vetting people who work in the royal household? Is it the palace, the Metropolitan police or the Home Office? If, as I suspect, the answer is all three, who is in overall charge of that process, and has there been a review of those procedures since the Windsor fiasco? If not, why not? Moreover, what steps are now being taken urgently to review the status of all staff recruited to the royal household, particularly in the past 12 months?
There has been a huge amount of publicity surrounding President Bush's visit and in the past—most notably, the bombing of the Conservative party conference at Brighton—terrorists have inserted devices far in advance of the actual event. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether there are special arrangements—we do not want to know the details—to prevent similar attacks on visiting Heads of State? Although much attention has been given to security levels over the next two days while President Bush is here, is the Home Secretary satisfied that sufficient attention has been given to the advance arrangements for his visit? As I said, I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement about the Security Commission's inquiry, but can he assure me that the questions that I have asked will be addressed by that commission and that its proposals will be rapidly put into place?
The seriousness of this security lapse cannot be overestimated. Following the incident at Windsor castle, the Home Secretary told the House that
"we will work with the police and the royal household to ensure that lessons can be learned from this event that can only improve the security of the royal family for the future".—[Official Report, 24 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 868.]
Given the undertaking that he gave to the House, does he accept personal responsibility for the events of the past few days and will he act, and act soon, to bring to an end this catalogue of incompetence?
Mr. Blunkett: First, as I said at the Dispatch Box in June, I accept responsibility for ensuring that lapses are correctly dealt with and that reviews are implemented. I will do that with the Security Commission's recommendations that arise out of its review of this incident.

777
We need to try to put the matter into perspective. In this case, we are talking about the failure to undertake the sort of employment checks that I and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman would have expected to happen. We will ensure—the palace has already indicated this—that that will be corrected in future.
It is important to be clear that we have learned the lessons of Windsor. The physical security breaches that occurred there and the intrusion from outside have been dealt with. The Metropolitan police took entire responsibility for that event, and the co-ordination of the different forces and elements involved has been secured. Over the past three months, we have not only learned the lessons but put them into place.
There is clearly an issue when someone seeks to engage in employment. It is not that they are a threat, because the security and criminal records checks had been secured and recognised that this individual, Mr. Parry, was who he said he was, but they had not revealed his previous job. That is a breach and I have said that I believe that it needs to be closed. The palace is responsible—one only has to read the Daily Mirror this morning to see who is responsible for handling personnel matters—and it has indicated that not only is it correcting the reviews that are undertaken, but it is prepared to work with the commission. I mentioned that when responding at the Dispatch Box just now.
I am responsible overall for the security and criminal records checks and the palace has acknowledged that there needs to be a review of the personnel checks. We need to work with the commissioner and SO13 to ensure that such checks are in place in the future.
I shall answer the absolutely fundamental question asked by the right hon. Gentleman: am I satisfied that the preparations made for the President's visit and his stay at Buckingham palace were satisfactory and undertaken in the way in which we would expect? Yes, I am. Am I satisfied that proper checks are now being made regarding employment? Yes, I am. Is it clear that we are able to provide the sort of security for the President's state visit to our country that we would want for ourselves when making such a visit? Yes, it is. I am also clear about asking all those who are demonstrating their right in a democracy to express an alternative view to that of the President of the United States to assist us by ensuring that those who wish to engage in violence or disruption are seen off effectively by collaboration among those who are organising peaceful demonstrations and the police. The police wish to protect the security of not only the President of the United States, but the people of London.
Mr. Mark Oaten: I hope that the Home Secretary acknowledges that such a breach undermines the huge effort of the 14,000 police officers who have been called in to provide security, given that one individual can get such a level of access. Given that press reports suggest that Mr. Parry was able to carry equipment in and out of Buckingham palace, will the Home Secretary confirm whether the palace has in place scanning equipment through which members of staff must pass when they go to work? Will he assure me that the weaknesses that have been exposed in Buckingham
778
palace in the employment of catering or administrative staff could not exist in Downing street or the Palace of Westminster? Finally, does he acknowledge that such breaches do not pose a direct threat only to the royal family because intelligence that may be gathered from such a breach could be more damaging? Who is to say that some groups have not already obtained sensitive information from such a breach that could be used in the future?
Mr.Blunkett: On the hon. Gentleman's third question, I make it clear that if people who had not been correctly security checked or who had a criminal record were allowed through the vetting procedure, there would be the kind of risk that he outlined. However, that was not true in this case. There was no doubt about Mr. Parry's identity, where he said he had been or what he said he had done. He acknowledges in this morning's Daily Mirror that all the statements that he made, except that relating to his immediate employment with the newspaper, were correct. That gives the lie to the suggestion that we allowed a terrorist into the palace, and we must be aware of that when we put the matter into perspective.
None of that undermines the key point that people who are vetted and have security clearance must also go through stringent and sensible procedures as precautions against what they might carry into the palace or the Palace of Westminster. I entirely accept that it is right and proper that screening should take place to ensure that people do not abuse their positions. Yes, previous breaches in the House of Commons, including those investigated by the Security Commission, have been dealt with, and procedures were tightened up when necessary. When they were tightened up, Members of the House understandably often became irritated and annoyed with those who increased security and the surveillance of people, including Members of Parliament. I ask people to bear with us when that happens because we do it for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an imperfect world, events such as these will happen from time to time in all institutions? Does he also agree that vetting at the palace over the years has not been very good anyway? In the years when the Tory Government were in power, a fellow finished up in the Queen's bedroom. There is a question of the Fawcett fellow, George Smith and Burrell. They did not do a very good job of vetting Princess Diana either, did they?
Mr. Blunkett: I thought my hon. Friend's opening point was valid. All hon. Members, from whichever side of the House, will want to ensure that past and present events are treated with appropriate weight and seriousness, that we learn the lessons and that we go forward in a spirit that helps us to sort out security instead of scoring political points.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: What action did the Home Secretary personally take in advance of the President's visit to ensure his safety and that of the Queen? Why did he fail?
Mr. Blunkett: Other people will make a judgment on that. I do not accept that I failed. As Home Secretary with responsibility for the security service and the police, including SO13, I undertook, as hon. Members would expect, to meet those groups a number of times to go through the measures they were taking, to reassess those over the past 48 hours, to ensure that I was satisfied that the measures they were taking to protect both the President and the people of London were adequate and satisfactory, and to ensure that any lessons from the past had been necessarily learned. I did not surveille the personnel procedures at the palace. I do not think that even the most vehement opponent of mine in the House would have expected me to do so.
David Winnick: Although security is important, is it not also important that people can go about their lawful business? While passing Buckingham palace on my way to the House today, I saw people doing precisely that. Is that not a guarantee of our democracy? We should be very proud that despite all the security precautions, which are obviously necessary, people can go about their everyday business.
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend makes a profound point in terms of both the ability of the household—I made this point in relation to the incident at Windsor—to conduct itself as a family and the ability of people to demonstrate by taking advantage of the freedoms that we built up over the last century. When my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I met the President this morning, there was no doubt whatsoever that the Metropolitan police had rightly allowed those demonstrating to get close enough for the President to hear their messages. If we had not done so, people would have rightly criticised us for being too draconian, as they did with the visit of the President of China. Finding a sensible middle road has to be the way forward if our democracy and freedoms are to be upheld.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As the Home Secretary has ultimate responsibility for these matters, is he entirely satisfied that everyone working in Buckingham palace and all those who will serve tonight at the state banquet have been properly checked and their previous employment records vouched for? Is he completely satisfied that there is no remaining risk?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes I am.
Mr. John Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the review. When such incidents occur, as they do from time to time, they nearly always happen not because the system itself is badly designed, but because an individual within the system has failed to carry out his or her proper responsibilities. Will he assure us that the review will look not just at the design of the security systems, but at the methods that will constantly be in place to check how they are carried out in practice?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can, but I have to respond to the point that my right hon. Friend's question raises. There will always be the potential for human error. That is a simple fact. I want to ensure that the processes of robust
780
checking and managing, and second checking if necessary, do not end up with us taking action against low-level members of staff instead of ensuring that the systems themselves are robust enough to protect us against such eventualities.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: As the Home Secretary is clearly responsible for the security of both the palace and the Metropolitan police, why did he not come to the House to make a statement? Why was it only through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, that you allowed an urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)? Should not the Home Secretary have lived up to his responsibilities?
Mr. Blunkett: I do not know what point the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. When I returned from the palace this morning, I found that more than one Member had tabled an urgent question. I was happy to accept the one from the shadow Home Secretary. Is there any point—
Mr. Alan Duncan: Why did you not volunteer?
Mr. Blunkett: Well, I could have rung the right hon. Gentleman and said, "Would you withdraw your application to the Speaker, and I'll make a statement of my own," but how silly can you get?
Sir Teddy Taylor: As it has been reported in the press that Mr. Parry got his job on the basis of a bogus letter of recommendation, will the Home Secretary say whose task it is to check letters of recommendation? Is it for the police or for the palace authorities to do so? Given that Mr. Parry clearly misled his employers, is any action against him being contemplated?
Mr. Blunkett: I have not addressed the latter issue with the Crown Prosecution Service. On the first question, the task is clearly one for those who undertake the personnel policy and review work.
There is a wider issue on which we can learn a valuable lesson. When people use e-mail and fax, it is much more difficult to ascertain the true nature of the individuals with whom one is dealing and the veracity of the statements made, not least the addresses given. The lesson to be learned by all of us is that one should check. It would have been necessary to check with Companies House to determine whether the individual had been working for a company that existed, or whether the company that had responded by fax or e-mail to the request for information only appeared to exist.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Home Secretary accept that although he was right to point out that on this occasion a terrorist did not get into Buckingham palace, he was wrong to invite us to assume that that could not have happened? Much terrorist activity is committed by people with no criminal record. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reflect further on his answer. He told us that he was willing to take responsibility for the changes that are to

781
take place, but he was careful not to tell us who in the Home Office should take responsibility for the present shambles.
Mr. Blunkett: First, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that I said that that could never happen. Had the security and criminal record checks not been conducted properly, we would clearly have been open to the potential for the individual—in this case, Ryan Parry—to have links with terrorists or to present the danger of committing terrorist attacks. I would accept that in those circumstances, but not in the present case.
Secondly, I have not accepted that an individual in the Home Office failed in their duties. I have indicated that both the security and the criminal record checks were undertaken correctly, but there are major lessons to be learned and we are learning them. That is why the Security Commission is being engaged in the question of employment checks, even though the only check that should have been carried out but was not was related to the individual's previous job and the veracity of the reference given to Mr. Parry. I think that we shall learn the lessons from that.
Mr. Mark Field: I endorse the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), but say to the Home Secretary that there have been concerns not only for the past few hours, but for many days—indeed, many Londoners have been extremely worried by the prospect of armed presidential bodyguards being on the streets of London. We need to know where the buck stops. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give urgent attention to ensuring that we have absolutely clear lines of authority during any future state visit, so that we can fully understand what is going on.
Mr. Blunkett: I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that those lines are absolutely clear. They rest with the head of SO13 and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
To correct a mis-statement by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), there are not 14,000 police deployed; there are 14,000 shifts. There is a big difference between the two in terms of deployment. Contrary to statements made in the press, authorisation has not been given to hundreds of armed officers from the United States; at any one time, about a dozen are authorised to work with the President. We have relied on the good experience and skill of SO13 and our police to do the job. Lines of responsibility and who is responsible have been and will remain absolutely clear. On that basis, I am secure in the knowledge that every step has been taken to protect the people of London and the President of the United States and his entourage.
Mr. Eric Forth: Just for a moment, I thought that we had got the answer on where the buck stopped, but I am left in doubt yet again. Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he is ultimately responsible in this respect, or will he continue to say that someone else is? We really deserve an answer.
782
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Security Commission, but will he consider widening its terms of reference to the Houses of Parliament? I am not sure that we can be satisfied that our own vetting arrangements are any better than those at Buckingham palace. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) said, the main threat is probably not from people with a criminal record, but from people without a criminal record. We must be satisfied that anyone who comes to work on these premises and gets a pass is vetted positively, so that we can be sure that we are beyond danger.
Mr. Blunkett: On the latter point, I acknowledged to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that there was a real issue relating to the Palace of Westminster, and I do not intend to repeat myself.
On the first point, I answered accurately a question on the co-ordination of operational activity and security. It ill-behoves Opposition Members, who constantly chide me for interfering with operational responsibilities, to say that I should interfere in that respect. I have said who has responsibility for co-ordination of security and policing, but the political buck stops with me. I made that clear earlier in my statement, and I am absolutely clear that, constitutionally, that is the case. I cannot be operationally responsible when I am not, but I can be politically responsible when I am, and that is what I have enunciated this afternoon.
Simon Hughes: Given that the Home Secretary has, rightly, accepted that the ultimate responsibility is his, but that there are royal residences and offices in all parts of the United Kingdom, may I take it that one issue that he will take up with the authorities in all those places is that all those who work for the paid members of the royal family, who do a job on behalf of the state, are checked as they go into the building and, if necessary, checked as they come out? Mr. Parry says that he went in and out without anyone checking that he was not carrying something that could have posed a threat. Such checks strike me as a simple measure that should have been in place and certainly should be taken from now on.
Mr. Blunkett: I responded to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) in a similar vein. I agree that there is an issue—that security procedures and vetting in relation to criminal records, no matter how good those procedures are, automatically secure us, and that we do not have to have additional procedures in place, is clearly a flawed presumption. That issue needs to be examined as part of the Security Commission report.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the statement and the commitment that lessons will be learned. Will the Home Secretary assure us that if the inquiry establishes that there was negligence on the part of a responsible officer, the price will be paid? Will he also assure us that the House will not have to wait for the Security Commission's report as long as we in Northern Ireland have been waiting for a report on the serious breaches of security that occurred at Stormont and Castlereagh?
Mr. Blunkett: I note the hon. Gentleman's final point. On his first point, I have already established—it is important to understand this—that the procedures and systems and those operating them will form part of the commission's review with the support of the royal household. Wherever a flaw is found, it will be for those employing the individuals concerned to make the decisions. Because the royal household is involved as part of the procedure, I shall say no more in that respect this afternoon. Under our constitution, the matter is delicate, and despite the requests made on some occasions for the Home Secretary to raise his power and on others to diminish it, I do not intend to get involved in a wrangle about managerial responsibilities. That will have to be defined later.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is clearly in the national interest that security lapses should be discovered and remedied? Does he share my concern that there appear to be a growing number of stunts on airport, aircraft and VIP security, which appear to be motivated as much by generating publicity and increased circulation than by the desire to improve security? If it transpires that the reporter in question misled, in any way, those to whom he was giving information, in order to gain access to the palace, will the Home Secretary invite the police to make investigations to ascertain whether a crime was committed?
Mr. Blunkett: I think that that would form part of the review. I think also that the Crown Prosecution Service, as it does on these occasions, will have to take a view. At this moment, I am more interested in ensuring that we get this right than I am in looking behind the motives of the Daily Mirror.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The Home Secretary has mentioned his desire to protect the right of people to protest peacefully, and mention has been made of the Palace of Westminster. Will he confirm that it was not security considerations surrounding the Palace of Westminster that prevented an invitation from being sent to President Bush inviting him to address both Houses of Parliament? Alternatively, was it fear of peaceful demonstrations by some of his colleagues?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That question is outside the scope of the statement.
Angela Watkinson: Will the Home Secretary explain the inconsistency between the haphazard checks made on a bogus employee in the royal palace and the draconian checks that are made on voluntary organisations such as school governing bodies? For example, I and my school governor colleagues were required to bring our passports to school to demonstrate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That, too, is outside the scope of the statement.
Mr. John Randall: Following on from the good points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), will the Home
784
Secretary say whether the procedures that we have in this Palace are better or worse than those at Buckingham palace?
Mr. Blunkett: I have made it clear that both in terms of security checks and criminal records checks, the palace and the security service SO13 have undertaken their work perfectly reasonably. The issue for those employed in the Palace of Westminster rests not only with the House authorities but with us as employers. I ask the hon. Gentleman and others who have made similar points to check their own personal activity as well as pointing the finger at other people's.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Home Secretary not understand that the simple fact is that someone who should not have gained access to such a private place as Buckingham palace did gain access? Does he not understand the sense of grievance and anger that we feel when double standards appear to apply? Voluntary organisations, such as Hereford and Worcester Dyslexia Association, have to jump through hoops backwards to get people whom they know and trust into employment, yet the Home Secretary cannot safeguard the security of the Queen and the President of the United States of America.
Mr. Blunkett: This silly, worked-up, artificial point shows a failure to grasp that Ryan Parry was put through the same Criminal Records Bureau procedure. I have repeated that, I think, 14 times this afternoon, but when people wish to be deaf, they are deaf.
Mr. Hugo Swire: This is the second time in the past six months that the Home Secretary has had to come to the House to explain away a serious breach involving royal palaces. Nothing that he has said today would lead us to suppose that he will offer his resignation, as the late Lord Whitelaw did after a similar break-in at Buckingham palace in the early 1980s, but I hope that he will take this opportunity to offer a public apology to Her Majesty for embarrassing her, with her visitor from the United States.
That having been said, if the Home Secretary is to investigate the background to Mr. Ryan Parry and the evidence that he produced, will he extend that investigation to the editor of the Daily Mirror and make that part and parcel of any investigation into this new break-in?
Mr. Blunkett: I made it clear in July that I did not think that Willie Whitelaw should have offered his resignation. I did not think that he was responsible for somebody getting into the Queen's bedroom. That is a silly point to make this afternoon. If I were responsible for a failure, I would carry the can for it. I have already said that to a number of Conservative Members, who are desperate to make a party political point out of this matter. If I am not responsible, I will not. If Her Majesty felt that I, or my colleagues, had let her down in any way, I am sure that she would have said so to me this morning when I was given the grace and pleasure of meeting her.
Mr. Adrian Flook: I have been listening carefully to the Home Secretary's answers. I would appreciate it if he could confirm that there will also be a review of security procedures for the granting of a pass for this Palace.
Mr. Blunkett: I have dealt with this point four times now, and I am happy to continue to do so. Although hon. Members often get aggrieved and irritated at the time that it takes for security clearance and the difficulties they themselves sometimes have in getting through without having to present their passes, I am convinced, as is the hon. Gentleman, that we need to keep up our levels of security.

Local Government Finance Settlement 2004–05
1.6 pm
The Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire (Mr. Nick Raynsford): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local authority revenue finance for England in 2004–05.
The provisional settlement that I am announcing today will be the seventh successive one giving an above-inflation increase in funding for local government. It will build on the significant real-terms growth that we have been able to provide since taking office; grants to local government have increased by 29 per cent. in real terms since 1997. That contrasts with a 7 per cent. cut in the last four years of the last Government.
Next year's settlement will see total support from Government grant and business rates of £54.1 billion, which is a cash increase on this year's settlement of £3.3 billion, or 6.5 per cent. The total includes £26.6 billion of revenue support grant, £15 billion in business rates, £4.2 billion in police grant, and £8.3 billion in special and specific grants. Of those totals, £45.8 billion will be distributed by formula to local authorities—an increase of £2.1 billion, or 4.7 per cent.—and I am announcing the detailed allocations today.
In order to provide certainty and stability, and as already announced, we are making no changes to the formula spending share formulae this year. We have made the necessary adaptations to allow combined fire authorities to receive formula grant in their own right.
Floors and ceilings have become an accepted part of the settlement in recent years, and as already announced, we will continue to use this mechanism to set minimum and maximum limits on the percentage increases in grant received by authorities in each year, on a like-for-like basis. This is to ensure that all authorities receive an increase in grant and to avoid sharp short-term fluctuations, which can make forward planning difficult.
For 2004–05, the floor and ceiling for authorities with education and social services responsibilities will be a 3.5 per cent. floor and a 5.8 per cent. ceiling. In some cases, however, authorities will receive more than 5.8 per cent. because we are also guaranteeing that they receive sufficient grant to pass on their schools formula spending share increase in full. For fire authorities, the floor will be 3.5 per cent. and the ceiling, 5 per cent. For both police authorities and shire district councils, we have decided in the interests of stability to set a floor that is close to the average grant increase. These floors are 3.25 per cent. for police authorities and 2.2 per cent. for shire districts. This year, therefore, the floors and ceilings effectively give all authorities in those groups a similar grant increase. As in previous years, we will add to floor or ceiling grant increases any revenue support for new capital allocations issued by the Government.
We have also strengthened the arrangements for schools funding. Our proposals build on those in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the House on 29 October. Schools formula spending share will rise by between 5 per cent. and 6.8 per cent. per pupil in every

787
authority. That means that all authorities will receive an increase in schools FSS that is substantially above inflation, and I reiterate our promise that every authority will receive a matching increase in its formula grant.
The Government's clear expectation is that all authorities should pass the increase on to their schools budgets, other than in wholly exceptional circumstances. We have considered the point put to us by local government that, while it shares our ambitions for schools, it might be difficult to fund them fully because of spending pressures elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has already announced £120 million worth of transitional support in 2004–05 to assist with schools spending pressures.
I can announce that the Government are adding a further £300 million to help fund pressures other than those in respect of schools—for example, to help support social or environmental services. That is included in the overall totals that I have quoted, and it means that local authorities will be able to meet our expectations for funding schools, while also improving other services.
We continue to consider carefully whether Government policies impose new spending burdens on local government, and to make provision to fund them if they do. For example, we have agreed with local government that it would be sensible to rationalise the funding of housing and council tax benefit subsidy. In implementing that transfer of responsibility, we have ensured that all properly made claims will be fully funded. Similarly, in respect of local government's new responsibility for the licensing system. I can confirm the commitment already given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that we will ensure that the costs of the licensing system are fully covered by the fees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will reduce spending pressures on local government by some £25 million to £35 million in respect of waste next year. Some £10 million of that will come from deferring until 2005—06 the introduction of the landfill allowance trading scheme.
Local authorities have pressed us to reduce the use of ring-fencing—that is, restrictions on the use to which Government grants may be put. We recognise that ring-fenced grants have their proper place in securing specific results, particularly as a short-term measure, but they cut across local accountability and can distort local priorities, so we need to review their use very carefully. I can announce today that from 2004–05, we will remove the ring fence from five social services grants and three grants in the environmental, protective and cultural services block—a total of £750 million in 2004–05, and more in subsequent years. Those grants will be distributed separately from formula grant, so as to distribute the money to the right places, but no conditions will attach to their use. The result will be to bring the proportion of grants that are ring-fenced down from 13.3 per cent. to 11.1 per cent. in 2004–05. We are on course to meet our target of reducing that proportion below 10 per cent. by 2005–06.
788
Hon. Members will be aware that the main provisions of the Local Government Act 2003 came into effect yesterday. The Act gives local authorities greater freedom to borrow and trade, and enables authorities to retain income from fees and charges. The new prudential borrowing system, which will start on 1 April 2004, coupled with the other financial freedoms, will help local authorities to organise their financial affairs more flexibly and to generate additional revenue.
All that is important to enable local authorities to budget prudently and minimise demands on council tax payers. We are clear about the fact that the current trend in council tax rises is not sustainable. People expect their local councils to set reasonable council tax. They and we are looking to authorities to deliver high-quality services in a cost-effective way. Against the background of further substantial increases in Government grant, and the extension of freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, large council tax increase are simply not acceptable.
Local authorities should be aware that the Government will examine next year's council tax rises very closely. We will be looking for evidence that authorities have realised efficiency savings. We will take account not only of one year's increases, but of the trend in increases over more than one year. Every local authority, including fire and police authorities, must be in no doubt that we are prepared to use our targeted capping powers in 2004–05, if necessary, to protect the interests of council tax payers.
We recognise that in areas where there is a combined fire authority, next year's budgets will not be comparable with this year's, because the combined fire authority will be a precepting body in its own right for the first time in 2004–05. We will therefore consult the fire authorities and authorities with education and social services responsibilities about the level of earlier years' budgets, which we will use for comparison purposes when we come to consider the use of capping powers.
We are also taking steps to help individual taxpayers directly. Not all those who are entitled to help with their council tax bills are claiming the benefit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is therefore working with local authorities to examine a range of options for promoting council tax benefit and encouraging the take-up of council tax benefit by potential beneficiaries. In particular, we want to ensure that the 1.9 million pensioners who will gain, or gain more, council tax benefit on the introduction of pension credit get the extra help to which they are entitled. My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals shortly.
It is worth recalling the measures that the Government have already taken to help pensioners. Compared with the position in 1997, pensioner households will, on average, be more than £1,250 a year better off in real terms—about £24 extra a week. That is as a result of the Government's measures, including above-inflation rises in the basic state pension, free TV licences for the over-75s, the winter fuel payment and the pension credit. As a result of our measures to target the most help on those in greatest need, the poorest third of pensioners will have gained an average of £1,600 a year in real terms since 1997.

789
The proposed settlement that I have announced today continues the trend of the past six years, which has delivered year-on-year investment increases in local services. In addition to the £3.3 billion extra grant announced today, we have extended the flexibility for councils to deploy resources where they will do most good. We have made the finances of schools more secure, while ensuring that councils retain the ability to tackle other priorities. We have provided a good settlement, on the basis of which local authorities can plan for future improvements in services without unreasonable increases in council tax. Local authorities asked for extra funding, for reductions in ring-fencing, and for no unfunded new burdens. We have responded positively to all three requests. It is now vital that councils meet the expectations of their taxpayers and budget prudently to improve services at a reasonable cost. I commend the settlement to the House.
Mr. David Curry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of a fairly skeletal statement. He and I have spent a considerable part of our career on opposite sides of the same issues, and I look forward to a constructive, intelligent engagement on a subject that matters enormously to millions of our fellow citizens. I am glad of the healing presence of the Deputy Prime Minister, fresh from his new evening job as anger counsellor.
The Minister has been at his mellifluous, Panglossian best this afternoon.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): A bit of class.
Mr. Curry: I always bring a bit of class, and if it hangs around, I hope some of it will rub off.
This time last year, the Minister set out proposals that led to utter, unadulterated chaos. I suspect he saw it coming, but the blundering collision of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—the collision of two bulldozers—left a crater deep enough to bury virtually the entire settlement. It led to confusion and incoherence so complete as to be almost inspirational. It led to the biggest council tax increases for a decade, and a campaign by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Minister for School Standards—the Laurel and Hardy of the Government—to blame everybody but themselves.
The settlement is a panic-stricken and desperate attempt to repair last year's damage. The watermark right through the settlement is panic. [Interruption.] I am glad the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) agrees with me. I accept that the bills for next year will not reproduce the increases that we have seen this year. It is amazing how the imminence of elections can concentrate the mind. However, the mere fact that we do not have another catastrophe is not a virtue in itself. We will see yet again, as we see year after year, an inflation-busting increase in council taxes. Year on year, remorselessly, relentlessly and unremittingly, under this Government, council tax bills soar. Every year, Ministers recite the same old litany and say that the Government's proposals are fair, realistic and even
790
generous. I have the speeches, which are a sort of black Gregorian chant. Each year, however, the inescapable arithmetic reasserts itself—bigger bills or reduced services. [Interruption.] It is very helpful to have been on the Government Benches, as one knows the tricks.
There are things in the statement that I welcome, but they give rise to questions. On the £750 million reduction in ring-fencing, the Minister talked in his statement of payments outside the formula to direct the money to "the right places". Does that mean that the grants must be used in the general sector from which they came, or may they genuinely be applied freely across the range of local government spending? In other words, may earmarked, ring-fenced grants for social services be spent elsewhere?
I welcome the additional funds to help services other than education. Last year, as the Minister will recall, the real crisis was the way in which education spending muscled every other sort of spending out of local government. Yet we all know that there is an historic shortfall in social services funding, and authorities also face the first year of bed-blocking fines, harmonisation of pay costs, mounting charges in care homes, and the cost of the new care standards and developing new arrangements for children's services, to which everybody in the House attaches enormous importance. I want to be reassured that we are not merely moving from catastrophe to disaster and declaring that that is a victory.
What does the Minister mean by the rationalisation of funding of council tax and housing benefit? There is a real problem here, and it is not good enough merely to say that old-age pensioners and people just above benefit level suffer large council tax increases. People on benefits suffer because so many people fall through the net. We know that more than I million potential claimants do not make the claims for which they are eligible.
Mr. Edward Davey: Two million.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman doubles the figure, but that is a Liberal tendency.
It is necessary to make the benefits more accessible and efficient. Help the Aged has produced some extremely sensible proposals, and I am sure that the Minister will want to take them seriously.
I note the deferment of some demands on council waste management requirements. That is welcome, as too many requirements are piling up without being costed. I bet that that was dragged out of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs through clenched teeth and that heels were digging into the earth this morning.
At the heart of the statement was the explicit threat of capping. The Minister appealed to reason. One should beware of Governments when they appeal to reason, but I know just how important that little word "reasonable" is. Indeed, I think that the Government could not function without the concept of reasonableness, which they never define. However, we need to know what is reasonable in this context, as he uttered some serious threats. Is it council tax at inflation, or at twice or three times inflation? is it anything that falls within double

791
figures? Is that what is reasonable in this context? When he says that he will consider the trend over more than one year, does he have an aggregate increase in mind, and if so, over how many years? What level of efficiency gain is he asking local authorities to factor into the equation?
I have a question about the total amount of money available. The Minister announced £54.1 billion in total support from the Government and business rates. The grey book has a projected revenue allocation of £54.5 billion. Are we really facing a settlement that is below forecast? If so, it is below forecast by an amount equivalent to the budget of a London borough.
I have come across a helpful little leaflet headed "National Statistics" and "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister", and called "Local Government Finance—Key Facts", which shows just how draconian Labour's council tax policy has been. It raised £11.24 billion in 1997–98, and it is estimated that it will raise £18.9 billion in the current year. Under Labour, the annual increase in council tax has consistently been three times the rate of inflation. Band D has increased by an average of £413 a year or £8 a week. In London, the band D payment is now more than £1,000 and has increased by 63 per cent. under Labour, so it is no wonder that the Labour party is so anxious to recall Ken Livingstone to the party colours if he can be extracted from his latest demonstration.
We have got used to Labour's pretence that public expenditure can rise painlessly, as borrowing and stealth taxes can take care of it, but the council tax is the tax from which it cannot hide. If I leave a rake on the floor of my tool shed and step on it, it will rear up and smack me in the face. Labour council taxes are that sort of tax; they are straight, up-front, in-your-face, cash-on-the-nail taxes, and as we all know, they hit the worst-off first. There is no escape. When services are delivered by local councils—[Interruption.] Just wait, it's coming. When services are delivered by local councils, every 1 per cent. of increased public expenditure that they have to fund requires a 4 per cent. rise in council tax. Even if the Government were to provide every penny of the increase in aggregate, which never happens, the distribution formulae would require local tax rises.
That is the matrix at the heart of the system, so there is no escape from that stark logic. Public expenditure increases require higher council tax bills. That is not alchemy, accident or miscalculation, but logical necessity. When the Government embark on a massive increase in public expenditure—significantly higher increases than we have seen—
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: He's trying to bring back the poll tax.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) should control his excitement.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is repenting of agreeing with my earlier statement.
When the Government embark on a massive increase in public expenditure, well ahead of inflation and significantly higher than in the past, the bigger bills
792
automatically fall on the council tax payer's mat. It is no wonder that when the Minister's beaming countenance appears on the television screen, the prudent householder's hand moves instinctively to protect her wallet. What is the
Government's response? It is very predictable. We are told that they are going to take council tax out of the new cost of living index.
The Minister makes much of the arrangements for education funding. This year, education funding was the biggest part of the problem. What we saw did not require the insight of a prophet or sage. At its worst and most perverse, we saw authorities such as Barnet and Essex ordered to increase education funding by more than the total increase in the whole Government grant. We also saw a massive increase in tax to keep essential services in place. It was the classic Labour formula of over-promise and under-delivery, followed by a desperate attempt to dispose of the dead bodies that littered the stage.
The price of the educational override that we now have, which was introduced by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, is a system yet more complex, difficult to understand and incapable of taking the additional strain. The poor old Deputy Prime Minister has lost another round to the Education Secretary and is reduced to following the Lord Mayor's show and trying to work out how the bits fit together.
I fear that it will be the humble services that suffer in this settlement, at an average of about 2.2 per cent. for district councils. Pavements, street lights, pothole repairs, recreation and parks are the services that are often the closest to the citizen. This is the settlement that could mark the year when the streets begin to crumble. Of course, if the Minister is right and has paid the penance for last year's catastrophe, there will be rejoicing in the streets, and even the pensioners of Devon will invite him down again to share a grateful libation.
This settlement is quite simply bad news. To use the technical expression—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with it—the citizen has been stuffed. It is bad news for pensioners, for people on low incomes, communities and others. It shows the same old spin, blather, centralisation and panic, and the same old Labour.
Mr. Raynsford: I welcome the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) to his new position and congratulate him on having come back after his wilderness years to head such an enormous team of former shadow Cabinet members. I hope that they are all happy in their new roles.
I, too, look forward to constructive engagement. It was interesting that the right hon. Gentleman's first comment implied that he accepted that council tax increases will not be as high in the coming year as they were last year. That probably indicates that he has been talking to his colleagues in Conservative local authorities, because it was those authorities that made this year's huge council tax increases of 16 per cent. He knows very well that his party was responsible.
The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless say that it was not those councils that were responsible, but the Government, so I should like him to remember the views of his former boss, the right hon. Member for Suffolk,

793
Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who made similar announcements from this Dispatch Box in the 1990s. He took a very simple view on this issue:
"When council tax bills go up, it is because the local authority puts them up. It has the control over them."—[Official Report, 27 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 359.]
Does he believe that his former boss was wrong? If, on the other hand, he accepts that view, I hope that he will tell his local authorities to restrain their council tax increases in the coming year.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon asked a perfectly good, technical question about whether my comment on targeting the grant to the right place implied a different form of ring-fencing. I was referring to geographical location, because a number of such grants are specific and relate to circumstances that apply in some authorities but not others. We will continue to ensure that grants related to deprivation go to the right place—to those authorities that need such help—but, as I made clear in the statement, those grants will be unring-fenced.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about unclaimed council tax benefit and referred to various proposals, including those from Help the Aged, to tackle the problem. We are very conscious of the importance of doing that, and we will look closely at any evidence from Help the Aged and others. Indeed, as I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is actively engaged in that regard. The extension of the pension credit provides an opportunity to ensure that the new, more generous rules bring into entitlement those who previously did not qualify.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the level at which capping might apply. He will know very well that there are two possible approaches to capping: one is to specify a level in advance, which is the approach that his party often used to take when in government; the other is to say, as we do, that it is not right to impose such crude and universal capping. However, as a responsible Government we cannot stand aside if authorities persistently increase council tax by unreasonable levels. That is why we retain our reserve powers, which we will use in circumstances where we believe it necessary to do so. We do not want to use them, and we hope that authorities will budget prudently, but we will if necessary, as I have made clear to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the difference between the figures in the Grey Book and those in the settlement. As he will know from his own experience, it is the result of transfers that sometimes take place. This year, there is a transfer relating to council tax benefit and housing benefit, which in future will be fully reimbursed by the Department for Work and Pensions, rather than requiring a contribution from local authorities, which was supported under the revenue support grant. That explains the discrepancy between the figures.
On band D increases, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he and his colleagues were in government, they used to boast proudly, year on year, that the average band D council tax in Tory authorities was £250 a year less than that in Labour authorities. I
794
bet he has not looked carefully at the recent figures. If he does, he will see that the difference has shrunk virtually to nothing, because of disproportionate increases in Tory authorities. He should certainly talk to his colleagues in local government, in order to advise them that they will incur the ire of the electorate if they go on with disproportionate increases.
On gearing, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that effect is the consequence of the council tax scheme that his Government introduced. Nothing has changed since the scheme was introduced more than 10 years ago. On education, as we have already made clear, we are committed to
improving the position of education authorities to ensure that extra money goes to schools but that other council services will not suffer as a result.
The right hon. Gentleman said that district councils are, as I accept, getting a lesser increase than they got last year. Last year, they got a very good increase, averaging 7.5 per cent., but it is tighter this year. The settlement has a floor of 2.2 per cent., but even so, it is an increase. When his party was in government, district councils used to experience actual cuts in their grant, year on year. I shall remind him of the increases in grant from Government to local authorities between 1994 and 1997, when he was in charge of local government: in 1994–95, 1.1 per cent.; in 1995–96, -0.6 per cent.; in 1996–97, 1.2 per cent.; and in 1997–98, 0.2 per cent. Our settlement guarantees an average increase of 4.7 per cent. and builds on six previous years of increases, so it is pretty cool for him to complain about the level of increase. This Government are funding local authorities, and we expect them to set reasonable council tax increases.
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for that statement, and join him in welcoming the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) to his new position; we look forward to his attacking his own policy on many other occasions. The Minister says that his statement is a good news story for local government. Does he remember saying the very same thing last year? Does he recall that the effect then of that statement was a schools funding crisis and record council tax rises?
Did not the Minister give the game away when. during today's statement, he kept warning councils about their budgets? That was a case of getting his retaliation in first. The truth is that this year's statement is not a good news story for local government either. Many councils, especially those in the shire districts face real-terms cuts because of this low settlement. Is not the timing of the settlement a case of burying bad news under a Bush?
At the heart of the statement is a massive funding gap. Even if the Minister's claim of £300 million extra turns out to be new money, which we very much doubt, does he accept that that will still leave a funding gap of £500 million? Will he confirm that, to fill that gap, authorities will be forced either to hike council tax or to slash services? Will he also admit that the biggest losers in this statement are the police? How can the Government talk tough on antisocial behaviour when they are asking chief constables either to hike council tax precept by 15 per cent. or to cut officers on the front line?

795
Will the Minister concede that the Treasury, unlike the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is assuming an average council tax rise of 7.3 per cent.—nearly three times inflation? How can he wash his hands of council tax rises, given that both he and the Treasury have built an above-inflation council tax rise into their own assumptions? Worse still, in the light of the massive funding gap, is there not a danger of another year of double-digit council tax rises? How can he square that with his stated view that the council tax is at the limit of acceptability?
Given all that, it is surely incumbent on the Minister to be much clearer about his intentions in terms of capping councils. At least we know that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon supports widespread capping: that is what he did when in office—16 times. How does the Minister square his capping threats with Labour's opposition to capping when in opposition? Why did he change his mind? Back in May of this year, he promised not to cap councils rated excellent by the Audit Commission. Why, by August, had he changed his mind again? The Government are in a mess on council tax because they have made this unfair Tory tax even worse, so is not the real answer on council tax to scrap it, not cap it?
On public services, this statement contains many hidden problems. On education, the Government have gone even further down the road of micro-managing every one of England's 21,397 schools. Given that almost every penny of Government support for schools is now ring-fenced, how does the Minister expect local education authorities to manage the £300 million overhang from this year's settlement? How are they expected to deal with their own demand-led spending on special educational needs and school transport? Given that 2,700 rural schools have fewer than 100 pupils, does not this straitjacket settlement imply a massive closure programme and yet another attack on the countryside?
On social services, will the Minister confirm that the settlement will not meet in full authorities' massive cost pressures in respect of services such as fostering and elderly care homes? For shire district councils, the statement looks particularly bad, with the grant for their core services increasing by less than inflation—
something that, when in opposition, the Minister called a cut.
Will the Minister confirm that there is a real-terms cut for services such as recycling, cleaner streets and better lighting? Does not the recycling cut show that the environment remains a low priority for the Government?
The Minister may revel in having the poll tax promoter as Conservative leader and the council-capping champ as Tory local government spokesman, but he must recognise that the past cannot help the council tax payers of today. He knows that the council tax is set to soar again. He knows that the statement will do nothing to stem the seething unrest and unease about the spiteful council tax.
Mr. Raynsford: It is difficult to know what sort of settlement we would need to produce to make the Liberal Democrats happy. For years and years, authorities have had above-inflation increases. Again this year, for the seventh time running, local government is receiving an above-inflation settlement across the
796
board. All authorities with education and social services responsibilities have well above-inflation increases, and districts have a near-inflation increase, after years under the previous Government when they faced cuts year on year. When we produce such settlements, the Liberal Democrats say how terrible it is. It reveals that they are living in a never-never land where money grows on trees and they can clamour for more and more resources without thinking about how to deliver value for money and cost-effective services.
The hon. Gentleman said that our £300 million extra left a £500 million gap. Of course, he has taken the Local Government Association's estimate of £800 million extra spending pressure. He has ignored the £120 million extra education funding, so he cannot do his figures.
Matthew Green: It is not new money.
Mr. Raynsford: It is new money.
First, we can see that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has not got his figures right. Secondly, those LGA estimates are the typical position of the LGA. When we are approaching a settlement, there is negotiation, and obviously it wants to put the biggest possible gloss on the figures that it presents, so it offers some very imprecise spending estimates. It said that there was a £300 million schools overhang—although the full figures will not be available for some considerable time—and £300 million of additional social services pressures. Those are all figures plucked out of the air. There may be some substance to them, but they are not precise. However, the thing that is most telling is that there is no reference in any of the LGA figures to any possibility of cost savings or efficiency gains—none whatever. A 0.5 per cent. efficiency saving is all that would be required to fill the gap between the extra funding that we are putting in and the grand total of the LGA's somewhat inflated claim, so it does not wash.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Treasury was assuming an average council tax rise of about 7 per cent., but I make it clear that it is not an assumption. Every year, the Treasury puts in a figure based on past years' trends, thinking about what council tax rises might be. We do not assume that it will be at that level. We sincerely hope that it will be significantly lower, but obviously, for public expenditure purposes, the Treasury has to make some calculation, and that is the basis of it.
On capping, the hon. Gentleman asked why we have changed our mind in relation to excellent authorities. I have spelled it out on many occasions. We are reluctant to cap, but we cannot stand aside when authorities put up council tax by completely disproportionate amounts. The London borough of Wandsworth increased its council tax by 57 per cent. last year after cutting it by 25 per cent. the previous year—an election year. Few people would justify that increase—not even Conservative Members would justify it. However, had we said that excellent authorities would continue to be free from the risk of capping, that kind of excess would not have been considered, while other authorities with lesser increases might have been subject to capping. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there must be fairness and consistency across all authorities

797
on these matters. I regret the move, but it is inevitable because of the decisions of some irresponsible authorities to up their council tax by more than was necessary.
The hon. Gentleman talks about scrapping the council tax. The Liberal Democrats do so blithely but, as he will know from the questions I have put to him, the implications of introducing a local income tax are far more complex than he and his party suggest, and the administrative costs are likely to be massive. His naive assumption that it can all be done with a saving of £500 million in administration beggars belief.
The hon. Gentleman talks about particular problems of cost pressures on local authorities without talking about the scope for efficiency savings. He talks about more micro-management of schools, but in the past six months we have been working very closely with local government to ensure that effective measures are in place, so that schools get the funding that they want and need, and that local authorities have the means to do that and to fund other services. That is practical work with local government to meet our educational objectives. I am only sorry that he could not welcome that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. May I make a plea for single questions and single answers? Many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. I would like to please as many as possible.
Andrew Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the hard work that he has put into the local government settlement and for his courtesy and patience when he meets representatives from local authorities about individual settlements, but can he remind us how we got into the situation of a regressive council tax? It was a panic measure from the Tories' poll tax. As a result, we are going to continue to have unfairness in local finance. Will he tell us what progress is being made on the local funding review and whether he is satisfied that the increases in VAT that were imposed when the poll tax came in are finding their way to local government?
Mr. Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the preparation of the settlement and our work to build a constructive dialogue and partnership with local government. We will continue to do that. He perfectly properly asked how the council tax has got into the position it has, where there is rising public concern about the level of increases in some areas. As I said earlier, the increases have varied from area to area, and some authorities, particularly Conservative authorities, have a very poor record, introducing large council tax increases in recent years. I hope that they will be much more prudent in the coming year. However, I recognise that there are issues about the council tax. It is precisely for that reason that the Government have initiated the balance of funding review, which he inquired about. That review has been going well. We have held three sessions to date. We have taken a lot of evidence. We
798
have invited submissions and we will move on in the next few months to look at a series of options put to us by people who have submitted evidence to the review.
It is too soon to forecast the outcomes of the review. We certainly intend to look closely at a range of options in an open-minded, thorough and rigorous way, but our objective in the long term is to come up with options that will help to inform conclusions by Government on the right way forward to ensure a sustainable basis for local government funding.
Mr. William Hague: Will the Minister acknowledge that the population estimates on which his allocations are necessarily made are increasingly controversial or even discredited in some parts of the country as a result of serious shortcomings in the 2001 census? In particular, is he aware that the difficulty of estimating the population around the largest Army base in the country at Catterick in North Yorkshire has led the Office for National Statistics seriously to underestimate the population of the district of Richmondshire? Given that the ONS has conceded that it has been in error—it recently made that concession—can he assure me that the figures that he is publishing today take full account of that error, and that if they do not, he will put it right?
Mr. Raynsford: We have been in fairly regular dialogue with local authorities and the ONS about the statistics on which the settlement is based. The ONS has done some further data-matching exercises with both Westminster and Manchester city councils, where particular problems were identified. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of the conclusions from that. The ONS will do further work. It is satisfied that, in general, the census was conducted in a thorough and rigorous way, and in many respects was the best and most comprehensive census yet, but there were issues and we are keen that they should be looked at carefully.
I have already given an assurance that, if the ONS revises its population projections on which the settlement is based, we will make an amending report to ensure that those authorities that lost out as a result of the previous calculation are compensated. It is too soon to do that, but I have given that commitment, and that applies to any authority.
Joyce Quin: I support the broad principles adopted by my right hon. Friend in approaching this issue, but I want to express some frustration that Gateshead, which is an excellent authority, once again seems to have been given the lowest rise of any metropolitan authority in Tyne and Wear. Will he look at the situation, and give a clear explanation of what the problem seems to be?
Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend raised this issue with me last year. She rightly says that Gateshead is an excellent authority with an outstanding reputation for delivering good-value services. I shall certainly take on board her question about why it has a lower provisional settlement than surrounding authorities. I suspect that population factors have a lot to do with that, but I shall look into the matter and write to her.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware that the Treasury has acknowledged that public sector price inflation is currently at 7.8 per cent? Is he convinced that the allocations that he is making to local government—especially to Cheshire and Macclesfield borough council—take that into account? Cost pressures in Cheshire include private sector charges for residential and nursing home care, which have risen by 14 per cent. In addition, bus contracts, which necessarily are a county council responsibility, have risen by between 50 and 60 per cent. How does he justify the allocation of resources in the face of increases that will pose huge problems for responsibly led councils?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will accept that Cheshire has received good settlements both last year and this year. This year's settlement gives it 5.7 per cent. extra. That is almost at the ceiling, well above the average for all authorities, and roughly double the rate of inflation. That is a good settlement, and I hope that Cheshire will be able to work within it. Cheshire is also receiving special and specific grants totalling £29.6 million. I hope that it will use those resources to deliver services efficiently to local residents, as I know the hon. Gentleman wants.
Mr. George Stevenson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the reduction in the ring-fencing percentage applicable to social services, and urge him to continue that process. Will he have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to see whether the same principle can be applied to the standards fund? Finally, we heard an interminable rant from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), but I agreed with him on only one point—the issue of gearing. Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the local government gearing mechanism? It distorts local priorities and disrupts the financial system.
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We are looking at the question of ring-fencing very carefully. I have announced a significant reduction in the current year and made it clear that we are committed to achieving further reductions next year. We will obviously be talking to colleagues in all Departments. I have made it clear that gearing is one of the factors that we are taking into account in the balance of funding review that is considering issues relating to local authority funding. No conclusions are available yet, but we are giving the matter serious attention.
Sir George Young: Counties such as Hampshire will get only the minimum increase of 3.5 per cent. Will the Minister admit that that is a very tough settlement indeed, and that people in Hampshire know whom to blame for this year's inflation-busting increase—the Government and not the county council? Will he assure the House that the 3.5 per cent. floor increase to which he referred will in every case cover the mandatory increase in education spending that the Government are expecting local authorities to pass through?
Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is normally very punctilious about figures, but Hampshire county
800
council will receive an increase of 4.6 per cent., not 3.5 per cent. If he looks at the settlement carefully, he will see that Hampshire county council will get a 4.6 per cent. rise, plus some £52 million in additional specific and special grants. That is a good settlement, and it is in marked contrast to what happened when he was a Minister in the old Department of the Environment. Local authorities then got the level of grants that I set out in my response to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. An increase of 4.6 per cent.—as opposed to increases of 1 per cent. or less, or even a reduction of 0.6 per cent.—looks like a very good deal. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell his council leader to budget prudently within those limits and to deliver the public services that local residents need.
Ms Karen Buck: I welcome the protection for schools in this year's settlement, the continuation of the floor, and the flexibility fund. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that some London authorities face considerable pressure when it comes to providing services, as a result of a rising population, the census undercounting in some areas, the fact that problems with mental health are much more prevalent in London than in other parts of the country, and other difficulties? Will he say how the flexibility fund will be applied? Will he assure me that the pressures and demands of London and of the provision of non-statutory services—such as early-years and youth services—will be given high priority for support?
Mr. Raynsford: The authority that my hon. Friend represents is one of those affected by census figures. Much discussion has taken place between the ONS and Westminster city council about those figures. but Westminster city council benefited from the floor last year. That protected the authority against a serious loss that would otherwise have been incurred, as result of the census figures. I am pleased that this year's figure for Westminster is, at 3.7 per cent., a little above the floor level. The authority is therefore being protected and has received a slight increase this year.
The average increase for London authorities as a whole is 4.7 per cent., exactly in line with the national average. There is no question that London is being treated less favourably than the country as a whole.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Gentleman's competence in this area of public policy is obvious and well-established, but I hope that he understands that his heavy reliance this afternoon on political spin emphasises the worrying nature of the settlement that he has announced. In the past six years, average council taxes in the real world have been two or three times higher than the percentage resource increases announced by Ministers at that Box. When council tax increases of between 9 and 12 per cent. are announced this year, will he consider them reasonable?
Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman was another Minister in a Government that used to announce rather low increases in the local authority settlement of around 1 per cent. in a good year. I am sure that he will accept that that contrasts markedly with

801
Cambridgeshire's grant increase this year of 6.2 per cent., following a record 8.5 per cent. last year. Those are very good increases, which most local authorities would regard as a sound basis for budgeting.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about council tax. We expect all councils to budget prudently and to restrict council tax demands to the lowest possible level. The levels that he is talking about seem to me to be high. We want authorities to provide good-value services in a cost-effective way, and not to impose unreasonable costs on council tax payers.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The previous Government's Local Government Finance Act 1988 put local government finance in a mess for a decade. It caused deprivation in some areas while others had money stuffed down their throats. The redistribution under this Government was slow to start with, but it has accelerated more recently. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is seriously inhibited by the floors and ceilings arrangement? Some authorities do not get resources from other sources, so is it not understandable that they feel obliged to charge high levels of council tax to rectify matters? Should not something he done to overcome the financial problems created by the previous Administration? In that way, authorities that have suffered can begin to put things right.
Finally, can we have a full debate on this topic in future, as 39 minutes of this statement were taken up by Front-Bench spokesmen, before Back-Bench Members were able to contribute?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend accepts that the settlements, both last year and this, have been good for Derbyshire. This year's increase of 6 per cent. follows last year's ceiling settlement of 7.8 per cent.
I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that it is sensible to give local authorities the opportunity to budget with a degree of certainty, and not to make them subject to short-term fluctuations that can be difficult to cope with. That is why we operate floors and ceilings. Floors to protect authorities from steep reductions in their grant entitlement have to be paid for, which is why the ceiling is needed.
We recognise that there is deprivation and other problems that my hon. Friend is well aware of in his area. The changes to the grant distribution formula were designed to reflect some of those needs more accurately. The Government are determined to continue in that way, not only through the grant distribution formula but through special grants. In the current year, Derbyshire is receiving £34 million for special needs, many of which are specifically to do with deprivation. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that such authorities receive decent settlements that enable them to budget prudently and to deliver high-quality services without the need for steep increases in council tax.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister recognise that under this settlement it will be even more difficult to maintain services in districts of large area and small population, particularly in those
802
that last year—for reasons that have still not been explained—got very low settlements of the order of 3 and 4 per cent., such as Alnwick, Berwick and Castle Morpeth? Is he willing to look again at the position of those three districts in Northumberland, the pattern for which was contrary to that of the rest of the county, and to see whether any further help is needed? Castle Morpeth has just had to turn around a major financial difficulty, but it is recognised to be doing so.
Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to look into that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not at present have all the explanations of all the settlements for all authorities. He is right that there were generally very large increases for district councils last year, but that the three councils in his area to which he referred had relatively modest increases. The floor that is in place again this year will protect those authorities and guarantee them increases of at least 2.2 per cent. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased, as I am, that Northumberland county council has a particularly good settlement this year—a 6.2 per cent. increase. I shall look into the issue relating to those district and borough councils, and write to him about the matter.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his continuing success in bearing down on ring-fencing in local government spending and on the success of his discussions with other Departments on the reducing of pressures—in particular, the collection of rubbish through non-implementation of the landfill trading scheme. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that that deferral will coincide with a projected trebling of the landfill tax escalator next year, so that there will be a combination of pressure and a ring-fenced sum of money from local authorities going in that direction? Is his Department looking positively at how local authorities might be able to manage that change, and has that been reflected in this year's settlement?
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and I assure him that we shall continue to do all that we can to bear down on unnecessary ring-fencing and to remove any unfunded pressures from local authorities. My hon. Friend highlighted the changes relating to waste management. The postponement of the landfill allowance trading scheme is simply a postponement; it is not a cancellation. We are putting the scheme back by one year, to allow local authorities more opportunity to prepare and so that they can avoid meeting additional costs that will probably be in the order of £10 million this year. Together with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we are keen that authorities should have the means to achieve the step change that is necessary in waste management to meet our objectives to reduce the use of, and dependence on, landfill and to ensure more sustainable waste disposal systems.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Last year, Derbyshire Dales district council got a very small increase. Most Derbyshire district councils received in

803
excess of £500,000. Derbyshire Dales got an increase of £32,000. What will be the increase for Derbyshire Dales this year?
Mr. Raynsford: The three authorities in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents are Derbyshire county council, which has an increase of 6 per cent.; Derbyshire Dales, which has an increase of 2.2 per cent.—the floor; and Amber Valley, which has a similar increase. Both of the latter councils are protected by the floor, and his county council has a good settlement.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: I welcome the increase in formula grant of almost 6 per cent. for the people of Birmingham. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real challenge now is to spend the money wisely, that all local authorities must recognise that they have a duty to provide cost-effective and efficient services and that wage inflation, in particular at the higher grades, without mass productivity means less money for services and, inevitably, higher council tax levels?
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I, too, am delighted that Birmingham city council will receive a grant increase of 5.9 per cent., following a good settlement of 8 per cent. last year. Birmingham will also benefit from £112 million in special and specific grants designed to help that council meet its responsibilities. As he knows only too well, it has substantial deprivation problems within its boundaries. I wholeheartedly agree that, given a good settlement of that nature, it should be possible for the city council to continue to make progress in improving service delivery and to impose reasonable increases in council tax on Birmingham residents.
Mr. Robert Key: Does the Minister agree that the only winner in this miserable settlement is the Treasury? As far as the hard-pressed taxpayers of Wiltshire and Salisbury are concerned, this annual charade is bringing both central and local government into disrepute. It does not really matter whether one has rates, poll tax, council tax or local income tax, so long as the Government refuse to acknowledge the need for a fair contract between them and taxpayers at local level showing where the burden falls, rather than the present system under which duties are imposed that local authorities have to meet when they have little freedom of movement. Until a new system introduces such fairness, we shall continue to have an annual charade in which people have little faith.
Mr. Raynsford: The only charade that I see is the extraordinary spectacle of former Ministers in a Government who could offer increases of only about 1 per cent. at best complaining about increases that would have been beyond those authorities' wildest dreams when that Government were in power. That is a bit rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, given that last year Wiltshire had the largest grant increase of any county, 8.9 per cent., and will this year receive a further 5.9 per cent. increase—on the ceiling. Those are very good increases—far beyond what Wiltshire would have had from the Government whom the hon. Gentleman represented.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Not only the Liberal Democrats but the Tories seem to believe that money grows on trees, especially when a Labour Government are in power. Last year, under the Tory council, East Sussex had a 20 per cent. increase in council tax, which is wholly unacceptable. At what level will my right hon. Friend tell East Sussex Tories that enough is enough?
Mr. Raynsford: I have made it clear in my remarks to local government representatives at various conferences recently, and I make it clear again today, that we take a dim view of authorities that increase their council tax by more than is absolutely necessary to maintain good quality services. We expect them to do much better than the very large increases that a number, including East Sussex, imposed last year. East Sussex has a grant increase of 4.5 per cent. in this settlement, which is a significant increase on last year's settlement. I hope that it will use it prudently. It also has about £32 million in special and specific grant, some of which I hope is destined for my hon. Friend's constituency, which has special problems in the county. I hope that East Sussex,
which is improving its social services significantly—that is welcome—will continue to deliver and improve services, and will do so cost effectively with much-reduced demands in the coming year compared with last year.
Mr. Mark Francois: Will the Minister confirm that for those shire districts that have received the minimum floor of 2.2 per cent., the settlement is effectively a real-terms cut given the current rate of inflation? Does he also accept that wherever one puts the floors and ceilings for any authority, the amount of money that it ultimately deserves from the Government is largely determined by the grant formula itself? Surely the Government need to revise the new grant formula spending share that they have come up with so that it does not unfairly penalise those authorities in the home counties that are suffering because Labour has deliberately moved resources to assist its friends in the north.
Mr. Raynsford: I find it slightly odd that, given that Essex county council is receiving an increase of 5.5 per cent—an above-average increase—in a year when the overall increase is 4.7 per cent., the hon. Gentleman complains that money is going north. It is not. Essex is getting more than the national average. People in the north, including some of my hon. Friends, whose settlements are rather lower, have good reason to complain that money is going south.
Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that there will be an amending order where census figures have been revised and, as he is aware, the city of Manchester has already had such a revision accepted. However, notwithstanding the amending orders, there is also a cumulative effect, from the ceilings in previous years and other factors, on the next year and succeeding years. Can my right hon. Friend give the House a guarantee that in census-affected local authorities such as Manchester every penny will be restored, not just one year's money?
Mr. Raynsford: I know that there have been special issues in Manchester relating to the census. I referred to

805
them in answer to an earlier question, when I made it clear that we will be prepared to issue an amending report once the Office for National Statistics has completed its investigations. If its figures suggest that there should be increased population figures for certain authorities, we shall issue that report.
Manchester has a good settlement this year: an increase of 5.8 per cent. on top of last year's figure of 6.5 per cent. In addition to the overall settlement, £66.5 million of special grant is going to Manchester, to reflect the particular needs of the community. That is a good settlement and we shall continue to work closely with Manchester city council, which is doing very good work indeed to tackle the problems in its area, to ensure that it continues to improve services cost-effectively.
Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister allow councils to pay a housing-related supplement to teachers in high-cost areas where recruitment and retention are difficult or impossible?
Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman comes from an area that has benefited from substantial increases in grants. Wokingham received an 8.4 per cent. increase last year and will receive a 5.8 per cent. increase this year. West Berkshire, too, had large increases last year and this year. Those settlements reflect the extra money that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is putting in to meet education needs. In addition, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham knows well, through schemes such as the starter homes initiative we are helping to provide good quality, value-for-money homes for people in key services, such as teaching, to enable them to have low-cost home ownership options in areas where, as he rightly points out, prices are relatively high.
Mr. David Kidney: My right hon. Friend mentioned the transitional funding of £120 million in the education settlement that will be targeted on about one third of local authorities—although, sadly, not the third that are currently at the bottom of the funding league table. He said that there would be £300 million to
806
fund pressures other than those relating to schools. Can he tell us whether any of that will deliberately, as a matter of policy, be directed to the poorest authorities?
Mr. Raynsford: That money is being put into the general settlement, so it is not targeted as such. I distinguished between special and specific grants, which are targeted on particular areas, and the general settlement, which is distributed according to the formula. The additional £300 million will go into the formula to ensure that it can be distributed according to various indicators of need—including, obviously, deprivation. I am pleased to say that Staffordshire is receiving a 5.4 per cent. increase in its grant, which is above average, against the national average of 4.7 per cent. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that.
Mr. Owen Paterson: By what percentage will the costs of local government increase due to statutory demands imposed by central Government?
Mr. Raynsford: As I said in the statement, we have adopted an extremely rigorous new burdens doctrine, which requires any additional burdens imposed by central Government on local authorities to be fully funded. That is why I was able to say that we are making a number of changes to ensure that authorities have the means to meet their responsibilities; we are not putting additional burdens on them without those burdens being funded. I gave specific examples in my statement and also indicated how in other matters, such as waste management, where local authorities said that they would have difficulty in meeting their obligations, we have taken action, which I announced this afternoon, to ease those pressures.
Those are the actions of a Government who are determined to ensure that local authorities have the means to meet their obligations and to do so without unreasonable council tax increases.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now proceed. I allowed the statement to overrun to permit a slightly more equal amount of time between Back Benchers and Front Benchers, and I hope that Front Benchers will take note.

Points of Order
2.15 pm
Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask that the names of those of us who did not manage to catch your eye this afternoon might be gently remembered when we debate the local government settlement in due course?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Absolutely. We shall certainly do our best to bear that in mind. I appreciate that many hon. Members in the Chamber were disappointed this afternoon.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister informed the House that trade between the United Kingdom and the United States was £2 billion a year. During Prime Minister's questions, he revised the figure from £2 billion a year to £2,000 billion a year. As neither figure is correct, will Mr. Speaker be asking the Prime Minister to return to the Chamber to correct the record?
Mr. Eric Forth: Yes, he must—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker will have heard and will no doubt read the comments, but he is not responsible for the answers of any individual Minister in the House.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now that George Bush runs the foreign policy of this Government, why is he not coming to the House to make a statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

BILL PRESENTED
  CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN (ABOLITION)
  Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Mr. Hilton Dawson, Julie Morgan, Jane Griffiths, Dr. Rudi Vis, Geraint Davies, Mr. Paul Burstow, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Dr. Richard Taylor, presented a Bill to amend the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to remove any existing defence which justifies the corporal punishment of children and to give children the same protection as adults under the law on assault: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 185].

  First Aid Training in Schools
  2.17 pm
  Bob Russell: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require first aid training to be given to children in schools as part of the National Curriculum.
  The Bill would save many hundreds of lives every year, produce annual savings to the national health service of hundreds of millions of pounds and result in a better quality of life for all age groups throughout the land. It is a modest Bill with anything but a modest outcome: lives saved; money saved. Whatever the cost of providing first-aid training in schools, it would be petty cash compared with the huge financial dividend that would be generated for the public purse and it would save lives every day.
  I acknowledge that teachers have a heavy work load and that many people in education feel that the national curriculum is already over-burdened. However, my Bill would not add to the burden of individual teachers unless they were already qualified first-ciders, because first-aid training would be undertaken by qualified first-aiders drawn from wider society, primarily volunteer members of St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross. I pay tribute to both organisations and to other voluntary groups that provide first-aid cover at a wide range of events, many of which would not take place if their organisers could not afford to buy in medical cover.
  First-aid groups could do with more volunteers. Over time, my Bill would create a large pool of qualified first-aiders from which, it is hoped, many would become volunteers with St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross. In the short term, it is possible that there may be insufficient qualified first-aiders to train every child in school, so I realize that it may be necessary for the Bill's implementation to be phased, but the sooner the better in as many schools as it is possible to recruit qualified first-aiders to commence training.
  My Bill sets out the framework. The precise details of implementation will emerge as a result of consultation with all the relevant bodies, including such considerations as what should be taught at what age group, the frequency of the training and so on. Today I am talking about the principle of the Bill.
  I am grateful to St. John Ambulance, whose personnel have helped me to prepare my Bill. It believes that everyone should have life-saving skills, and it stresses that that could be achieved over time if everyone learned first aid at school. St. John says that currently fewer than 10 per cent. of schoolchildren in England are taught first aid—in many cases by teachers who have been trained by St. John, using materials provided by St. John Ambulance. That training, however, is purely at the discretion of the school and there is no obligation to provide first-aid training. My Bill would make it a requirement.
  What I propose is not revolutionary. There are already aspects of the national curriculum in England that enable schools to teach first aid. St. John Ambulance's young lifesaver award links to the personal, social and health education syllabuses at both key stages 2 and 3, and to the citizenship syllabuses for

  809
  key stages 3 and 4. The most direct link is probably with key stage 3, at which pupils should be taught basic emergency aid procedures and where to get help and support. That is better than nothing, but just think how much better it would be for all concerned if all children were taught first aid throughout their school years, starting as young as five, when they might learn how to react to a nosebleed, and continuing through to their early teens, when resuscitation could be accomplished.
  The national healthy school standard says that, as a minimum, a school should provide opportunities for all pupils to develop health skills in relation to first aid. My Bill would take that concept forward and make it a requirement.
  I am delighted to inform the House that in my constituency the Thomas Lord Audley school and language college has proposals, announced only last week, to establish a first aid club. Students would aim to get a recognised certificate from either the Red Cross or St. John Ambulance. It is felt that
  "students will feel empowered, capable, confident, safety aware (especially when working in workshops)".
  It is also felt that the training would relate to existing curriculum subjects, ranging from modular science to food technology and from biology to physical education.
  That school can see the wider benefits that first-aid training produces. If every school had first-aid training as part of the national curriculum, the benefits to the nation would be immense. Mr. Mark Allan of Colchester St. John Ambulance told me that
  "first aid training gives young people life skills and confidence, making them better citizens".
  St. John Ambulance nationally trains 250,000 people every year in first-aid skills. Free first-aid training has been offered to teachers in the past. Each year, a number of schools at primary and secondary levels participate in the St. John Ambulance national schools first aid competition. Thus the concept of first-aid training in schools is not new.
  I opened my speech by saying that hundreds of deaths could be prevented each year if qualified first-aiders were able to intervene. St. John Ambulance goes further and says that thousands of deaths could be prevented. Indeed, research has shown that perhaps 1,000 people a year who currently die as a result of injuries sustained in road crashes would be saved if first aid were applied before the arrival of paramedics. It is considered that a significant proportion of the 300,000 people who die from heart attacks would have a much-increased chance of survival if first aid could be applied at an early stage.
  Alongside the important saving of lives, first-aid training would also reduce visits to overstretched accident and emergency departments by people whose injuries did not warrant hospital attention, and likewise reduce visits to doctors' surgeries if a qualified first-aider could more easily and more quickly deal with such minor matters at home or at their place of work. A pack of frozen peas placed on a sprained ankle is more appropriate than sitting in an A and E department for hours—a fact confirmed to me by family doctor Chris Hall, the current mayor of Colchester.
  810
  St. John Ambulance has made the following statement:
  "Apart from the obvious benefit of equipping children with lifesaving skills, first aid training in schools has other positive effects. The training promotes good citizenship. It also raises awareness of accident prevention issues as well as equipping pupils with the skills to be able to cope with accident and emergency situations should these arise, making the school environment a safer place and building confidence in young people."
  I would go further and say that first-aid training in schools from an early age would make children more aware of what makes their body work—what is good for it and what is bad for it. Obesity is a growing problem, literally, with the number of obese children increasing every year and more children suffering from diabetes as a consequence. Asthma is also on the increase. Today's young people are, collectively, less fit than their parents and grandparents were at the same age. For the first time in 100 years, we are looking at the prospect of falling life expectancy. A medical time-bomb is ticking away. Unless urgent action is taken, today's schoolchildren will suffer heart, mobility and breathing problems at an earlier age than is currently the case, throwing ever more burdens on the national health service.
  If youngsters were involved in first-aid training as part of the national curriculum, it would make them more aware of the need for healthy food and healthy lifestyles. It would hopefully discourage involvement with illegal drugs, smoking and binge drinking. It would certainly lead to greater personal awareness—social inclusion would be achieved.
  My Bill is all about saving lives and improving the lives of today's children. I commend it to the House.
  12.25 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: This is one of those occasions when a Bill sounds good and looks good and, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is praying for it, how could one possibly resist it? Well, I will do my best, because I have been round this track many times in a former existence.
  The school curriculum is a precious and valuable thing. It defines in broad terms the resources available to our schools and to our teachers, and it forces on us priorities in education, which is a very good thing. We are talking about deciding how we allocate chalk time, if I may put it that way, because there are so many demands on the time and skills of our schools and our teachers.
  I hope it goes without saying that we all agree that the maximum priority should be given in classrooms to giving our young people the fundamentals of the skills that they will need for their lives and their jobs—reading, writing and numbers are the obvious ones. I hope that history, geography and physical education would still be included in that list. Once one gets any way beyond that basic list, one runs into real difficulties and challenges about the allocation of educational time. In fact, many would argue—I am probably one of them—that until we can demonstrate that every young person of school age has fully mastered those basic skills of reading, writing, numbers and communication, we should not allow ourselves to be tempted to bring in further such material to challenge them for school and classroom time, yet that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman's Bill seeks to do.

  811
  I have heard many claims made over many years for other matters to be imported into the curriculum, and many of them are indeed of great value. Environmental awareness, civics and road safety would all contribute very substantially to young people's lifestyles, and, indeed, life expectancy. I would add another one, which has some relevance to the hon. Gentleman's argument—safety in the home. He argued that many lives could be saved by the measures that he outlined. I doubt that. I would argue that as many lives could be saved if we taught safety in the home. Many deaths are caused by accidents in the home, which could be avoided and certainly reduced if we were to spend time in our schools and classrooms teaching young people about safety in the home.
  This is not an uncompetitive business. At any time there are well-meaning people who argue, for very good reasons, that their subject should get priority within the national curriculum—that what they want to see imparted should be imparted to our young people in competition, because it inevitably is in competition, with the basics of reading, writing and number work. That is the first problem that we must resolve in our minds.
  The next problem is a more practical one, and the hon. Gentleman, in fairness to him, was honest enough to admit it: whether we can identify a sufficient number of people within education to impart these skills to our school pupils. He generously conceded that that was not the case.
  Again, one immediately runs into the problems of allocation and prioritisation because we would have to decide which age group, which class or, indeed, which school would get the benefit of what the hon. Gentleman claims before the others did so. He did not say how long it would take for the cumulative process for which he argued to come to fruition and to spread the benefits that he claimed for that type of education to all pupils.
  I suppose that the next question that we have to ask ourselves is at what point does perhaps a very young person who has received an element of first-aid training become remotely competent to give emergency treatment to someone who is suffering in some way or another? I must say that I am nervous about the thought of young, partially trained people believing that they can do good to someone who is in medical difficulty, given the possibility, at the very least, that that could make things worse, not better. That must surely be a very distinct risk.
  In an ideal world, if every pupil could be made fully competent in first aid, perhaps the outcome that the hon. Gentleman argued for might be achieved, but I am not sure that we could achieve that outcome, even if we had a complete set of qualified teachers and all the classroom and educational time in the world. My fear is that, if we fell short of that, there would be a danger of the Bill being harmful, rather than beneficial.
  The hon. Gentleman said, rather charmingly, in a rather Liberal Democrat sort of way, that the details of all this will emerge. In other words, yet again, we are being asked to sign a Liberal Democrat blank cheque: "Let's legislate now, because it sounds good, and let's not worry about the details because someone else will fill
  812
  them in." That is simply not good enough. An hon. Member cannot come to the House and say, "I've got a jolly good"—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. Too much conversation is going on in the Chamber.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your help, but I am usually up to it.
  With such a complex matter, an hon. Member cannot simply say, "Here's a Bill. It sounds good. Sign up to it, and don't worry; we'll fill in the details later." That is simply not enough for a number of reasons, not least that it was not made at all clear whether gaining the alleged benefits of such education would be voluntary or compulsory. Even for the transitional phase—starting from when we have not enough qualified people, as the hon. Gentleman admitted, to some unspecified time in the future when we may—we were not told whether it would be voluntary or compulsory for our young people to learn such skills in the interim.
  Nor was any mention made of the additional costs. Even if one were to assume that there would be no increase in the number of teachers or in the requirement for classrooms, what about the equipment and materials that would undoubtedly be required properly to impart such information to generations of young people? There must surely be a cost and a budget implication, but again—perhaps to no one's surprise—that was not mentioned at all.
  The hon. Gentleman implied that just petty cash—I think that those were his words—would be involved and that, given the enormity of the education budget, if we merely slip in something else no one will notice. He should tell that to school governors, teachers and parents, because I am sure that they would need much more convincing than he has been able to impart today.
  So, all in all, the Bill is well meaning—that is true—and its heart is in the right place, but I fear that, as with so many other such measures, it has been introduced simply in hope rather than expectation. If the House is to take such things seriously, I suggest that, if it wills the Bill, it should then find ways to will the means in terms not just of money, but of classroom time and educational priorities. That is the only responsible way in which one can approach such a Bill. I hope that the House will be responsible and that it will join me in saying—sadly, with regret—no to the Bill today.
  Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Bob Russell, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Annette L. Brooke, Sandra Gidley, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Lady Hermon, Kate Hoey, Mr. Alan Hurst, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Simon Thomas, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Angela Watkinson.
  FIRST AID TRAINING IN SCHOOLS
  Bob Russell accordingly presented a Bill to require first aid training to be given to children in schools as part of the national curriculum: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 186].

  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7th May 2003—
  Consideration of Lords Amendments

  Proceedings on a motion to disagree with Lords Amendment No.1 shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments at this day's sitting;

  Remaining proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

  Subsequent stages

  Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.

  The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Gillian
  Merron.]

  The House proceeded to a Division.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.
  The House having divided: Ayes 380, Noes 210.
  Division No. 380] [2.35 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Allen, Graham

  E)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Browne, Desmond

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bryant, Chris

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Austin, John

  Burden, Richard

  Bailey, Adrian

  Burgon, Colin

  Baird, Vera

  Burnham, Andy

  Banks, Tony

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Barnes, Harry

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cairns, David

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Caplin, Ivor

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Casale, Roger

  Bell, Stuart

  Caton, Martin

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Challen, Colin

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Berry, Roger

  Chaytor, David

  Best, Harold

  Clapham, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Blair, rh Tony

  Pentlands)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Blunkett, rh David

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Chryston)

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Clelland, David

  814

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hanson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cohen, Harry

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Coleman, Iain

  Rhymney)

  Colman, Tony

  Healey, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cousins, Jim

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Cranston, Ross

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Crausby, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  (Copeland)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Sefton E)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  David, Wayne

  Urmston)

  Davidson, Ian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hutton, rh John

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Denham, rh John

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Highgate)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jamieson, David

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jenkins, Brian

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Doran, Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Hatfield)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Efford, Clive

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Farrelly, Paul

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Fisher, Mark

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Flint, Caroline

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Kidney, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, rh Derek

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Foulkes, rh George

  Bow)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Gardiner, Barry

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Lammy, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Goggins, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Grogan, John

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Linton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Love, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  815

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rammell, Bill

  McCabe, Stephen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  MacDonald, Calurn

  Bellshill)

  McDonnell, John

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  McFall, John

  Anniesland)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  McIsaac, Shona

  NW)

  McKechin, Ann

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Rooney, Terry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McNulty, Tony

  Ruane, Chris

  MacShane, Denis

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McWalter, Tony

  Chester)

  McWilliam, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Salter, Martin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mallaber, Judy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Sawford, Phil

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Sheridan, Jim

  Shettleston)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Short, rh Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Singh, Marsha

  Michael, rh Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Mole, Chris

  Southworth, Helen

  Moran, Margaret

  Spellar, rh John

  Morgan, Julie

  Squire, Rachel

  Morley, Elliot

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mountford, Kali

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Mullin, Chris

  Lochaber)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Straw, rh Jack

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Olner, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Organ, Diana

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Perham, Linda

  Timms, Stephen

  Picking, Anne

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Plaskitt, James

  Trickett, Jon

  Pollard, Kerry

  Truswell, Paul

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Pound, Stephen

  Kemptown)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prescott, rh John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Purnell, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  816

  Ward, Claire

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Woodward, Shaun

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Watts, David

  wray, James (Glasgow

  Whilte Brain

  Baillieston)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Yarmouth)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wilson, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  C)

  Ms Bridget Prentice

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Allan, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Amess, David

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Westminster)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Flight, Howard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Flook, Adrian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Bacon, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Baker, Norman

  Francois, Mark

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Barker, Gregory

  Garnier, Edward

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Barrett, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Goodman, Paul

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Bercow, John

  Grayling, Chris

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Boswell, Tim

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gummer, rh John

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Hague, rh William

  Surrey)

  Hancock, Mike

  Brady, Graham

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Abingdon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Harvey, Nick

  Breed, Colin

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Heald, Oliver

  Burnett, John

  Heath, David

  Burns, Simon

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Burstow, Paul

  Hendry, Charles

  Burt, Alistair

  Hermon, Lady

  Butterfill, John

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Cameron, David

  Howard, rh Michael

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cash, William

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Jack, rh Michael

  Barnet)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chidgey, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chope, Christopher

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Clappison, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Keetch, Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Collins, Tim

  Inverness)

  Conway, Derek

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cotter, Brian

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Curry, rh David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Lamb, Norman

  Stamford)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Doughty, Sue

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Evans, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  817

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

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

  Loughton, Tim

  Kincardine)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  Maclean, rh David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Maples, John

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Steen, Anthony

  Atcham)

  Streeter, Gary

  Mates, Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maude, rh Francis

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Coldfield)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Norman, Archie

  Teather, Sarah

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Thurso, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Trimble, rh David

  Paice, James

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Viggers, Peter

  Dinefwr)

  Walter, Robert

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Watkinson, Angela

  Randall, John

  Weir, Michael

  Redwood, rh John

  Whittingdale, John

  Rendel, David

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wiggin, Bill

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Wilkinson, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Willetts, David

  M-Kent)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Ruffley, David

  (Macclesfield)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wishart, Pete

  Salmond, Alex

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Young, rh Sir George

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Selous, Andrew

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Simmonds, Mark

  Mr. David Wilshire

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 77, 78, 90, 217 and 218, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1

  NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTS
  Lords amendment: No. 1, leave out clause 1.
  2.53 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, Lords amendment No. 4 and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) to the words restored, Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 55, Lords amendment No. 56 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 57 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 58, Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64, Lords amendment No. 161 and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendments (a) to (bb) to the words restored, Lords amendments Nos. 162 to 193 and 227, and the Government motions to disagree to Lords amendments Nos. 5, 26, 28 and 29.
  Dr. Reid: Lords amendment No. 1 would leave out clause 1. Let me put it simply: it attempts to wreck the Bill that has been sent from this House.
  The Bill represents the next important stage in improving and revitalising our national health service. Let me make it plain right from the start that, to Labour Members, that means a national health service built on the founding principle that everyone in this country should have equal access to health care free at the point of delivery—a principle that will be defended and protected as long as this Government are in power.
  Already over the past few years—and, indeed, into the next few years—the Government are making the largest-ever investment and largest-ever injection of finance into the national health service. That is not for one, two or three years, but for five years. Simultaneously, we have improved and will continue to improve and modernise the national health service, reforming the way in which health care is delivered in this country to the benefit of patients. This is already bringing significant results in health care. All the main indicators of waiting times are now lower than they were in 1997, when we inherited an under-invested and impoverished health service from the previous Government.

  819
  For instance, deaths from our two biggest killers are down dramatically. Deaths from cancer are down 10 per cent. in the last few years and death from heart disease are down by no less than 19 per cent.—a dramatic and
  significant reduction in the scandalous figures that we inherited. In addition, what we have already done can be seen by the additional 55,000 nurses and 14,000 doctors and by the largest building programme in the history of the national health service.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real changes in cancer services have come from the 34 cancer networks that have been involved with patients and right through to doctors, pharmacists and so on? The networks have crossed institutional barriers and they are on their way now. Any interference with that would destroy much of the solidarity that has been built up among many of the work force in the health service.
  Dr. Reid: I agree and pay tribute to that. Nothing we are suggesting today would cut across that. My hon. Friend points out the efforts that have been made and the results that the cancer networks have achieved. Without undue immodesty, I think that we are able to claim as a Government that the results are at least partly due to the extra £570 million a year for cancer services and the 30 per cent. increase in the number of consultants since we took office. There are 900 more cancer consultants, so we already bringing about significant benefits to patients. I believe that that is a significant start, but it is not enough. It is not nearly enough to bring the quality of care that those who depend on the national health service should have.
  We said in our last manifesto, which we placed before the people of this country, that decentralisation of power to front-line staff is an essential part of the future national health service. It is an integral part of giving patients the power, the information, the quality of service and the degree of choice that they expect from their national health service today and that has hitherto been available only to those rich enough to buy quality, quick access, sensitivity and personal health care outside the national health service.
  The Opposition in the other place have completely rejected the principle of handing power in the national health service to front-line staff. In doing so, they have gone far beyond long-established practice. Lords amendment No. 1 and Lords amendment No. 161, which would leave out schedule 1. are not revising amendments; they are wrecking amendments. The Government are proposing to accept the vast majority of the revising amendments agreed in the other place, but the main question before us today is not about sensible scrutiny but about whether the Tories and Liberals, in the main in the upper House, will succeed in overturning the majority will of the House of Commons.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: My right hon. Friend refers to long-established practice. I have been a member of the Labour party for many years and it has been long-established practice to develop policy within the party—at constituency and conference level—but
  we have not had that with this issue. We have not had Green Papers, White Papers or any consideration at all. There has been no scrutiny at all of this issue in the
  820
  Commons. In view of the way in which this matter has been treated in the Commons, is it not unreasonable to suggest that somehow the Lords have behaved unconstitutionally?
  Dr. Reid: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend meant this, but I would not, with due respect to the other place, ever draw comparison between our democratic methods inside the Labour party and the inherited privilege vested in the other place. He will have noticed that I voted—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I voted for abolition. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have got another thing wrong.
  I would not draw such an invidious comparison, but the other place has gone totally against the central element in clause 1. It has not refined or amended it, and that central principle has been the subject of debate and controversy and the Commons has decided on the matter after that debate and controversy. If that principle is rejected, it will go far beyond anything that we have been prepared to tolerate, even from an unelected second Chamber.
  3 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: For clarification, will the right hon. Gentleman set out whether there was a specific pledge in the Labour manifesto about foundation hospitals?
  Dr. Reid: There was a specific pledge in the Labour party manifesto to decentralise power to the frontline of the national health service. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in, and deeply committed to, the process inside the Labour party. We know that the Conservative party has extremely democratic ways of making policy—and choosing leaders, incidentally. The way in which leaders emerge in the Conservative party is paralleled only by the selection of the Chinese leadership.
  At least my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has a deep interest in, and commitment to, a democratic discussion of such matters. If he is asking me whether I think, in retrospect, that we could have discussed the process better and more widely, the answer is yes. Therefore, I hope that the fact that our party and Government are about to embark on perhaps the widest consultation that we have ever undertaken is an indication that we have learned some lessons from the process. However, we are judging today not only the process but the merits of the case and the pledge that we made in our manifesto. That is what I am putting to the House today and I hope to receive support from the Government Benches.
  Lynne Jones: What will be the impact on national patient booking systems, electronic patient records and electronic prescribing if foundation trusts are able to opt out of national NHS information technology systems?
  Dr. Reid: There is no indication whatsoever that any hospital with or without foundation status would benefit from doing that. It is possible for people to jump off Tower bridge—all things are theoretically possible—but there is not one shred of evidence that there would

  821
  be any incentive to opt out of what will be, by any standards, the biggest ever IT project. Indeed, the introduction of the project will mean that for the first time in history patients inside the NHS will not be referred to a hospital by their doctor and told to go home and wait for instructions on when and where to attend, without any consultation with them. The IT system that we are introducing will, from December 2005, not only allow for consultation with patients so that they have an option of which hospital to attend, but allow them to book online. Such a quality service has previously been commandeered only by the rich of this country, but we shall extend it to people who are dependent on the NHS.
  Mr. John Redwood rose—
  Mr. Tim Yeo rose—
  Dr. Reid: I shall give way, democratically, to the right hon. Gentleman on the Back Benches first.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of the freedoms that he will grant to foundation hospitals he thinks they will use, and how will that improve things?
  Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. I was in Birmingham recently, and I commend the authority and the hospital that I visited. It had managed to build two new wards with 80 beds to assist people in that area. The building process took five months from start to finish, but the consultation process to get permission for the building took not five months but 10 times five months. A local national health service will be able to take such a decision locally, thus increasing efficiency and delivering a better quality of service than before.
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell rose—
  Mr. Yeo rose—
  Dr. Reid: I shall go for seniority this time and give way to the Front-Bench spokesman.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way because my intervention is entirely helpful to him. I appreciate that he has been quite busy recently, so he might not have had time to study in detail the Bill and the proceedings during its passage through both Houses of Parliament. To help him to respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), the Bill does not give foundation trusts the power to opt out of the incoming IT system. The Secretary of State was clearly unaware of that point.
  Dr. Reid: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new post, in which he will spend half his time on the national health service. If he thinks that I have difficulty coping with it, it is no doubt a sign of his innate capacity to think about and embrace larger subjects than anyone else that he is able to cope with health and education. It is an illustration of the Conservative party's priorities
  822
  that it has appointed half a shadow Minister for education and half a shadow Minister for health, but two chairmen have been appointed to sort out the party.
  The whole point of passing down power to hospitals with foundation status is to give them greater freedom to respond quickly to the needs and ambitions of today's patients.
  Mr. Dorrell rose—
  Dr. Reid: I shall make a little progress before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman because I want to respond to the helpful intervention by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). I fully understand why the Conservatives are opposing our plans. It is not because they want to improve the national health service more than us, because that is one of the great promises—such as, "I will love you all the more for it in the morning", or, "I'm a Conservative and I love the health service more than you do"—that we have come to look at askance. They oppose the plans because they are frightened of the political consequences of the improvements. [Laughter.] I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his predecessor, who has gone on to become one of the two chairmen of the Conservative party, put that in explicit four-letter terms. He said that if we managed to carry out the improvements, the Conservative party's plans to run down the national health service would be flummoxed—I think that that was the word that he used. That is true, so the Tories oppose the measure because they know that as we succeed in improving the NHS, their attempts to undermine and attack it will have less effect. Their policy of cutting investment and attacking equality of access to health services will fail. Just as they opposed the formation of the national health service, they now oppose the reformation of our national health service because it stands for everything in which they do not believe. The reforms stand in the way of their alternative plan: to force people toward the private sector.
  Mr. Dorrell: Rather than knocking down paper tigers and talking about why we oppose the Bill, will the Secretary of State return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? The Secretary of State cited the example of a hospital that, as a foundation trust hospital with new freedoms, would be allowed greater access to capital so that it could move quickly to build a new facility. Will he confirm that if such a hospital did that under the Bill, given that the capital allocation will be ring-fenced and the Treasury will put a ceiling on it, the money provided for such building would come at the expense of non-foundation trust hospitals?
  Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if he is making a huge revelation. Of course there is a pot from which hospitals and other elements of the national health service—foundation trusts or otherwise—must take their money. The difference between what is happening under this Government and what happened under 20 years of the last Conservative Government—the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for part of that time—is that we are making the biggest ever increase to the pot of money in the history of the national health service. When people in the NHS want

  823
  to build, they now know that that is possible. When we came into power, nearly half of the NHS's buildings were older than the NHS itself. Under the plans for capital allocations during this term of government, almost half the buildings will be less than 15 years old by 2010. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Michael Weir rose—
  Dr. Reid: I want to make progress.
  The creation of NHS foundation trusts is part of the process of moving from an NHS controlled from Whitehall to an NHS in which standards and inspections are national, but delivery and accountability are local, with more diverse provision, offering more choice for patients. That agenda will not go away. Decentralisation is a necessary prerequisite of responding more personally and sensitively to the extra power for patients which the Government intend to deliver. It will form a major part of our programme for the next few years.
  Clare Short: Most of us agree that there should be more decentralisation in the health service, as we said in our manifesto, but many of us object to the current proposal because it allows the most privileged hospitals to decentralise. Giving them greater authority and more privileges will lead to growing inequality. Why not decentralise across the system?
  Dr. Reid: First, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, she is not exactly correct. The proposal gives the first foundation status opportunities not to the most privileged hospitals but to the best performing hospitals. Some of them are in more socially affluent areas, but others are not. Many good performing hospitals are in relatively underprivileged catchment areas. Secondly, and importantly, even if my right hon. Friend's premise were correct, her conclusion would be wrong because we do not intend to limit the opportunity to the first wave. Within four years we intend to raise every hospital in the country to the level at which we can free them from some of the central restrictions. That is one compromise that we made after discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends. Our initial intention was to give foundation status to only a few hospitals, but after consultations with colleagues inside and outside the Government we agreed to extend that opportunity to everyone within four years.
  NHS foundation trusts will be established as a new form of common ownership—a new public benefit organisation. They will still be part of the NHS family, with the purpose of providing NHS services to NHS patients. The care they provide to NHS patients will be, as I said, delivered on the basis of need, not ability to pay, and will be free at the point of use. The foundation principles and values of the NHS will be protected, but the system by which that is delivered will be decentralised and modernised. They will be locked into public ownership, which is the main thing that Opposition Members oppose. They know that a thriving local hospital, owned by local people in a way in which national services have never been owned before, will defend itself politically against a future Conservative
  824
  Government's plans to privatise the NHS. That is what Opposition Members do not like about foundation hospitals.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: I greatly sympathise with my right hon. Friend's argument that trusts need to be freed of much of the bureaucracy that gets in the way of their effective operation. However, does he agree that as most of those directives on bureaucracy emanate directly from his Department in Whitehall, we do not need an Act of Parliament to deal with it?
  Dr. Reid: It does not need an Act of Parliament to deal with all of it; it does need an Act of Parliament to deal with some of it. My hon. Friend is right that our proposals do not go as far as I should like. We have compromised. I have no shame in talking about compromise. We have compromised with colleagues inside and outside the party—people at the front line—to get a balance. The idea that we have not gone as far as the Conservatives would like, so they will vote against our moving in the direction they theoretically want us to go in, is sheer opportunistic hypocrisy.
  We agreed, for instance, that all foundation trusts must pledge themselves to the long-time negotiated "Agenda for Change" with the health unions. That compromise benefits all workers inside and outside foundation trusts.
  3.15 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Reid: If my hon. Friend lets me make progress, I shall I try to take her intervention later.
  I want to illustrate how far we have gone in our discussions on compromise. We will insist on reinserting the statutory limit on the proportion of private patients treated in NHS foundation trusts, removed by the Opposition in another place. We have agreed to limit the borrowing powers, as explained earlier, of NHS foundation trusts through a prudential borrowing code. We have compromised on, and listened to, a number of concerns. Those are just a few examples.
  In addition, we have tabled amendments, because people have raised the issue, on the way in which the membership of the trusts will be drawn up—that is, the membership from which the governance will be vested. There are also amendments on the sub-division of the electorates on the board of governors, the safeguarding of patient information and, for English hospitals, the extension of the public constituency to Wales in certain cases where that would be relevant.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Reid: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and try to get around to my other hon. Friends.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I wish my right hon. Friend had not made so many compromises, but I understand why he has done so. Will he remind some of our hon. Friends that the Government, who

  825
  have invested 70 per cent. more funding in the health service, have produced a better health service? By comparison with the investment made, however, we are making slow progress. Some of our colleagues need to understand that with that investment comes a need to reform; otherwise, we will not make the changes that our electorate so desire.
  Dr. Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no doubt about the sincerity of the commitment of every Labour Member to the NHS. The debate is worth while, but those who believe that increasing capacity and putting more money into the health service will be enough are mistaken. Unless that is accompanied by reform, we will not safeguard the NHS for the next 50 years. For any given level of capacity we need to increase the quality of output, increase the speed of delivery of operations and give patients more information and choice over what they are doing. If we are to do that, we must decentralise the delivery of health care so that the local units, whether they be GPs or hospitals, can respond to the patients themselves when they exercise that new choice. All of that is about defending the NHS from both sociological changes and Opposition Members who would destroy it.
  Kate Hoey: I take the Secretary of State's point about patient choice and devolved powers, but surely the crux of the matter is that the purse strings are held by the primary care trusts. The manoeuvring and changing is not necessary. If we were to democratise the system, we should have started with the PCTs.
  Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is a little unfair. First, the PCTs are a huge decentralisation of power. Some 75 per cent. of our money goes through them. Secondly, I hope that the PCTs will not stop at the level of decentralisation that they have already achieved, but will involve GPs and others in the primary care sector in planning their health commissioning. Thirdly, patient forums are involved in the PCTs. However, even if we managed to democratise the formalities, giving power to patients is more than formal democracy. It means giving them a real choice. It is hypocrisy to argue that such choice can be provided while cutting the capacity of the NHS or diverting money to subsidise the 5 per cent. who are rich enough to buy their own operations. It is not hypocrisy to ask for a further degree of choice while putting in extra capacity, as we are doing.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Reid: I genuinely must make some progress. Hon. Members will understand that if I do not, the accusation will be made that I have taken up too much time.
  I have illustrated some of the compromises that we have made, but I have an important reassurance for hon. Members. Since I became Secretary of State for Health, some colleagues have specifically asked me to reassure them that we will learn from the experience of the NHS foundation trusts set up in the first waves in 2004. Some colleagues have expressed concern that we will not be in a position to learn from the experience of the first NHS foundation trusts before the rest of the
  826
  NHS can apply for that status. They have asked me to explain our willingness to review and to learn as we go along. I have listened to those colleagues and I want to make it clear that we will of course review the experience of the first waves. Indeed, we will have particular opportunity to do so in the 12 months between the end of the first waves in the autumn of 2004 and the autumn of 2005. We will be able to carry out just such a review in more detail at that time. I will ask the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, which is of course accountable to Parliament and not to me, to assist me in that review. Obviously, during that period, I would not pass on any new application for a new NHS foundation trust to the regulator. That is the most forthright, succinct and clear indication that I can give to all hon. Members that we are prepared to learn the lessons—the obstacles as well as the opportunities—of the new foundation status as we go along. I hope that that reassures those colleagues who have asked me about that point.
  Ms Joan Walley: I accept that my right hon. Friend is looking to find some way to build on the wonderful work that has been done by Labour in the NHS, but why do we not learn the lesson of the resource allocations working party and the inequalities that there have been in health? I am looking for some assurances about "Agenda for Change". In chapter 8 of that document, it says that foundation trusts will be able to pay their staff far more than other hospitals. That will increase health inequalities, not decrease them. What will he do to ensure that the ability of foundation trusts to poach staff will not undermine the good work that the Government have done?
  Dr. Reid: With respect, my hon. Friend is misreading chapter 8. "Agenda for Change" was agreed after two years of discussion with all the trade unions involved. It includes a flexibility to pay staff above the minimum agreed levels, but that does not apply only to foundation hospitals. It applies to all hospitals. If my hon. Friend is saying that some hospitals attract staff because they are perceived to be better than other hospitals—because they are teaching hospitals, have a better reputation or are more convenient—that has not been instigated by foundation trust status. It has always been the case. However, for the first time in the NHS we have an agreement worked out in great detail over two years—largely by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I pay tribute to him—that involves 1.3 million people, from porters and cleaners right up through nurses and doctors. It even includes consultants, who for the first time have signed a contract to pledge a significant increase in the amount of face time that they have with NHS patients.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
  Dr. Reid: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has long been a supporter of foundation trusts. I trust that he will vote with us tonight.
  Mr. Lansley: I will vote as I did on 8 July. The Secretary of State should listen carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency will be in

  827
  the first wave of foundation trusts. It wants to implement "Agenda for Change" and it knows that as a foundation trust it will be an early implementer of the new funding flows. It will get additional money to implement "Agenda for Change" at an early stage.
  Dr. Reid: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the performance of his local hospital and on the support that he has given it in its quest for foundation status. I am sorry that his promotion means that he is in a straitjacket when it comes to voting tonight for what he believes in. I am sure that my hon. Friends will remark on the discipline that has been imposed in the attempt to inflict a defeat on the Government tonight. Perhaps they will bear that in mind. I am afraid that I have to correct the hon. Gentleman factually. It is not necessarily the case that foundation hospitals will implement "Agenda for Change" prior to everyone else. We are working on the guidelines on that point at present. [Interruption.]
  I will try—if I can do so through the noise from Opposition Front Benchers—to sum up our position tonight. We face an important, crucial and controversial—because it is radical—vote in the House.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Will my right hon. Friend give way on the subject of his important announcement?
  Dr. Reid: If it is an announcement that my hon. Friend will support the Government tonight, I will gladly give way.
  Mrs. Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he clarify the important statement he made a moment ago about reviewing the first waves of foundation hospitals before making progress? He used the plural "waves", so can he clarify how many hospitals will be involved and whether he will come back to the House with a report before making an announcement about more foundation hospitals in the future?
  Dr. Reid: It is anticipated that the first waves will start in 2004 and will consist of two parts. One has already been publicly announced and includes 29 hospitals, falling to 25. The second part will include 30 hospitals or fewer, so the round figure is about 50. As for reporting to the House, I have always made it plain that we will review the situation as we go along, because it is the study of modern society that has led us to the conclusions we have reached about the need to give patients better information, quality, power and choice and, therefore, the need to decentralise. It would therefore be wholly contrary to our approach and intuition to say that we shall plough ahead irrespective of any obstacles or difficulties we encounter. We are prepared to review as we go along.
  My hon. Friend is right, however. As I said, there is a period of approximately 12 months between autumn 2004 and autumn 2005 in which it would appropriate to carry out a specific review of what is happening. I shall ask CHAI to assist in that review. The commission, which is established under the Bill, is responsible and
  828
  accountable not to me but to Parliament, so any report it produces will be presented to Parliament. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's point.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Reid: In fairness, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who has tried to intervene twice.
  3.30 pm
  Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will he clarify the remit of any such review? Will it include the effects of the change on the whole health community and not be only a review of foundation trusts?
  Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend tempts me to hold a review of the workings of the whole system, which is neither what I said, nor what I intend. We are instigating one of the most radical transformations within the NHS, but that is only a part of a much wider agenda. One of our problems all along has been that foundation trust status has not been put in context. When it is seen in the context of the vast increase in capacity and of the reform of the system as a whole—in particular, reversing the NHS engine and navigation system away from central diktat and toward giving patients the sort of power that they have previously had only in the private sector—it is easier to understand why we have to decentralise.
  This is a radical move, so we are duty bound to investigate and oversee the changes as we proceed. I have said that, to reassure colleagues, I shall, in the period between autumn 2004 and autumn 2005, call in assistance to examine the difficulties, challenges and experiences of the early foundation trusts, which will be to our benefit and enable us better to drive forward improvements in the NHS. To assist, I shall call in CHAI, which is responsible to Parliament, not to me. I think and hope that that will give a great deal of reassurance to many of our colleagues, who have continually asked us to reassure them that we will not proceed willy-nilly, regardless of experience.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Reid: If my hon. Friends will forgive me, I really have to draw my remarks to a conclusion. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and I will be more than happy to respond to points raised during the debate. For now, let me take a last few interventions, so that no one is offended.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I do not think it is right to experiment on so many NHS trusts. It does not satisfy me at all that a huge number of trusts are to be subject to audit. My question is this: given that this is such a radical transformation, why is it not possible to pilot the scheme in a small number of trusts across the country?
  Dr. Reid: First, we would still need legislation to do that. Secondly—I say this with all due respect to my hon. Friend—when it was first suggested that we might carry out a limited number of pilots, we were

  829
  immediately accused by my hon. Friend of creating a two-tier health system. I accept it as a consolation of my job that, in a sense, we cannot win. If we pilot in a small number of trusts, we are accused of privatisation or creating a two-tier system; if, for the sake of equity, we propose that the entire service be affected, we are told that that is far too radical a plan for a timid beast like the Labour party to contemplate. When we formed the NHS, it was a radical vision of amazing proportions and, of course, it involved risk. There is a degree of risk in everything—I do not deny that for a minute. That is precisely why we shall proceed with a degree of caution and in waves, and why I have reassured my hon. Friends that I shall genuinely examine the experience of the early trusts. However, I am not prepared to go back to the beginning and say we shall allow only 10 foundation trusts to be created, and have all the arguments about equity again.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Reid: I will give way, first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), then to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who has been trying to intervene for a while. Then, I must conclude.
  Richard Burden: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of membership? I am one of those who have doubts about aspects of the proposal without necessarily endorsing some of the more cataclysmic opinions that have been expressed about foundation trusts generally. However, if foundation trusts are to achieve the objectives that he has stated, is it not vital that their membership base be as wide as possible? He says that there will be an amendment that will allow foundation trusts automatically to accept patients and staff as members, unless they opt out. I welcome that, but I am worried by the wording, which is that the trusts may do so. Will he make it clear that, unless people opt out, automatic membership will be expected, and that membership will not be something that they can opt in or out of, as they see fit?
  Dr. Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is a problem. There is no doubt about that. That is one of the risks involved. Having listened to my hon. Friend and other colleagues, we have decided that for patients and staff it will be an opt-out procedure. In other words, there will automatically be a reasonably representative basis of staff and patients from the beginning to stop particular groups, political or otherwise, trying to gain control of an asset of the local community and of the nation for their own benefits.
  On the question of extending the idea of opt-out to the whole constituency, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that there are some places where the local constituency may be huge. Therefore we have not compelled trusts so to do. However, we have said that we would expect them, unless there are very good
  830
  reasons not to, to follow the same procedures of opt-out as would otherwise be the case. We shall examine carefully whether they have such reasons.
  Mrs. Mahon: My right hon. Friend and I were in the House when an experiment was carried out in Scotland to decide whether to impose the poll tax, with disastrous results. He has tried to say today that the opposition is coming from a few Back Benchers and the Tories. However, is it not true that most of the unions, staff organisations, workers, the royal colleges, the Society of Radiographers, physiotherapists, the general public in the latest poll—61 per cent.—pensioners, including Halifax pensioners, and the King's Fund are opposed to the proposed experiment? Has my right hon. Friend ever heard of the expression, "Everybody is out of step except our Johnny"?
  Dr. Reid: It is true, to name a few, that the British Medical Association, consultants, the House of Lords, the Tories, the Liberal and Democratic party and some of the royal colleges—[Interruption.] Yes, and some trade unions. It is true also that every group that opposed the formation of the NHS is opposed to the proposal. Incidentally, all of these groups, with the exception of the trade unions—I will come to them in a
  moment—were opposed to Nye Bevan when he
  introduced the NHS in the first place. The trade unions, through the Labour party conference and in other ways, have expressed their opposition. That does not necessarily reflect the experience of staff when we are speaking for staff throughout the country. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, when the trade unions invited him to speak to their political committee, and when I have invited trade union leaders to come with me to talk to staff in hospitals, we have not found rampant opposition to letting staff get on with the job themselves.
  When "foundation trust" is understood by the public and the staff—let us be honest, there is often a bemused audience listening to our debates on radio and television about the term "foundation trust"—and once the term is explained to them, the vast majority of them think that it is a good idea, provided that it is part of a bigger system of change, provided that the founding values of the NHS are retained, and provided that they understand that the NHS will embrace within it the foundation trust, which will remain an integral part of the NHS.
  I do not accept what my hon. Friend is saying, but I accept that, despite the controversy, some Opposition Members have been so deeply interested in the NHS—incidentally, they can hardly muster two or three questions—that they will be present, every one of them, to vote against the Government this evening. I know that in practice they will be voting against what they say and what in theory they support. The Liberals will be voting against decentralisation. The Conservatives will be voting against choice—real, substantial choice for patients in the NHS. I believe that their position is marked by a degree of opportunism and a degree of hypocrisy. I do not blame the Conservatives for that. I would go so far as to say that it is exactly what I would expect of the Conservatives.

  831
  If, however, any Member on the Labour Benches is looking for guidance or inspiration, or a swithering on the vote this evening, I merely ask them to look across the Chamber. Look at the Opposition. Remember what they did to the national health service when they were in power. Think what they will do if they ever get back into power. However sincere Labour Members might be, they should remember what is represented by those with whom they would walk into the Lobby tonight. Whatever position we take, I do not believe that there is any degree of coalescence with the Conservatives. If Labour Members vote against the Government tonight, they will be harming not only the NHS but our Government, by marching into the Lobby with the crowd opposite, who have no commitment to improving the health service. I ask the House to support the Bill and a Government who take pride in the past of our national health service and who have faith in its future.
  Mr. Yeo: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I am delighted to have this early opportunity to debate such an important aspect of the Government's health policy so soon after taking on my new responsibilities. As it is the first time that I have debated with the Secretary of State, I should like to be as charitable as I can, although he has taken up well over a third of the time available for debate and left unanswered almost as many questions as there were before he stood up 45 minutes ago.
  The key to what the Secretary of State thinks about the issue was revealed in the last minute or two, when it was plain to anyone in the Chamber that his concern about how the vote goes this afternoon is not about what that vote will do to patients or the national health service, but about what the vote will do to the Government and his position in it.
  The Secretary of State raised a great many issues in his speech, some of which were somewhat tenuously related to the subject of the debate. I shall deal with those on another occasion. He frequently resorted to ludicrous allegations about the intentions of the Conservatives—intentions that we have never had, will never have and do not have now. Let me place on record the fact that I and the whole Conservative party are totally and unequivocally committed to the founding principle of the national health service—that care should be available to all free at the point of delivery, based on patient need and not on ability to pay.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give
  way?
  Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
  I regret that the Secretary of State does not have and never will have the advantage that I and other hon. Members representing English constituencies have. We can see at first hand the results of his Government's policies on our constituents. We can learn from our constituents who are patients worried about their treatment, and from our constituents who are doctors and nurses and who speak to us of their frustrations as a result of the constant interference that they suffer from the Government. It is particularly unfortunate that as a Scottish Member of Parliament, the Secretary of State is trying to impose on England arrangements for hospitals that will not apply in Scotland.
  832
  The Secretary of State faces the debate this afternoon because he has failed to convince not just Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but many in his own party and many people of no party about the merits of the Government's policy.
  Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about members of his party. Does he agree with his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who stated last week:
  "It would be perverse to block a step in the right direction"?
  Mr. Yeo: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. He and I are at one on the matter. If the measure were a step in the right direction—I shall explain in a moment why it is not—we would, of course, support it. If the hon. Gentleman studied what my hon. Friend said at many stages in Committee, he would see that my hon. Friend was pointing out exactly the areas where the policy is going wrong.
  3.45 pm
  The Secretary of State's failure to persuade people of the merits of the Government's policy has cost his right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism a chance to support England's splendid rugger team in Saturday's world cup final in Sydney. [Interruption.] I hope that he is back. For the sake of the taxpayer, I hope that yanking Ministers back from Australia in an attempt to save the Government's bacon in the House of Commons does not become a habit.
  Dr. John Reid: First, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative party has brought the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) back from China? Obviously, he is unaware of that; I am slightly ahead of him. Secondly, will he explain why I cannot be objective about people in the health service, although I visit them constantly and am on their side, whereas he can apparently be objective about old folks and residents in care homes despite the fact that he is a director of care homes?
  Mr. Yeo: That is a very obscure intervention. I have not been discussing with my Whips the whereabouts of my hon. Friends, which is not a matter of concern to me. I have been considering the merits of the case that is before us this afternoon, which the Secretary of State seems singularly reluctant to address. The point that I want to make about his position as a Scottish Member of Parliament is that however disastrous the effects of the policies that he may be following are on the national health service, his constituents will not have to face those consequences.
  Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend accept that I gladly flew through the night from Sierra Leone to vote against the Government today because this is a totally iniquitous proposal? Poor star-rated trusts such as Oxford Radcliffe will never get foundation hospital status. The Bill ensures that unto those who have shall be given, while from those who have not shall be taken away even that which they have. That is the policy on the NHS under this Government.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend eloquently anticipates the point that I was about to make. I am delighted to have his support. I say clearly that the Conservative party is opposed to this group of proposals on grounds of principle. In their present form, their effect will be to damage the national health service, not improve it.
  Mr. Weir: The hon. Gentleman said that the policy had no impact in Scotland, but it has an impact in Scotland and Wales as their health service spending is determined by the Barnett formula, which depends on public spending in England. The Bill means that there will effectively be private health spending in England, which will affect Scotland and Wales. That is why we are voting against it.
  Mr. Yeo: I think that I shall let the hon. Gentleman pursue that point in his own time.
  As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out—I was going to call him my hon. Friend, as he was my shadow counterpart about 10 years ago and we had many happy debates in the Chamber and outside—the proposal has emerged with a minimum of consultation. There was no sign of a White Paper and no mention in an election manifesto. Indeed, when the policy was finally debated at the Secretary of State's party conference this year, it was defeated.
  Opposition Members would very much like to be able to support the Bill. In this House and the other place, we have made strenuous efforts to improve the measures that it contains. We have often done so with the cooperation of the Liberal Democrats and other minority parties, and in the House of Lords we did so with the cooperation of many Cross Benchers. During that process, the Government have conceded a number of points, but despite those concessions the House of Lords did not feel able to support clause 1. The fact that it reached that conclusion is not really so surprising because many other people and organisations have expressed their concern. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to some of those organisations, which include the King's Fund, the British Medical Association, the Trades Union Congress, the Royal College of Nursing, Unison, the Society of Radiographers, the Transport and General Workers Union, the GMB and many others that the Secretary of State attempted to tarnish by saying that they had all apparently opposed the creation of the NHS 54 years ago.
  Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: In a moment. The next point concerns the Secretary of State's remarks about his own Back Benchers. On this morning's "Today" programme, he sounded as if he was almost attacking his colleagues for contemplating voting against the Government. The truth is, as he should know, that those Members who are courageously thinking of opposing this clause are standing shoulder to shoulder with their constituents because they can see the damage that the Bill will do to them in its current form. 'Those who put the interests of their constituents first will enjoy the respect of this House, and of those whom they represent here.
  834
  We oppose the amendments—reluctantly, as I have said—for two reasons. First, they will harm those hospitals that do not receive foundation trust status. To begin with, that means the vast majority of the hospitals that our constituents use every day. Secondly, the foundation trusts established by the Bill will themselves he heavily burdened by a management structure that is muddled, confusing and expensive; by a star-rating system that distracts doctors and nurses, and sometimes prevents them from treating the patients most in need of their care; and by a regulator that, far from being independent, will be little more than a creature of the Secretary of State, with sweeping powers to direct foundation trusts' activities.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: Can the hon. Gentleman estimate how many NHS hospitals would be damaged by his policy of siphoning off money and giving it to private practice?
  Mr. Yeo: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Such a tired old allegation is completely irrelevant to the important matters that the House has a limited amount of time to consider this afternoon.
  There is no doubt that the clause will create a two-tier health service. The chairman of the British Medical Association council said:
  "I am in little doubt that the establishment of foundation trusts will … exacerbate inequalities in the NHS."
  Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: In a moment. Let us be clear: for several years, most of the hospitals that serve our constituents will not have foundation status. Only a handful—25—will qualify in the first instance, and the privileges obtained by them will be paid for by other, less fortunate hospitals.
  Dr. Reid: I wanted to intervene because I was so moved by the hon. Gentleman's passion for eradicating inequalities in health care. Now that he has put the onion away, can he explain to the House how taking money out of the national health service and giving it to those who can afford half the private cost of a heart bypass—£10,000—so that they can jump the queue quicker, would increase equity in the health service?
  Mr. Yeo: Given the Secretary of State's lamentable performance in defending his own policies this afternoon, I look forward with relish to debating the Conservative party's proposals on the future of the health service at the appropriate time. There is limited time this afternoon to deal with issues that are of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, so I shall address the subject covered by the amendments.
  In terms of the two-tier service, the victory that the Treasury scored over the Department of Health last year has particularly damaging consequences, because borrowing by foundation trusts will count against the Department of Health's overall totals. By making investment a zero-sum game, the Secretary of State has ensured that extra investment by foundation trusts will impoverish non-foundation trusts now, and for a considerable time to come. He claimed this morning

  835
  that all national health service hospitals will gain foundation trust status within four years, but the question arises of whether that claim has been cast into doubt by what he has just said about a review of the first wave's performance at the end of 2005. In any event, four years is a long time for hospitals to languish in the second division. especially as, by definition, it is the weakest hospitals that will do so. Therefore, under the Secretary of State's plan, the hospitals that most need new investment will be the last ones to get it.
  Another serious flaw in the clause concerns the nature of the foundation trusts that the Bill will establish, if it is passed. I have a long-standing interest in the role of independent hospitals. [Interruption.] Yes, it is a subject of which I have considerable direct experience having been chairman for eight years of the charitable trust that in 1983 took over the management of a former NHS hospital, Tadworth Court children's hospital.
  That hospital, once the country branch of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, faced closure in 1982. I led a successful campaign to keep it open, at the end of which an independent charitable trust was established to run it. Twenty years later—if the Secretary of State is interested in this rather important example of what a genuinely independent hospital can do—that children's hospital is vibrant, thriving and greatly expanded. I visited it last Friday in preparation for this debate. It is responsive to patients' needs, innovative in the services that it provides and outstanding in the quality of care that is offered by its professional and other staff to many children and their families.
  The crucial ingredient in that remarkable success story has been the independence that the doctors, nurses and management have enjoyed—independence that, alas, foundation trusts are not granted by the Bill. Even though a Downing street press notice on 9 October 2002 suggested that foundation hospitals would be
  "fully independent from Whitehall control"
  under the Bill, foundation trusts will be as constrained in almost all respects as existing NHS trusts, prompting the Office for National Statistics to rule:
  "NHS Foundation Trusts will be classified in the public sector as central government bodies. The same classification now applies for NHS Trusts."
  The ONS concluded:
  "This set up has similarities with the model adopted for Network Rail"—
  not a happy precedent.
  Under the Bill, foundation trusts are burdened with governance arrangements that are complex, confusing, ill defined, expensive and time consuming to operate. As much as £250,000 a year may be spent by each hospital in defining constituencies and running elections. The time and attention of doctors and managers will be diverted from patient care. There is a risk that foundation trusts may fall prey to pressure groups. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) pointed out, it is not clear why the Government have chosen to address their concerns about governance to providers rather than to commissioners.
  There are many other reasons for opposing the Bill but, in the interests of allowing other hon. Members to
  836
  take part in the debate, I make one final point. Some people have suggested that, because certain features of foundation trusts proposed by the Government have a resemblance to our policies, we should not oppose the Bill but let it pass in its flawed state, with the intention of correcting those flaws as soon as we have the power to do so. That is a superficially tempting argument but it does not wash for two reasons.
  First, as I have said, the Bill in its present form is a step in the wrong direction. It makes matters worse, not better. Secondly, the health service has been through many reorganisations in recent years. The Government now propose another upheaval. For us to encourage or even to condone that in the certain knowledge that, two years from now, we would have to impose yet more change to put right what Labour is doing would be grossly irresponsible.
  The Bill does not provide reforms that will improve the NHS. It does not give hospitals the freedoms that they deserve. It creates a dog-eat-dog culture in the NHS. It is opposed by a formidable array of professional and other bodies. This debate and the vote that will follow it is almost certainly the last chance to block a proposal that, in their hearts, a majority of hon. Members on both sides know is wrong. Rejecting clause I will give the Government a chance to reconsider and to listen to the many voices pleading for change. They could then return to Parliament in the new Session with a Bill that does not divide the haves from the have-nots, and that gives foundation trusts genuine freedoms for the benefit of patients and their families. I urge the House to vote against the motion.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  4 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, 1 remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on speeches by Back-Bench Members. That applies from now on. I call Mr. David Hinchliffe.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: This is the first debate to which I have contributed since my right hon. Friend became Secretary of State for Health, and I wish him well, genuinely and sincerely, despite the somewhat unfortunate circumstances. I praise him for some of the steps that he has taken. He has made positive progress in the short time that he has been Secretary of State.
  I also extend greetings to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and his new team. We tangled many moons ago, and I wish him well in his work. I am sure that his background and experience means that we will have some excellent debates. I also extend good wishes to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), the new Liberal Democrat spokesman. He, too, has a good track record on health issues.
  I begin with an apology to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who has had to return from the rugby union world cup. I am pleased to say that he is in the Chamber. Having seen the quality of some of the matches, some of us think that we have done him a great favour in getting him back. He is well aware that Great Britain meets Australia in the third rugby league

  837
  test on Saturday. At least the players in that code can string three passes together without dropping the ball, and they can also score the odd try.
  In the limited time available to me, I want to make a few brief points about my concerns, and to repeat what I said when I intervened on my right hon. Friend in respect of the constitutional aspects of the handling of this matter. I think that he conceded that lessons should be learned from the way that the House has been bounced into a policy which, as everyone can see, has not been thought through properly. I welcome that.
  I have been a member of the Labour party for almost 40 years—I know that I do not look that old. I have always been proud that the party has had democratic processes for policy development. Policies were discussed at branch and constituency level, and at conference. However, this policy was discussed at conference only this year, when a pretty clear decision was taken. I understand why the Lords should have some grievances about the way that the matter has been handled, as there has been no proper scrutiny in this House. No Green Paper or White Paper was published, and hon. Members have had no way to monitor the policy's likely effects apart from a brief inquiry conducted by the Health Committee.
  I do not want to labour the point, but a number of Labour Members are aggrieved that the Bill has been able to pass through this House thanks only to the votes of hon. Members whose constituents will not be affected by foundation status. That concerns a lot of people, both in the House and outside it.
  I want to repeat my key objections to the policy. I believe that it represents a return to a market ethos and to competition. We do not need to have this review; if we turn the clock back a few years, we can see exactly what happened under the internal market introduced by the Conservative Government. The same processes will be apparent and they will lead to there being winners and losers. Some Labour Members will support the Government's policy because they have hospitals that will apply for foundation status in their constituencies. They are not looking beyond their immediate areas and they are not considering the policy's effect on the wider NHS in their part of the world. That worries me.
  The policy is a departure from the Government's previous aim—that the NHS should be primary care led. That policy direction was very successful. A weakness evident since the inception of the NHS is that we have allowed it to be dominated by the hospital sector, and by hospital consultants in particular. The Government were brave to move towards primary care trusts. If they were going to consider an innovation in respect of governance such as is set out in the Bill, the obvious place to start should have been at the level of PCTs. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has made that point on several occasions. I am sorry that the Government have not done that.
  I do not think that the governance elements have been thought through. I understand from questions that the Health Committee put to the Secretary of State and his
  838
  officials a couple of weeks ago that the Government anticipate that the average trust will have about 10,000 members. I calculate that those 10,000 members will represent about one fiftieth of the patients within the remit of individual trusts. I do not regard that as democracy.
  Siobhain McDonagh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: With the greatest respect, given the time that I have got—[Interruption.] Okay, my hon. Friend has persuaded me to give way.
  Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He castigates the Government for a system of hospital democracy that includes one fiftieth of people in an area. What would he say to me about the fact that nobody in my constituency is on the boards of St. Helier hospital, St. George's hospital or any other hospital or primary care trust that represents them?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I would say what I have said on many occasions, which is that every patient—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend has asked a question and she is going to listen to me. Every patient ought to have a right to a vote in their local health service. What the Bill proposes is tokenistic; it is not thought through.
  I have spent much of the last few days in my local hospital. I spent Saturday night and Sunday morning in the local casualty department with a member of my family. We are talking about spending £100,000 per trust just to start going in the direction of foundation trusts but, having spent several days this week in the NHS, I must say that there are a lot of other things that I would be spending that money on before that. There will be £100,000 for each foundation trust—£2.5 million for the first 25—and £2.3 million will be the cost of the regulator for one year, so £5 million of scarce NHS money that should have been spent on more doctors and nurses, and on treating people and hip operations—on the kinds of things that are raised in our constituency surgeries week after week—is being wasted on a half-baked idea.
  I hope that Labour Members will listen to the Labour party conference—the decision was clear—to their constituents, to their PCTs, and to the voice of local people, and that they will vote against the Government this evening.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: While listening to the Secretary of State's opening speech, it occurred to me that he was having to rely on some of the more basic tactics to try to ensure that Labour Members stick with him tonight. Pressing the class button and suggesting that the House of Lords not agreeing with this House should be a sufficient argument for this House to overturn the House of Lords does not provide a sufficient case that we should not listen to what the Lords have had to say. It is important to bear it in mind that in the debates in the other place it was not just Liberal Democrat, Conservative or Cross-Bench peers who expressed concern about this legislation; it was Labour peers as well. It is important for those who have concerns to keep that in mind when they pass through the Lobby.

  839
  The Liberal Democrats do not have an argument with the Government about their underlying analysis and the case for devolution in the NHS. Central control, targets and tick boxes stifle innovation and initiative in the NHS, and one size certainly does not fit the needs of every community and every individual who uses the NHS. However, we do not believe that the foundation trust proposals go anywhere near lifting the dead hand of control from the NHS.
  The freedoms that come with this Bill—they are not many, and some of them are illusory when the Bill is studied closely—are earned at a price. It is a high price: it is about hitting Whitehall targets, achieving the star rating, and going through the hoops that Ministers set. There is still control, but it is slightly less clear where that control exists. In truth, freedom is granted at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. That theme runs throughout this Bill, because it applies to both the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. In each and every case, there are powers of direction and control that the Secretary of State may use to make clear what he wants to happen.
  Indeed, the Secretary of State looms large in part 1, standing behind the regulator, armed with powers of direction, the final arbiter when deciding whether a trust may proceed to foundation status. We already know that not all trusts will be able to progress at the same rate. The best that the Secretary of State can offer is that it will be four years before all trusts have that status.
  The Bill says little about the role of the regulator and how he will exercise his duties, yet decisions taken by foundation trusts will have profound effects on the balance of the local health economy. They will have real effects on the services that people need. In an intervention on the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) referred to cancer networks. I hope that he was not satisfied with the response that he received, as it gave us no confidence that foundation trusts will do anything but call into question the effective operation of such networks in future.
  Will foundation trusts really see themselves as team players in the local health system? Will they be on the side of patients to ensure that cancer services are properly delivered? That is why my noble Friends want to amend the Bill so that it includes a requirement for the regulator to act in a way that is consistent with the National Health Service Act 1977. Lords amendment No. 4 would ensure that there is no ambiguity: the regulator would have to act in a way that ensures equity and safeguards universality of provision in health care services.
  It is not good enough for Ministers in the other place and in the Chamber today simply to assert that foundation trusts will use their freedom in conformity with the key NHS principles and that they will not undermine the ability of other NHS providers in the local health economy to meet their obligations. Just putting something on the record in this place is not sufficient assurance. When legislation affecting patient-public involvement was being discussed in the House, Ministers gave numerous assurances that were not honoured subsequently.
  840
  It is important that Ministers confirm today that foundation trusts will never undermine other NHS hospitals and that they will never make predatory plans that would take business from another trust and cause it to lose activity. It is important to determine whether we are talking about competition or co-operation in the NHS. If foundation trusts secure freedom to act, it is hard to see how that freedom will not disadvantage the hospitals that are left behind.
  Let us consider, for example, the borrowing rules—leaving to one side the question whether private finance initiative projects should count, although I think they should be included in the equation. Foundation trusts will have easier access to capital, but we have heard today that the Treasury has put a cap on the total amount available. The trusts will have to bid for the money in the pot that the Treasury makes available to the NHS. If they are allowed greater flexibility and freedom to dip into that pot, they will disadvantage everyone else. What will be the gains for those involved in the early part of the process compared with those who come later? As we reach the final wave of foundation trusts—although I hope that we do not—when everyone has that freedom, there will be no difference in terms of access to capital funds but there certainly will be a difference during the early phases.
  There are questions about staffing. The Secretary of State says that foundation trusts will adhere to "Agenda for Change", but for how long? Nothing in the Bill would prevent foundation trusts from varying their pay and conditions over time so that they can expand their activities.
  Tom Levitt: Like me, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who is sitting with the hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, supports the application of Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport for foundation status. Does the hon. Gentleman support his hon. Friend's campaign, which I share, for that hospital better to serve the citizens of Stockport and High Peak?
  Mr. Burstow: I thought that interventions should pick up on a specific point that a Member was making. That is an interesting point—
  Mr. George Stevenson rose—
  Mr. Burstow: Let me deal with the first intervention first.
  At this point, there is a Bill before the House. My position and that of my party is opposition to the principle of foundation trusts. The measure has not yet completed all its stages; until it does, I certainly do not support applications for foundation status. That is my position and the position of my party.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Stevenson: While the hon. Gentleman is trying to find a way out of the question, will he confront the issue that concerns everyone I have talked to in my constituency in north Staffordshire? They are asking, if the Stockport application goes ahead, and the other

  841
  application, too, what effect it will have on North Staffordshire hospital, which will not go ahead. Is he as concerned as my constituents about that issue?
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which is that as we have a series of waves of foundation trust applications, those that get left behind can be washed up and really lose out as a result of the process, particularly when it comes to the ability to bid for capital resources. Those that have the freedom early on will be able to get money out of the pot. Once everyone has the freedom, there is really no difference in terms of the access to that money. The Government tell us, "We have a bigger pot of capital funds available, so don't worry about it." The reality is that this system will allow two tiers to emerge. Whether it is only for a few years or not, that will damage equity within the national health service, which is why we are raising our concerns and will vote against the Government's proposals tonight.
  I was talking about staffing within the NHS and the way in which the Government are trying to—
  Hugh Bayley rose—
  Mr. Burstow: If the hon. Gentleman will let me develop this point, I will give way to him.
  The Government have said that they will stick to "Agenda for Change", but the point is that in a health care system where trained staff are, and are likely to remain, a scarce resource, the ability to compete on pay and conditions will be a boon to foundation trusts at the expense of patients treated anywhere else in the national health service, and it is not possible for the Government to argue that the other freedoms that will enable them to generate additional activity and additional resources will not be used to enable them to compete more effectively in the labour market locally, to attract staff from other trusts that are not foundation trusts. How can that not be the case? That is not just my view; in the other place Lord Warner, the Under-Secretary of State, said that NHS foundation trusts
  "will be able to invest more easily in the delivery of new services, manage more flexibly, reward their staff in a way that is more appropriate to local circumstances and have access to a wider range of options for capital funding.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2003; Vol. 654, c. 936.]
  What can that be other than an ability to act differently from those that do not have foundation trust status? The seeds of a two-tier NHS on capital and staffing are being sown tonight by this legislation.
  Kate Hoey: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in his last few sentences. Does he agree that a more dangerous issue is the fact that chief executives have already been discussing in national health trusts how they would be able to increase their own salary to some very large figure? They will now have the freedom to do that as well.
  Mr. Burstow: That is true, but what is really an insult to the House and to the House of Lords is the fact that
  842
  the Government are driving through their first wave of foundation applications before the ink is even dry on the Royal Assent to the Bill. It seems to me that we should have waited for this matter to be concluded before thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours were invested in taking these proposals to the stage that they have already reached for many applications. That is why, in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), I do not support this at this stage, and I think it is right for many hon. Members to take that view.
  It does not end there. The Secretary of State has said that the Government will reinstate the cap on the ability of NHS foundation trusts to pay more. The Bill as drafted leaves it up to the regulator to decide whether he will place any limitation on the amount of private work a foundation trust can do. It is a power, not a duty, a question of may rather than must, and Labour Members must look at the Bill and be certain what it says. This is a discretion for the regulator. It is not guaranteed that NHS foundation trusts might not do substantially more private work than they are doing now, because the regulator does not have to impose any such limitation.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I am very reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, because I am following closely what he is saying. but I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that he is wrong in the point that he just made. There is no doubt whatever that the Bill requires the regulator to impose a patient cap.
  Mr. Burstow: The Bills says "may", not "must". The wording is very clear, and I am sure that, if the Minister gets the chance later, he will take the House through the text and we will see how clear it is. I urge other hon. Members to take a view for themselves and to read the Bill.
  At the very least, I hope that the Government will concede that foundation trusts should clearly state in their accounts the costs and income attributable to private activity, because that will also not be covered. That is what Lords amendment No. 29 is all about, and I hope that Labour Members will vote in favour of that as well.
  The Government's proposed arrangements offer the prospect of costly sham democracy, which could have unintended consequences. Some of the most powerful speeches on foundation trusts in the other House were made by Labour peers. For example, Lord Lipsey warned that the governance arrangements would embed politics in the management of our hospitals. We should take that point into account.
  I started by saying that Liberal Democrats agree with the need to free the NHS from the dead hand of ministerial interference, but the proposals will not achieve that. We need much more local control over the NHS, but we need to focus on PCTs and the commissioning side. Those who commission health care must be responsive to local needs. The commissioners should be democratically accountable. That is why we believe that the argument should be about democratic

  843
  health care commissioning. I refer, in particular, to the remarks of the Labour peer Lord Harris, who said:
  "I believe that a fundamental question must be answered first: why is the emphasis on membership and boards of governors applied to provider trusts—in particular hospitals—rather than to the bodies charged with commissioning, in particular the PCTs? Is there not a serious danger that the new governance arrangements will reinforce, if not fossilise, the traditional provider domination of the NHS, when what we should be encouraging in a modern health service is a more flexible approach to how services are delivered, led by local needs determined by commissioning bodies devoted to improving public health and reducing inequalities in outcomes?"—[Official Report, House of. Lords, 8 September 2003: Vol. 652, c. 84.]
  Lord Harris was absolutely right to raise that concern about how the Government's proposals could fossilise the traditional domination of providers in the NHS. That is why we on the Liberal Democrat Benches argue the case for democratic local government, not anyone else, to be involved in the control of commissioning.
  Hugh Bayley: Earlier in the hon. Gentleman's speech, he made the important point about the need to achieve equity in the NHS, but does he not recognise that there is gross inequity at the moment, with some hospitals operating on four times as many patients per doctor as others? If he rejects market forces, rejects national standards and regulation, and rejects patient and public empowerment as ways to get the poorer performing trusts to perform better, what method would the Liberal Democrats use to drive up standards in the poorer performing hospitals?
  Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman seems to have made a speech, and I commend him for taking that opportunity. [Interruption.] I want to finish my speech, as I should have thought that one or two other hon. Members want the opportunity to make theirs.
  I just want to end with this: it has been made very clear, time and again, in the other place, that there is a strong case for saying no to the foundation trusts proposals. I urge hon. Members to go through the Lobby against the Government tonight. The proposals are the bathtub musings of a former Secretary of State, and they now appear in the form of half-baked legislation. This is the wrong way to try to decentralise and devolve in the NHS, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who still have doubts about the Bill and foundation trusts will take the opportunity tonight to send a message to the Government. That message is very simple: think again.
  Mr. Stephen McCabe: I will endeavour to be brief, because I understand that many other hon. Members would like to speak.
  I want to make it clear that I am a passionate supporter of the NHS. I have no private health insurance, and I receive no money from private health organisations. I came here quite simply in 1997 to defend the NHS and to see it rebuilt, but I have reached the conclusion that it has to be modernised; it cannot creak along on the 1948 model. I want it to reflect the needs of the people who use it. That is what is really important. Over a period, a tendency has developed whereby the health service has begun to reflect too much the needs of those who work in it. Important though
  844
  those needs are, it cannot merely serve those interests—it must serve the interests of the people who need to use it. That is the first thing that I want to happen.
  I understand that many of my colleagues have legitimate concerns and anxieties, and I respect the views that they hold. There is a tendency, however, to exaggerate some of those concerns. I had the benefit of serving on the Committee that scrutinised the Bill, and my slight concern is that if we overplay those anxieties we will set our face against any modernisation of the health service, which plays right into the hands of the Opposition. We know that a precondition of their plans is that they must portray the health service as creaking, moribund and useless. If we overdo our criticism of any modest proposals for change, we play into their hands. That is what I am worried about.
  What is being proposed tonight, with all the qualifications attached and compromises offered by the Secretary of State, is a little bit more autonomy for local hospitals—a lot less than we happily give to chief constables—
  Kate Hoey: We didn't need an Act to do that.
  Mr. McCabe: I hear my hon. Friend, and I have had the benefit of her running commentary for the past hour and a half. I hope that everyone else will get to hear at least some of her views in the course of the debate.
  The Bill will give local people, patients, staff and partnership organisations a real chance to have a say in the setting and the direction of the trust. That seems to me the right thing to do. It is a small step, in my judgment, towards a less bureaucratic, costly and centralised health service, which is the right thing for us to do. Contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), the proposals, for the very first time, put a cap on private work.
  I recognise that there are concerns and that people are anxious. My point, however, is that we do not have a uniform health service now—anyone who believes that we do is kidding themselves. What we are trying to do is provide a little bit of autonomy as an attempt to move forward. We are building in safeguards: the Bill demands safeguards on partnership and sets out a duty of co-operation. The fears that some people have are exaggerated. My fear is simply this: every Labour Member who goes through the Lobby with the Leader of the Opposition tonight is pandering to the Conservatives. Every ex-Minister on the Labour Benches who demanded loyalty and support when they were holding their ministerial portfolio should think about why it is so difficult for them to show some loyalty in return tonight.
  Mrs. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman voted a different way from me on the war in Iraq, and he went through the Lobby shoulder to shoulder with Conservative Members.
  Mr. McCabe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On the issue of Iraq, I was not aware that we were actually discussing the future of the health service. On the issue of Iraq, there were cross-party positions in the House. My point is that there is a clear Conservative agenda to

  845
  run down and denigrate the health service and to prevent modernisation and reform, because that is a precondition of the Opposition's policies.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: May I remind my hon. Friend that there is also a very clear Labour agenda on the national health service? It was expressed by our party conference, and it is not foundation hospitals.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. McCabe: I should point out to my hon. Friend that I was also at the conference and I remember the constituency vote.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the subject of marching shoulder to shoulder with the Tory party, I for one did not vote with Opposition Members on Iraq. However, I think that they have learned a lesson. Had they behaved on the issue of war with Iraq in the way that they are doing now, they would have defeated this side. They have learned that lesson, and they are putting it into practice now.
  Mr. McCabe: Most people will recognise that that is absolutely the case. I simply make the point that there are people here who rightly expected loyalty when they held ministerial portfolios. I respect people's views and I accept that some people hold different views from me.
  Clare Short: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. McCabe: How could I refuse?
  Clare Short: Labour has a big majority in the House of Commons, and I never asked anyone in our party for blind loyalty. I wanted to listen to them and for us to act together according to our values. That is what we should do today.
  Mr. McCabe: I should make it clear that I have enormous personal respect for my right hon. Friend. If she has changed her view on this matter, I respect that. However, on the last vote, she did not vote for the policy because she was confused about the time of the vote, not because she was against the policy. That is the position, and I have to make it clear to her.
  Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to mislead the House. I voted against this matter when it was last before the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is, no doubt, a matter of record for the House.
  Mr. McCabe: I am very grateful for that correction. I was simply referring to my right hon. Friend's quotation in the newspaper. I might have the wrong quotation, but I recollect that we voted once on the matter on Second Reading, but there we go.
  846
  My point is that we have a choice, but if we go through the Lobby with the Leader of the Opposition, we shall be doing so with a man who has described the NHS and the people who work in it as a Stalinist creation. That is what he thinks about it; that is what the Conservatives believe in. I do not want any part of that.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I must admit that I had some hopes of the new Secretary of State when he took over his responsibilities. I thought that he would continue in the direction of reform and modernisation that has just been welcomed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). Since the Labour party first came to office—after a rather regrettable two years of reaction under the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), of which he is proud—it has moved steadily in the direction of combining finance for the health service with radical reform. I thought that the Secretary of State might take that forward.
  It is therefore a matter of considerable regret that, at a comparatively early stage in the Secretary of State's period of office, he has got himself into a terrible mess on the agenda of reform. He finds himself in a difficult debate before the House, defending a dog's breakfast that seems to have brought against it an amazing combination of opponents. It is not often that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and myself are on the same side in a health debate, but we both think that what the Secretary of State has produced is nonsense and that he should go away and think about it again.
  Let me assure the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Wakefield that I remain totally committed to the idea of a free national health service that is based on equal access to treatment for all patients and financed largely out of taxation, and I will not waiver from that. For more than 20 years, I have been accused, as has my party, of having a secret agenda to undermine that, but our entire period of office demonstrated that we never moved one iota in that direction. I will be bitterly opposed to any suggestion that we should move in that direction now. I do not believe that we will.
  The principles underlying reform should unite certainly those on both Front Benches in this House. We all now profess a belief in patient choice. Far be it from us to dwell on the bitter opposition to that proposition that the Labour party used to evince. We all propound the benefits of diversity of provision of health care from the public, private and voluntary sectors. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said, as I was the Minister of State who saved Tadworth Court and allowed it to go the private trust. It is a demonstration of how what was described as a failed hospital has now become a beacon of excellence because of the way in which an independent trust was able to develop it. We actually believe that with properly directed patient choice, a certain amount of competition among providers will lead to improvements to the quality and efficiency of the service.
  Foundation hospitals could have marked a considerable step forward, and at times I thought that they would. I regret that I have not looked up my voting record but I think that I abstained when the measure

  847
  came before the House in July. I shall not speak for my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who I am glad to say is our new shadow spokesman on health, but I suspect that he would have been considerably embarrassed if the Government had introduced measures to give effect to the local independence, liberalisation of the service and decentralisation that the Secretary of State said formed such a key part of his proposals. In fact, however, the Government have not persuaded people who believe in those things.
  Many Members of the House of Lords would have moved in favour of the Government if they had delivered on what appeared to be the objectives of foundation hospitals. They would lose many Conservative opponents today—they might lose the lot of us—if they introduced genuine decentralisation for foundation hospitals, because we would support them. However, they have made half-baked concessions to the Labour Members who have been intervening on speeches for the past two hours, so they have wound up with the worst of all possible worlds. The Bill will not create an important new type of institution with the ability to exercise more local control in the service. It will create a body with a strange construction that will be even sillier than Network Rail, which is a precedent for the non-profit-making and accountable bodies to which the Labour party seems to be converted. The Government have not satisfied the dinosaurs who want to go back to the old NHS, and they certainly have not satisfied sensible reformers here, in another place, or in bodies such as the King's Fund, which is totally non-political and would certainly support any sensible modernising agenda.
  Other hon. Members want to speak and share my frustration, so let me say why the Government have failed to win support and why I am convinced that the measure must be opposed. We must consider the role of the regulator. The Bill is covered with the regulator's constraints over the powers of new foundation hospitals. The regulator will have considerable control over their borrowing. I have some sympathy with the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who first introduced proposals for foundation hospitals. He lost the same battle with the Treasury that I lost when I was planning the precursors of NHS trusts. I wanted the most successful parts of the service to have the freedom to borrow and raise capital so that they could respond to rising demand. The Treasury turned me down. When I got to the Treasury, as Chancellor, I found that the Government were so battered over reform that no one wanted to change the system any more, so I was not able to reverse the decision. [Interruption.] The Labour party was accusing us of privatisation at the time, so my successor as Secretary of State for Health did not dare say that hospitals should be allowed to go to the private markets, because the present Secretary of State would have been in the vanguard with the hon. Member for Wakefield saying how dreadful it would be to privatise the service in such a way if that had happened.
  The right hon. Member for Darlington had a go, but he failed. If hon. Members look at the way in which the new foundation hospitals will be constrained when
  848
  raising capital, they will see that the situation is a complete nonsense that is made worse by the fact that when they get approval to borrow and make capital investment, it will be at the expense of the rest of the national health service. That point has been repeated by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but the Secretary of State has not responded to it.
  The cap on income from private practice is reminiscent of Barbara Castle. I cannot understand why on earth NHS hospitals should not be allowed to raise more income by attracting private practice and why doctors who carry out such practice should not do that in the NHS hospitals in which they work—it is a ridiculous constraint.
  After listening to the debate, I do not understand quite how constrained the hospitals will be by national pay agreements. It seems that if a left-wing Member makes an intervention, the House is assured that hospitals will be bound by "Agenda for Change" and national pay terms and conditions, but if a Conservative or Liberal Member makes an intervention, there is a suggestion that they may move away from that a little. The NHS should not be in a straitjacket of national terms for pay and conditions regardless of regional and local needs. The management of the service would be improved if foundation hospitals had more discretion.
  I do not have time to deal in detail with the elected boards of governors, but they are an appalling idea. With a membership that has yet to be defined, they will be elected on a tiny turnout. They may be dominated by the trade unions, or the membership will vote for local party politicians or various special interest groups, such as pro-life groups. That is not democracy. It is a ridiculous way to establish a system of governance for a local service.
  I agree with those who say that we are too obsessed with hospital management. The commissioning side of the service—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had his time.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Unlike the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, many Labour Members have been against the foundation hospital proposal from the outset. We believe that it will be damaging and divisive, not just for the NHS, but for the Labour party as well. Events have borne out what we have said from the start. Nothing significant has changed since foundation hospitals were announced. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposal to revert to the original proposition of 25 foundation hospitals followed by another 30 without extending that opportunity to every hospital automatically within four years is a withdrawal of what was originally announced as a concession to those of us who were against the proposal.
  A review has been announced, but we should not need it because if the first round of hospitals is not a success, surely no sensible Government will proceed with the second round. It has always worried us that the review will consider only the impact of change on the foundation hospitals, not the possible adverse impact on the hospitals nearby.

  849
  The principal objection to foundation hospitals is that they are intended to reintroduce competition into the NHS, setting hospital against hospital, as the Tories did under the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). That proved immensely expensive and damaging for patients. If anyone doubts whether it was damaging, the one academic study on the subject concluded in relation to recovery rates from heart attacks that
  "competition is associated with higher death rates."
  Nothing is worse for patients than higher death rates.
  Foundation hospitals will clearly have more money, which will allow them to poach staff from hospitals that do not have enough money. Ministers have said that foundation hospitals will be bound by the "Agenda for Change" document, chapter 7 of which sets out additional freedoms for NHS trusts to negotiate local arrangements, to have special bonus schemes and benefits, and to award recruitment and retention premiums above 30 per cent. of basic pay. They can do all of that without referring to anyone else. Ministers have said that other hospitals may be able to do that, but it would be possible only with someone else's permission. That is the substantial difference.
  Foundation hospitals will be given the power to determine their priorities and strategies. No longer will they have to reflect the priorities and strategies that we have said should be laid down by primary care trusts. They will, indeed, become cuckoos in the nest, which will be very damaging. That is why most Labour MPs, the Labour party conference, most people who work in the NHS and the organisations representing them have rejected the concept of foundation hospitals. The major trade unions have rejected it, as have most of the professional bodies, including the British Medical Association, the National Health Service Consultants Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners. Ministers tell us to ignore them because they are, they say with disdain, "producers". That reminds me of Kipling's poem on Tommy Atkins, his paean of praise for common soldiers and his despising of the people who criticised them when they were not fighting. I would adjust it to say, "Then it's producer this, an' producer that, an producer 'ow's yer soul? But they all turn into heroes when the ambulances roll." Those are the people we are talking about—ambulance staff, nurses, midwives, cleaners, catering staff, doctors, radiographers and therapists. They are all opposed to foundation hospitals. Even the Tories never achieved such unanimity against any of their proposals.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Adrian Bailey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I am sorry, but I do not have time.
  We are rejecting the views of the very people who do the work in the NHS and who have always stuck up for the NHS. Many hon. Members will remember that in late April 1997, 53 doctors wrote a letter to the Daily Mirror saying that we had 24 hours to save the NHS. A survey of them has found that nine out of 10 reject the idea of foundation hospitals, and a random sample of
  850
  NHS consultants shows that they do not like the idea. No patient organisation has come out in favour of the idea.
  Who is for foundation hospitals, apart from the Government? It is a few academics and a few think-tanks, which appear to be more tank than think. A few extremely ambitious NHS managers are in favour of foundation hospitals, but even the NHS managers' body has said that 65 per cent. think that it will be more difficult for people in the NHS to co-operate with one another in future because of the introduction of foundation hospitals. Ministers say that they want to appeal over the heads of the producers and the Labour party to the public, but all the opinion polls show that at least 60 per cent. of the public reject the idea.
  I know that the Whips and many other hon. Members are concerned about the impact of defeating the Government on this issue today, because it might be damaging to the Labour party, but I say to all my right hon. and hon. Friends that, until now, the arguments have been conducted at a national level. If this goes through, there will be rowing, trouble-making and bother for people in the Labour party all over the country. Labour MPs without foundation trusts will face their Tory opponents saying that they are useless because they did not manage to get their hospitals made into foundation trusts. When the first doctor or nurse moves from a non-foundation trust hospital to the nearest foundation trust, there will be a huge row in the local papers and Labour will be blamed.
  We have a brilliant record in putting more money into the NHS, with more new hospitals than ever. We have increased the number of beds and the number of staff—including those in training—and people who work in the NHS want just to be left alone to get on with their day jobs of looking after patients.
  Mr. Dorrell: It is absurd, given the importance of this Bill, that we should be debating our response to a Lords amendment against a two-hour guillotine. The Secretary of State alone took up 48 minutes. The idea that we can hear full contributions from the Opposition or from Government Back Benchers within two hours is absurd.
  In the limited time left to me, I want to point out that the Secretary of State began his speech with two points. First, he said that there was no dispute on his side of the House—I would say on either side of the House—about the importance of the principle that the NHS was established as the means for delivery of health care on the basis of clinical need and without regard to ability to pay. That principle is supported by both sides of the House and by the overwhelming majority of the British people. I acknowledge that that principle is accepted by Labour Back Benchers and he should acknowledge that it is also supported on this side of the House.
  The Secretary of State's second point was that in this day and age the best way to deliver that public policy objective is to follow a decentralisation policy in NHS management, trusting professionals and allowing those who deliver health care greater opportunity to match the service they deliver to the needs of their patients. If the Bill could be conceived of as a means of delivering that policy objective, I have no doubt that all my hon. Friends and I would support the Secretary of State. The

  851
  problem is that the Bill does not deliver what he claims it will. It does not decentralise within the health service—in fact, it does something that, until I read the
  Bill, I thought was impossible: it succeeds in making power in the NHS even more centralised and bureaucratic than it is now. In that more centralised and more bureaucratic health service, the Secretary of State gives foundation trust hospitals an entirely unfair advantage over all other institutions. His Bill does not deliver his objective, but does real damage to the management of the health service.
  Let me give two important examples to demonstrate the truth of that statement. The Secretary of State was kind enough to allow me to intervene during his speech, but he did not respond to the point that I made. My point was that under the capital allocation procedures that he is to introduce, foundation trust hospitals will get priority, favoured access to capital from a cash-limited sum, the practical effect of which will be that those hospitals that are not foundation trust hospitals will come second in the queue and have less advantageous access to capital than they currently have.
  Dr. John Reid rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I will not give way to the Secretary of State during my five minutes, because I know what his answer to my point will be. I did not try to intervene again during his speech, but I shall now respond to his answer.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the capital budget has increased; therefore there are no choices to be made. No Member of Parliament believes that any Government will ever create a world in which there are no choices to be made in capital allocations. The Secretary of State has created a world in which foundation trust hospitals will be at an entirely unfair advantage in terms of access to a cash-limited sum.
  The second point that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer during his speech relates to employment terms. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, Labour Back Benchers are told not to worry—"Agenda for Change" is an entirely rigid straitjacket from which no element of the NHS will be able to depart. Opposition Members are told that the proposals are flexible and that all hospitals in the health service will be able to evolve local employment terms. The truth is that what the Secretary of State has delivered—
  It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 285.
  Division No. 381] [4.53 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Ainger, Nick

  Darwen)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Allen, Graham

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Bailey, Adrian

  852

  Baird, Vera

  Denham, rh John

  Banks, Tony

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barren, rh Kevin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bayley, Hugh

  Doran, Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bell, Stuart

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Betts, Clive

  Flint, Caroline

  Blackman, Liz

  Follett, Barbara

  Blair, rh Tony

  Foster, rh Derek

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Blunkett, rh David

  & Rye)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Foulkes, rh George

  Borrow, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Gapes, Mike (IlfordS)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Goggins, Paul

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Grogan, John

  Wallsend)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Browne, Desmond

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Bryant, Chris

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hanson, David

  Burden, Richard

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Burnham, Andy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Healey, John

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cairns, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heppell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Casale, Roger

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Challen, Colin

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Chaytor, David

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Urmston)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Chryston)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hutton, rh John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cohen, Harry

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Colman, Tony

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corston, Jean

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Cousins, Jim

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Cranston, Ross

  Hatfield)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Cummings, John

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  (Copeland)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  >Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Khabra, Piara S.

  David, Wayne

  Kidney, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  853

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Purnell, James

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lammy, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Lepper, David

  Bellshill)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Anniesland)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  NW)

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Chester)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  MacDougall, John

  Salter, Martin

  McFall, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKechin, Ann

  Sheridan, Jim

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Singh, Marsha

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  McWalter, Tony

  Finsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Soley, Clive

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Southworth, Helen

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Spellar, rh John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Shettleston)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Lochaber)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Merron, Gillian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Michael, rh Alun

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Miliband, David

  Straw, rh Jack

  Miller, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mole, Chris

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Moran, Margaret

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Organ, Diana

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Ward, Claire

  Pearson, Ian

  Watson, Tom (WBromwich E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watts, David

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  White, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Wills, Michael

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Wilson, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Prescott, rh John

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Woodward, Shaun

  854

  Woolas, Phil

  Wright, David (Telford) Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Yarmouth)

  Ms Bridget Prentice

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Stamford)

  Allan, Richard

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Amess, David

  Howden)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Austin, John

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Bacon, Richard

  Doughty, Sue

  Baker, Norman

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Barker, Gregory

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Barnes, Harry

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Efford. clive

  Barrett, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fallon. Michael

  Bennett, Andrew

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bercow John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Westminster)

  Berry, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Best Harold

  Flight, Howard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Flook, Adrian

  Boswell, Tim

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Surrey)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Brady, Graham

  Francois, Mark

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Brazier, Julian

  Galloway, George

  Breed, Colin

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon Colin

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Burnett, John

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burstow, Paul

  Gillan Mrs Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Godsiff, Roger

  Butterfill, John

  Goodman, Paul

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Grayling, Chris

  Cameron David

  Green, Damian(Ashford)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Green Matthew (Ludlow)

  Greenway, John

  Carmichael Alistair

  Grieve, Dominic

  Cash, William

  Gummer, rh John

  Caton, Martin

  Hague, rh William

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Hammond Philip

  Barnet)

  Hancock, Mike

  Chidgey, David

  Harris Dr Evan (Oxford w &

  Chope, Christopher

  Abingdon)

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Rhymney)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Coleman, Iain

  Heald, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Heath, David

  Conway, Derek

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hendry, Charles

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Curry, rh David

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Holmes, Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  855

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Randall, John

  Jack, rh Michael

  Redwood, rh John

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Rendel, David

  Highgate)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  M-Kent)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Keetch, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Inverness)

  Ruffley, David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Salmond, Alex

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Selous, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lamb, Norman

  Short, rh Clare

  Lansley, Andrew

  Simmonds, Mark

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Leigh, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

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

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Kincardine)

  Lidington, David

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Spring, Richard

  McDonnell, John

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Steen, Anthony

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maclean, rh David

  Stevenson, George

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stunell, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Atcham)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Teather, Sarah

  Coldfield)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Moore, Michael

  Thurso, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Mudie, George

  Tredinnick, David

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Trickett, Jon

  Norman, Archie

  Trimble, rh David

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kemptown)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Owen, Albert

  Viggers, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Paice, James

  Walter, Robert

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Paterson, Owen

  Waterson, Nigel

  Picking, Anne

  Watkinson, Angela

  Pickles, Eric

  Weir, Michael

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Whittingdale, John

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Dinefwr)

  Wiggin, Bill

  856

  Wilkinson, John

  Wishart, Pete

  Willetts, David

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  (Macclesfield)

  Mr. David Wilshire

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Mr. Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has just approved a measure the impact of which will be felt exclusively in England. The Government's greatly reduced majority has been obtained through Scottish Members of Parliament—[Interruption.] What advice do you have for those of us whose constituents will regard this as a constitutional outrage? Will you now allow the Secretary of State to make a statement, and to consider my offer to him to enter into immediate talks on how the Bill can be improved, so that its passage through both Houses can be guaranteed? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but I think that I got its gist. He will know that this is not a matter in which the Chair can interfere. He has put his point on the record, and if there is to be any development or discussion, it is entirely a matter for the usual channels, and not for the occupant of the Chair.
  Dr. John Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The expression "pathetically bad losers" springs to mind. Will you confirm to the Conservative spokesman, who is so concerned about where the representatives of this House were elected, that a House in which none of the Tories were elected sought to take the clause out of the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Neither of those matters are points of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that I have not heard a genuine point of order so far, so I hope he is going to provide one.
  Mr. Salmond: Is it in order to point out that Scottish Labour MPs have imposed on England a measure that is not only unpopular in England, but is to the detriment of the Scottish health service?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I feared as much. There is nothing that I can say on that.
  Mr. Frank Field: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray!"] Had there been a free vote, the Government

  857
  would probably have mustered only 50 votes, so do you expect their Lordships to send the measure back to us again?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sometimes, the occupant of the Chair has difficulty in understanding all that goes on in this House; he certainly has no power at all over what goes on in the other place. Let us move on.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 3

  GENERAL DUTY OF REGULATOR
  Lords amendment: No. 4.
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Joan Ryan.]
  The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 240.
  Division No. 382] [5:14 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainger, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Burgon, Colin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Burnham, Andy

  Allen, Graham

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Cairns, David

  Darwen)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bailey, Adrian

  Casale, Roger

  Baird, Vera

  Caton, Martin

  Banks, Tony

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Challen, Colin

  Battle, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chaytor, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Pentlands)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Paul (Giltingham)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Chryston)

  Best, Harold

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Blackman, Liz

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blair, rh Tony

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cohen, Harry

  Blizzard, Bob

  Colman, Tony

  Blunkett, rh David

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cooper, Yvette

  Borrow, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cruddas, Jon

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Cummings, John

  E)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  (Copeland)

  Wallsend)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Browne, Desmond

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bryant, Chris

  Darling, rh Alistair

  858

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  David, Wayne

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Doran, Frank

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kidney, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bow)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Lammy, David

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  & Rye)

  Lepper, David

  Foulkes, rh George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  George, rh Bruce (WalsallS)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCafferty, Chris

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McFall, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rhymney)

  McKechin, Ann

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hendrick, Mark

  McNulty, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  MacShane, Denis

  Heppell, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  McWilliam, John

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sefton E)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Shettleston)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Urmston)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hutton, rh John

  Miliband, David

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Illsley, Eric

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moffatt, Laura

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Mole, Chris

  859

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morgan, Julie

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Finsbury)

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Southworth, Helen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Spellar, rh John

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Squire, Rachel

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Olner, Bill

  Lochaber)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Organ, Diana

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Owen, Albert

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Pearson, Ian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Perham, Linda

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Picking, Anne

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Timms, Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prescott, rh John

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Trickett, Jon

  Purchase, Ken

  Truswell, Paul

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rammell, Bill

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Bellshill)

  Ward, Claire

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Anniesland)

  Watts, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  White, Brian

  NW)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wills, Michael

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruane, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  C)

  Chester)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Salter, Martin

  Woolas, Phil

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Baillieston)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Yarmouth)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Short, rh Clare

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Gillian Merron and

  Singh, Marsha

  Ms Bridget Prentice

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Barker, Gregory

  Allan, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Amess, David

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Barrett, John

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Bacon, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Baker, Norman

  Bercow, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  860

  Berry, Roger

  Hague, rh William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hammond, Philip

  Boswell, Tim

  Hancock, Mike

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Abingdon)

  Surrey)

  Harvey, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Brazier, Julian

  Heald, Oliver

  Breed, Colin

  Heath, David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Hendry, Charles

  Burnett, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Burns, Simon

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Butterfill, John

  Holmes, Paul

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Cameron, David

  Howard, rh Michael

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cash, William

  Jack, rh Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Barnet)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Chidgey, David

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Clappison, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Keetch, Paul

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Inverness)

  Collins, Tim

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Conway, Derek

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Cotter, Brian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Curry, rh David

  Lamb, Norman

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Stamford)

  Leigh, Edward

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Howden)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Lidington, David

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Doughty, Sue

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Loughton, Tim

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Evans, Nigel

  McDonnell, John

  Ewing, Annabelle

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, rh David

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Westminster)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fisher, Mark

  Malins, Humfrey

  Flight, Howard

  Maples, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Forth, rh Eric

  Atcham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Mates, Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Maude, rh Francis

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Garnier, Edward

  May, Mrs Theresa

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Coldfield)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Moore, Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Moss, Malcolm

  Goodman, Paul

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Norman, Archie

  Grayling, Chris

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Greenway, John

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Page, Richard

  861

  Paice, James

  Stunell, Andrew

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Paterson, Owen

  Syms, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Dinefwr)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Redwood, rh John

  Teather, Sarah

  Rendel, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thurso, John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Tredinnick, David

  M-Kent)

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trimble, rh David

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Turner' Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  TYler Paul (N Cornwall)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Ruffley, David

  Walter, Robert

  Salmond.Alex

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Sanders, Adrian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watkinson, Angela

  Selous, Andrew

  Weir, Michael

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wilkinson, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Willetts, David

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  williams, Roger (Brecon)

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

  willis phil

  kincardine)

  Wilshire, David

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  (Macclesfield)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wishart, Pete

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Spring, Richard

  Young, rh Sir George

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stevenson, George

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Streeter, Gary

  Bob Russell

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Government amendment (a) to the words restored agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 5 disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 25 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 26 disagreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 27 agreed to.

Clause 15

  PRIVATE HEALTH CARE
  Lords amendment:No. 28.
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Joan Ryan.]
  The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 213.
  Division No. 383] [5:29 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Ainger, Nick

  Darwen)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Allen, Graham

  Bailey, Adrian

  862

  Baird, Vera

  Denham, rh John

  Banks, Tony

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Battle, John

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Beard, Nigel

  Doran, Frank

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Bell, Stuart

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Edwards, Huw

  Betts, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blackman, Liz

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Farrelly, Paul

  Blizzard, Bob

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Borrow, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Flint, Caroline

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Foster, rh Derek

  Wallsend)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Browne, Desmond

  & Rye)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foulkes, rh George

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnham, Andy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, rh Peter

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caton, Martin

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Challen, Colin

  Hanson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Chaytor, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clapham, Michael

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Rhymney)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chryston)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clelland, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hodge, Margaret

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cranston, Ross

  Sefton E)

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cummings, John

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Hutton, rh John

  (Copeland)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  David, Wayne

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  863

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Olner, Bill

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kemp, Fraser

  Organ, Diana

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Owen, Albert

  Kidney, David

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pearson, Ian

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Perham, Linda

  Bow)

  Picking, Anne

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Lammy, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Pound, Stephen

  Lepper, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Leslie, Christopher

  E)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Purchase, Ken

  Linton, Martin

  Purnell, James

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Love, Andrew

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Rammell, Bill

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  McCabe, Stephen

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  McCafferty, Chris

  Bellshill)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Anniesland)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  MacDougall, John

  NW)

  McFall, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McKechin, Ann

  Ruane, Chris

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McNamara, Kevin

  Chester)

  McNulty, Tony

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  MacShane, Denis

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWalter, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McWilliam, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Short, rh Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Singh, Marsha

  Shettleston)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Michael, rh Alun

  Finsbury)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Southworth, Helen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Spellar, rh John

  Mole, Chris

  Squire, Rachel

  Moran, Margaret

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Morgan, Julie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Mountford, Kali

  Lochaber)

  864

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Ward, Claire

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Watts, David

  Stringer, Graham

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wicks. Malcolm

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  >Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  >Wllls' Mlcnael

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Wllsoa Brlan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  C)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  woodward, Shaun

  Timms, Stephen

  Woodlas, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wray James (Glasgow

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Baillieston)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Wright Anthony D. (Gt

  Trickett, Jon

  Yarmouth)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Gillian Merron and

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Allan, Richard

  Cotter, Brian

  Amess, David

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Curry, rh David

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Atkinson. David (Bour'mth E)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Bacon, Richard

  Stamford)

  Baker, Norman

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Baldry, Tony

  Howden)

  Barker, Gregory

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Barrett, John

  Doughty, Sue

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Nigel

  Bercow, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Boswell, Tim

  Westminster)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Flight, Howard

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Flook, Adrian

  Surrey)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Brady, Graham

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Brazier, Julian

  Francois, Mark

  Breed, Colin

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Malcolm

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Burnett, John

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Burns, Simon

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burstow, Paul

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodman, Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Grayling, Chris

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Cameron, David

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Greenway, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Grieve, Dominic

  Cash, William

  Gummer, rh John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Hague, rh William

  Barnet)

  Hammond, Philip

  Chidgey, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Chope, Christopher

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Clappison, James

  Abingdon)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Collins, Tim

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Conway, Derek

  Heald, Oliver

  865

  Heath, David

  Rendel, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hendry, Charles

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  M-Kent)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Holmes, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ruftley, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Selous, Andrew

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Simmonds, Mark

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Inverness)

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

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Kincardine)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Lamb, Norman

  Spring, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Steen, Anthony

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Syms, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Teather, Sarah

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thurso, John

  Maples, John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Tredinnick, David

  Atcham)

  Trend, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Trimble, rh David

  Maude, rh Francis

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Viggers, Peter

  Coldfield)

  Walter, Robert

  Moore, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Watkinson, Angela

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Norman, Archie

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Wiggin, Bill

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Wilkinson, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Willetts, David

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  >Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Page, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Paterson, Owen

  (Macclesfield)

  Pickles, Eric

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Young, rh Sir George

  Dinefwr)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Randall, John

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Redwood, rh John

  Mr. David Wilshire

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 29.
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Joan Ryan.]
  The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 215.
  Division No. 384] [5.42 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Crausby, David

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cummings, John

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  (Copeland)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Darwen)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bailey, Adrian

  David, Wayne

  Baird, Vera

  Davidson, Ian

  Banks, Tony

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Battle, John

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dawson, Hilton

  Beard, Nigel

  Denham, rh John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bell, Stuart

  Dismore, Andrew

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Bennett, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Doran, Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blackman, Liz

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Borrow, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brennan, Kevin

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Fisher, Mark

  Wallsend)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Browne, Desmond

  Flint, Caroline

  Bryant, Chris

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Follett, Barbara

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Byers, rh Stephen

  & Rye)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Foulkes, rh George

  Cairns, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gapes, Mike (IlordS)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gerrard, Neil

  Casale, Roger

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Goggins, Paul

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chryston)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Coaker, Vernon

  Rhymney)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Colman, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Heppell, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cranston, Ross

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  867

  Hodge, Margaret

  McWalter, Tony

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  McWilliam, John

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Sefton E)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Shettleson)

  Urmston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Martlew, Eric

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hutton, rh John

  Michael, rh Alun

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Illsley, Eric

  Miliband, David

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Miller, Andrew

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jamieson, David

  Mole, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Moran, Margaret

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Morgan, Julie

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Morley, Elliot

  Hatfield)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jones. Helen (Warrington N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Olner, Bill

  Kemp, Fraser

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Organ, Diana

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kidney, David

  Owen, Albert

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Pearson, Ian

  Bow)

  Perham, Linda

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Picking, Anne

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Lammy, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pollard, Kerry

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Lepper, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  E)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Linton, Martin

  Purchase, Ken

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Purnell, James

  Love, Andrew

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Rammell, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  McCafferty, Chris

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Bellshill)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  MacDonald, Calum

  Anniesland)

  MacDougall, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  McFall, John

  NW)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rooney, Terry

  McKechin, Ann

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  MacShane, Denis

  Chester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  868

  Salter, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Timms, Stephen

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sawford, Phil

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheerman, Barry

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheridan, Jim

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Short, rh Clare

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Singh, Marsha

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Finbury)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  White, Brian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Southworth, Helen

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Spellar, rh John

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Squire, Rachel

  Wills, Michael

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wilson, Brian

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  C)

  Lochaber)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Wray, James (Glasgow

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Baillieston)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Yarmouth)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cameron, David

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Amess, David

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Cash, William

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Barnet)

  Bacon, Richard

  Chidgey, David

  Baker, Norman

  Chope, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Clappison, James

  Barker, Gregory

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Barrett, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beggs, Roy (EAntrim)

  Conway, Derek

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cotter, Brian

  Bercow, John

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, rh David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Stamford)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Surrey)

  Howden)

  Brady, Graham

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Brazier, Julian

  Doughty, Sue

  Breed, Colin

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Burnett, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Fallon, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Burt, Alistair

  Westminster)

  Butterfill, John

  Flight, Howard

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Flook, Adrian

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Forth, rh Eric

  869

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Francois, Mark

  Norman, Archie

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Garnier, Edward

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Page, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Paice, James

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Grayling, Chris

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Greenway, John

  Dinefwr)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gummer, rh John

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Hague, rh William

  Randall, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Redwood, rh John

  Hancock, Mike

  Rendel, David

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Robathan, Andrew

  Abingdon)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Harvey, Nick

  M-Kent)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry,

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heald, Oliver

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heath, David

  Ruffley, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hendry, Charles

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Selous, Andrew

  Holmes, Paul

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Spring, Richard

  Keetch, Paul

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  Steen, Anthony

  Inverness)

  Streeter, Gary

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Syms, Robert

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lamb, Norman

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Leigh, Edward

  Teather, Sarah

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Thurso, John

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Lidington, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Trend, Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Trimble, rh David

  Loughton, Tim

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Maclean, rh David

  Walter, Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Watkinson, Angela

  Maples, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Atcham)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Mates, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Maude, rh Francis

  Willetts, David

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Willis, Phil

  Coldfield)

  Wilshire, David

  870

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Young, rh Sir George

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  (Macclesfield)

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Sir Robert Smith

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 55 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 56 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 57 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 58 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 59 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64 agreed to.

Clause 47

  INTRODUCTORY
  Lords amendment: No. 65, in page 17, line 23, at end insert—
  "( ) the availability and quality of information provided to the public about the health care;"
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I leg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 113 and 194 to 219.
  Dr. Ladyman: This group of amendments relates to part 2 of the Bill, which establishes independent inspectorates for health and social care. All the amendments represent Government concessions or technical changes to improve the Bill's drafting.
  We made several significant concessionary improvements to part 2 in response to sensible suggestions made in the other place and during the Bill's progress through the Commons. Lords amendments Nos. 65, 81, 83 and 93 will require the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the National Assembly for Wales, during the course of their inspections and so on, to have regard to the quality of information provided to the public by national health service and social care bodies.
  Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 68, 71, 74, 84 to 86 and 88 will enable the Secretary of State to set out in regulations how individual national health service and social care bodies may make representations to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection before reports or performance ratings relating to them are published. Lords amendments Nos. 72, 76 and 110 create a clear duty for the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts to co-operate in the exercising of their functions. However, it remains unlikely that the independent regulator would be regularly in receipt of information about the quality of health care provided because it will not inspect—inspection will remain the role of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and

  871
  Inspection. Lords amendment No. 73 provides that the commission has a function, rather than a power, to promote effective co-ordination of reviews and so forth in the provision of health care by, or for, English national health service bodies and cross-border special health authorities.
  Lords amendments Nos. 87 and 92 will provide that the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the National Assembly for Wales will have the function of undertaking studies on value for money in relation to local authorities. Lords amendment No. 79 will strengthen the relationship between the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Audit Commission by placing a duty on both to co-operate in areas in which they both have functions. That will reduce the burden of inspection on the NHS.
  Lords amendments Nos. 95 and 96 make it absolutely clear that following the inspection of a boarding school, the Commission for Social Care Inspection or the National Assembly for Wales must publish a report on whether a child's welfare has been adequately safeguarded and promoted. Lords amendment No. 97 makes it clear that the Commission for Social Care Inspection or the Assembly must send a copy of any such report to the school in question.
  Lords amendments Nos. 111 and 112 place a new statutory requirement on the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection to prepare and publish a code of practice on access, handling, use and disclosure of confidential personal information. Lords amendment No. 102 provides for a clear regulation-making power to require information to be made available to the public about health and social care complaints procedures. Lords amendment No. 113 will strengthen the duty of co-operation between the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Assembly to minimise the burden of inspections in cross-border areas.
  Finally, amendment No. 194 and related amendments to schedules 6 and 7 require the Secretary of State to delegate—in practice, it will be to the NHS Appointments Commission—the responsibility for appointing the chair and members of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. That was our policy intention. It is now an explicit requirement.
  6 pm
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the purpose of the amendments and for recognising that they respond to sensible and reasonable amendments proposed in the Lords. I thank our colleagues in the other place for raising some of the issues.
  The Minister referred to the Government's policy intention on appointments to the chair and members of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. I do not recall Ministers being that explicit in Committee, but I am happy that they have accepted the value of specifying that in legislation. Likewise, there was pressure in Committee in another place in respect of how the Commission for Health Improvement and the regulator should co-operate. It should not be at the discretion of CHAI to appoint itself as an advisory body
  872
  to the regulator and to provide information on its own initiative. It is more reasonable to provide a structure of complementary and parallel duties. My colleagues and other noble Lords in another place put pressure on the Government to ensure that the code of practice on access to information covers other bodies that have access to such information and that they treat it with respect. It is right that the Government accepted that.
  It has been helpful for the Government to accept a range of other substantive suggestions, at least to part 2, made in another place and to respond to arguments. We should recognise that whatever the outcome of our discussions on part 1, we always intended the Bill to proceed in a form that would support not only a restructured audit and inspection system for the health service and social care, but a structure for the establishment of standards. For example, much will hang on the clause in part 2 on quality. If we have a structure of standards based on clinical evidence, peer review and clinical practice—something to which members of the NHS can look for guidance—the Government of any party will, I hope, be able to move towards that as the basis on which people will establish practice in the NHS and against which their performance is genuinely measured, rather than the targets and the bureaucratic structures that have been the Government's preference over the past few years. Part 2 is important and I am happy that we can proceed with it on a more agreed basis.
  Mr. Burstow: I also want to express my appreciation of my colleagues in the other place who worked diligently in Committee and at other stages to draw out some of the issues that the Minister responded to by accepting the Lords amendments. In particular, I highlight the important concession on co-operation between the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, the regulator and the Audit Commission. That will help to lighten the burden of the regulation appropriately. In Committee, we touched on the powers of the Commission for Social Care Inspection to report and alter aspects of how a school or college discharges its duties. The other place deliberated on that in a little more detail in Committee, for which we are grateful.
  Finally, I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether the Government plan to consult on issues of convergence of standards, which I understand were debated in the other place on 10 November. Have those consultations started, and what will the timetable be? It would be useful to know at an early stage the timetable for publishing the codes of practice that will apply to both new commissions. We welcome the architecture we have arrived at for inspection and regulation. The final step will be to have only one body that is capable of regulating and inspecting both health and social care.
  Dr. Ladyman: I am pleased that we have broad support for the concessions that the Government have made. I hear what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) says about the possibility of having a single body for inspection. The Bill contains a duty for the CHAI and the CSCI to co-operate, so I hope that they will work closely together on many issues. Whether we will ever reach the point of having one body will be for some future Minister to worry

  873
  about. The hon. Gentleman asked about specific timing issues. I will obtain that information for him and write to him.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 113 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Clause 149

  INFORMATION CONTAINED IN CERTIFICATES
  Lords amendment: No. 114, in page 68, line 17, at end insert "or regulations under subsection (8B)".
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 115 to 120.
  Ms Winterton: The amendments cover part 3 of the Bill, which provides for the recovery of NHS charges. All the amendments deal with issues raised and debated at length in Committee and in the other place. Amendments Nos. 114 to 119 would enable regulations to be made so that contributory negligence—where the injured party is partially responsible—would be taken into account when calculating NHS costs, if an agreement on that issue has been reached as part of a settlement of a personal injury claim through a prescribed mediation process, as endorsed by the court. The Bill already contains provision for that purpose.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Will the regulations be made under the affirmative or the negative procedure?
  Ms Winterton: They will be made under the negative procedure. It was argued, persuasively, in the other place that in the present climate—in which the courts urge parties at least to consider other ways to deal with disputes—there was a case for considering whether some of the alternative dispute resolution procedures, especially mediation, should be included in the processes that could be accepted as a means of confirming contributory negligence findings for the purpose of calculating NHS costs. The Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will be able to make regulations covering issues such as the qualifications of the mediator, the nature of the mediation process and the types of statement about contributory negligence that would be needed to be included in the mediation.
  Mr. Lansley: Last week I was able to attend the annual general meeting of the Cambridge and District Community Mediation Service. May I make a plea that the Government think positively about ways in which they can support such services' core funding? That is a continuing problem for such organisations, which provide a valuable alternative dispute resolution procedure that we want to use in future if we can.
  Ms Winterton: From my previous post in the Lord Chancellor's Department, I am aware of the many benefits offered by mediation.
  874
  Lords amendment No. 120 will make it possible to issue a further certificate specifying a higher amount in NHS costs than a previous certificate only if the reason for the increase is that incorrect or insufficient information had previously been supplied by the person to whom the certificate is issued. Therefore, if a clerical error is made by the scheme's administrators, no further certificate for the correct amount, if that is higher than the amount specified in the original certificate, can be issued. That means that compensators will not have to pay the price of a mistake by the administrators.
  Amendments to change the level of parliamentary scrutiny afforded to some of the regulation-making powers in part 3 were also made in the other place in response both to concerns raised and to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
  Mr. Burns: Given the pressure of time, I shall be extremely brief.
  We warmly welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendments, which, I understand, followed arguments made in another place by my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. As the Minister said, it is important to encourage the use of mediation where such a system is feasible in order to minimise some of the problems that might arise if that additional battery of weapons to resolve disputes is not available. For that reason, we are pleased that the Government have accepted the amendments.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 115 to 120 agreed to.
  It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on remaining Lords amendments, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Lords amendment No. 161 disagreed to.
  Government amendments (a) to (bb) to the words so restored agreed to.
  Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1, 5, 26, 28 and 29: Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Joan Ryan and Claire Ward; Mr. John Hutton to be Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Joan Ryan.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].

  875
  7 pm
  On resuming—

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of any Lords Messages and Amendments that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Vernon Coaker.]
  Question agreed to.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].
  9.30 pm
  On resuming—

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must acquaint the House with the fact that a message has been received from the House of Lords. The Lords insist on certain of their amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign their reasons. They do not insist on certain amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the amendments proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill. They do not insist on their remaining amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.

Clause 41

  APPLICATION BY DEFENDANT FOR TRIAL TO BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT JURY
  Lords Reason: 32B.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) to the words restored, Lords Reason 33G, the Government motion to insist and Government amendments (a) to (h) to the words restored, Lords Reason 34C, the Government motion to insist and Government amendments (a) to (e) to the words restored and Lords Reason 36C, the Government motion to insist and Government amendments (a) to (d) to the words restored.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise this issue as a point of order, but we never know when we might get the chance to do so, given the current funny situation. I wish to draw your attention to an answer that I received today from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). The question, tabled on 6 March this year, was to ask the Home Secretary what the administrative costs were of active community unit grants, race equality grants and refugee integration unit grants in the last financial year. I received an answer this evening from the Under-Secretary, saying:
  "I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy … in the Library."
  Is that the way an effective Government operate? It is now November.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and he has now got it firmly on the record. As we have only an hour for the current business, we should proceed without delay.
  Paul Goggins: At this stage of the parliamentary process, hon. Members, no doubt, will be looking for a degree of compromise and agreement, wherever that may be possible. In that spirit, the Government are

  877
  prepared to make a number of concessions that, we hope, will meet some of the concerns that have been expressed.
  Clause 41 will provide defendants with the option, subject to the court's consent, to opt for judge-alone trial. It will give defendants a choice that they do not currently have about the way in which they are tried. The Government have been somewhat bemused by the hostility with which that provision has been attacked in some quarters. However, we have listened to the arguments, and we have tabled an amendment, the effect of which will be to give the judge discretion in deciding whether to grant a defendant's application for judge-alone trial. That amendment will alter subsection (3), so that the judge may, instead of must, make an order.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can a copy of that amendment be found in the Vote Office? I have just been given a series of papers that does not include that amendment.
  Paul Goggins: I am sure that others who are better placed will he able to check whether that is true, but I understand that the relevant amendment is available, and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been unable to find it. I shall press on.
  The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) criticised our earlier amendments to clause 42, to restrict the application of the clause to serious fraud trials, on the ground that they removed some of the judicial discretion contained in the original draft. That was certainly not our intention, nor, I submit, is it the effect. The further amendment that we now propose, however, would confer on the judge an absolute discretion in relation to the making of an order for non-jury trial under this clause. We are also providing further safeguards by requiring the judge to consult the Lord Chief Justice, or a judge nominated by him, before making an order that the trial be conducted in the absence of a jury.
  Clauses 43 and 45 deal with the pernicious problem of jury tampering. We listened to the argument made yesterday by the Opposition. Again, in the spirit of constructive dialogue, we propose an amendment—the removal of the second condition set out in subsection (5)—which we hope will satisfy the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. We consider the burden on the jury imposed by necessarily intrusive police protection to be a very real problem. As I said, however, we have listened to what has been said and, like Opposition Members, our main concern is to ensure a fair trial, which is of course ensured by the condition set out in subsection (6).
  On clause 45, we do not believe that continuation of a trial following discharge of a jury because of tampering will necessarily be a "non-starter", as suggested by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. Clearly, a judge who felt unable to continue a trial alone because he felt that he would not be able to hear it with the requisite impartiality, or who thought for some other reason that the defendant would not receive a fair
  878
  trial, would not be obliged to do so. That established principle is already reflected in the Bill. I hope, however, that our proposed amendments will allay a good many of the Opposition's concerns by making it absolutely plain that the judge will not be able to continue the trial sitting alone unless he is satisfied not only that jury tampering has actually taken place but that the defendant will receive a fair trial. We have also amended the clause to increase the discretion of the judge in this matter.
  Having covered the technical detail of the amendments, I want to address the wider issues of this debate. It seems to me that the Opposition are prepared to threaten this House and the electorate of this country with the possible loss of this Bill. We are not surprised that that is the case, given the comments of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on 15 July:
  "I don't think there is anything in this bill that is to the great benefit of mankind. If it is lost, it is a price worth paying to protect trial by jury."
  He therefore made his position clear. I was somewhat surprised to read in this morning's Financial Times the comment by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that "If he"—the Home Secretary—
  "fails to compromise he may not get his bill."
  Both the former shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Attorney-General therefore threaten the House with the loss of this Bill.
  Let me remind hon. Members precisely of what that threat entails. Loss of this Bill would mean the loss of tougher sentences for those who commit murder, and the loss of tougher sentences for those who carry out dangerous sexual and violent offices, with no release if they still pose a risk to the public. It would mean the loss of a new five-year minimum sentence for firearms offences to help tackle gun crime, and the loss of longer sentences for dangerous drivers who kill—
  Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me—you may agree or disagree—that the Minister is engaging in a wider debate than is permitted under this amendment. It is of quite a narrow structure—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are matters for the Chair.
  Mr. Garnier: I am just trying to help.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am very grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's kind offer of help, but I think that we can now proceed.
  Paul Goggins: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments are always helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The loss of the Bill would mean losing measures to crack down on bail bandits and to tackle reoffending on bail. It would mean losing the extension of drug testing and treatment provision. It would mean that the possibility of the police, prisons, probation service and victims having a voice in sentencing for the first time ever would be lost. It would mean losing the

  879
  enhancement of jury trial by ensuring that juries better reflect all sections of society and the abolition of the automatic right of exemption.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?
  Paul Goggins: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Hogg rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way at this point.
  Paul Goggins: I am not giving way because we have a short time for debate. Earlier this afternoon, there was criticism that there was insufficient time for people to make their contributions. I intend to make available every minute possible for other hon. Members to contribute.
  In the light of the comments that I have just made, I submit to the House that if the Opposition continue to resist—
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews rose—
  paul Goggins: If the Opposition continue to resist—
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When a Member seeks to intervene, he must not remain on his feet indefinitely if the Minister is not giving way.
  Paul Goggins: I have explained why I am not giving way.
  If the Opposition continue to resist, they will bring the Bill down and the people of Britain will know it.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: As I am conscious that we have reached a stage in the proceedings on the Bill when, perhaps inevitably, tempers may get frayed, I wish first to put on record my thanks to the Minister and to Baroness Scotland for the opportunity they have provided us with for dialogue on this very difficult piece of legislation. I am genuinely grateful for that opportunity, in exactly the same way as I have been genuinely grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has conducted the Bill, which covers a wide range of topics. Undoubtedly, some of them are important, and I also believe that this legislation has the potential to do good. I am absolutely clear about that, and I want to make clear to the Minister my thanks to him in particular for this evening's opportunity to talk.
  It is really with some regret that I have to say to the Minister that, notwithstanding that, the amendments that the Government have tabled—I shall come to them in a moment, because I shall have no difficulty in welcoming them as steps in the right direction—unfortunately do not go far enough in my view and that of my colleagues to meet the issues that the House has to consider.
  880
  The Minister quoted a statement that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made on 15 July. The quote was correct, but the Government cannot be surprised about the state into which they have got themselves on the Bill. We have been saying for a very long time that there are issues surrounding jury trial and bad character that are of fundamental importance to the way in which justice is discharged in this country. We are coming to the point when this touches on matters of conscience. When that happens, it is perhaps no surprise that we get into a situation in which agreement becomes very difficult.
  I went to the other place this afternoon to listen to some of the comments that were made. The one that struck me most was from the ex-Attorney-General, Lord Morris. Although out of
  loyalty he suggested that he felt that the Government should have their way—a view I cannot share—he nevertheless went to the heart of the issue when he said that the Government were setting out to undermine jury trial and that that would be the result of what they were doing. Although I believed that we might be quite close to coming to a sensible outcome on the issue of jury trial, I very much regret that that outcome unfortunately still appears to elude us.
  This is the Government's Bill and at some point they will have to make some decisions. They will have to decide whether a compromise can be reached so that a good piece of legislation can be placed on the statute book, about which I would be happy to say that although I regret some details, it is of benefit. However, if the Bill comes up against the conscience of many Members of this House and the other place, it will founder. I tell the Minister that if a satisfactory outcome is not reached, it will not be for lack of trying on my part. Although we have not reached an agreement, I rejoice that his willingness to table amendments this evening indicates that the Government are willing to engage in the process.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite scandalous for the Under-Secretary to suggest that if the House of Lords persists in its view, the Bill is necessarily lost? That is not true. The Government could concede on these two small matters and the Bill would be saved.
  Mr. Grieve: The matter is entirely in the hands of the Government. Of course, it is right to say that the constitution of this country as it stands at present, and especially that of the other place, is the Government's creation. It does not behove them to criticise the other place for exercising its constitutional rights because they have no grounds to do so.
  Mr. John Gummer: Surely my hon. Friend is being too kind to the Government. They always want it both ways. They want us to accept the other place that they have created when that is convenient, but when it is inconvenient, they suggest that because it is an unelected body we cannot listen to it. Surely they have to make up their mind on the constitution as well as the Bill.
  Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend is right. I do not wish to widen the scope of the debate because I want to concentrate on the amendments, but it is true that the Minister made some intemperate comments toward the end of his speech. Given the lateness of the hour and the process through which we have been, however, that is fairly forgivable. Nevertheless, there is no point in criticising Members of the other place, including many Government Back Benchers, for doing their job in accordance with their consciences and views.
  I shall put on the record the problems that remain. We indicated previously that we remain of the view that clause 41—"Application by defendant for trial to be conducted without jury"—is entirely ill conceived and will lead to the trial process being brought into disrepute by forum shopping. Unfortunately, the tendency of judges to acquire a reputation on specific cases to which forum shopping will befall would be exploited. On top of that, the clause will deprive members of the public who form juries of the opportunity to decide on the guilt or innocence of their peers, which is as important as the right of the protection of a defendant through a jury trial. That situation would be quite wrong, and the Government will find that judges who sit alone will acquit, which will lead to public outrage that would not occur if a jury tried the case. We remain absolutely clear in our minds that clause 41 must go in its totality and must not be seen again.
  Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend suggests that some judges might acquit—well, they might. However, equally there will be case-hardened judges who could take a prejudiced view on specific defences and lines of evidence, which would be antipathetic to the interests of justice and defendants. Would my hon. Friend care not only to nail his colours to the mast on acquitting judges, but concern himself with the fact that justice requires a fair trial for both the prosecution and the defendant?
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend is right. It could be said that as the trial process in front of a judge alone is the defendant's choice, on his head be it. It is a bit difficult for him to complain about the judge being hard on him. I prefer to see the other side of the coin, however, which is the extent to which the public may express grave disquiet at decisions that are taken by judges sitting alone in criminal cases which the public do not understand and where justice is not seen to be done. That is the merit of juries. We should have nothing to do with the issue of individuals having choices.
  Lady HermonWill the hon. Gentleman clarify one simple thing for me? Is it now Tory party policy to campaign to abolish the non-jury Diplock courts, which have worked successfully in Northern Ireland without the sun and the moon falling in?
  Mr. Grieve: I reassure the hon. Lady that it is nothing of the kind. If she bears with me, I will provide her with complete reassurance on that when I deal with jury tampering, which is the relevant issue with regard to Diplock courts. We are not talking about a situation in which it is necessary to have a trial in front of a judge alone because no fair trial could otherwise take place. Mercifully, England and Wales have not had the same problem as Northern Ireland.
  882
  The other concern relates to applications by prosecution for certain complex or lengthy trials to be conducted without a jury. The Minister made some concessions on that and I acknowledge that they are important. The possibility of a review by the Lord Chief Justice and the possibility of a discretion to the judge not to allow a trial to take place without a jury are helpful. However, the Serious Fraud Office has a conviction rate in excess of 90 per cent. The number of trials that will fall within that category are minute, especially in the light of the Government's amendments.
  Trials have not collapsed because of the difficulties of finding juries. Juries can be found. There is, therefore, no justification for keeping clause 42. If that clause were to go, I have no doubt that our tasks in relation to the Bill would be immeasurably simplified. The proposals to curtail the right to trial by jury in fraud trials are fundamentally flawed. Although I accept that the Government's amendments are a minor improvement, they do not go to the heart of the issue.
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend welcomed the inclusion of a review by the Lord Chief Justice. Perhaps he might care to reconsider that because what is being proposed is a private word with the Lord Chief Justice. No one will know what he has said and no one will have the opportunity to address him. That is private justice of a most unsatisfactory kind.
  Mr. Grieve: I have no doubt that anyone who reads what the Lord Chief Justice said on Second Reading—
  Mr. Hogg: That is not the point.
  Mr. Grieve: I will get to that. No one could doubt that the Lord Chief Justice has the interests of justice and judicial discretion at heart. The concession is not good enough, but it is better than a poke in the eye.
  Mr. Hogg: It is private justice.
  Mr. Grieve: It is still marginally better than what was on offer before. I do not give the concession greater praise than that. If I did, I might be minded to reconsider clause 42, but I am not and nor are my colleagues.
  The final issues relate to the application by prosecution for trial to be conducted without a jury if there is a danger of jury tampering. Although I continue to have concerns about that, the Minister has gone a considerable way to provide reassurance. In the case of an application to discontinue jury trial even before the first trial has started, the amendments tabled are improved by removing the second condition in clause 42(5), and I accept that. However, I still believe that the test for deciding whether such a trial should go ahead is not high enough. The Minister knows the amendments that we tabled earlier and they remain, to my mind, the acceptable model. However, the Minister and the Government have gone a long way to provide reassurance. I am sorry that in the totality of the matter it is not sufficient.
  In the case of discharge of the jury because of jury tampering, I am again pleased that the Minister has made certain concessions and I accept that they may have been reached with great difficulty. Nevertheless,

  883
  they are worthy concessions. It remains the case that the test of whether it is necessary in the interests of justice for the trial to be terminated is not sufficiently high. That is perhaps a minor issue and the Government have come even closer to satisfying us on that—although still not close enough.
  The Government have tabled amendments, and that is productive in the process of trying to come to an agreement. I am willing to continue that process. I would like to see the Bill on the statute book, but nothing will induce me to take a step that would allow that as long as the fundamental flaws in it—especially in relation to clauses 41 and 42—remain. Those clauses should not be in the legislation. It is such a fundamental issue that it makes it impossible—I say this with regret—to reach agreement with the Government this evening.
  Simon Hughes: The Bill started its passage through Parliament on 21 November last year, when it had its First Reading in the House of Commons. We took six months to deal with it, finishing on 20 May. The following day it went to the Lords, and they finished their work on it on Monday 17 November. They did their job well, as we tried to do ours. Only yesterday did we have the chance to consider for the first time the changes that the Lords had made. We did so carefully, although within a guillotined time limit. We sent back to the Lords a variety of matters, after eight votes.
  Only four substantive matters remain, out of a Bill of 307 clauses and 30 schedules. Of 14 parts, only two are still controversial—four clauses in part 7 to do with jury trial and 16 clauses in part 11 to do with bad character, reputation and evidence. I say to the Minister in the same spirit that has followed the Bill throughout its passage that it cannot be impossible for people of good will to negotiate an agreement that allows the Government, who have already secured agreement on 12 of the 14 parts of the Bill, 287 of the 307 clauses and all the schedules, to reach an agreement on those that are outstanding in the hours that remain of this Parliament.
  We did not determine that the matter should be finished by tomorrow: the Government chose that. Like the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats have appreciated the discussions with Ministers at all stages. Like Conservative, Labour and Independent peers, Liberal Democrats have participated in those discussions and made our position clear. The Government must understand that in this Parliament there are two Chambers, both of which are entitled to have their say. It is a Parliament of the Government's making. Indeed, the second Chamber is explicitly of this Government's making and they therefore have to accept that it has the right to have its say, as we do.
  Let me make our position clear on the matters that remain. The amendments tabled represent progress—they are an improvement. However, on the two substantive matters to which they relate—jury trial and bad character—the Government have not yet addressed fundamental concerns that have caused opposition on both sides of this House and of the House of Lords. Let me make it clear how the Government will have to proceed. I hope they will do so, and if they do, we shall respond in the hours that remain.
  884
  10 pm
  The Government must accept that making only the minimal alteration to clause 41, "Application by defendant for trial to be conducted without jury", and giving the judge discretion means, by definition, that there will, at least on a regular basis, be the possibility of non-jury trial for the most serious offences in cases that clearly produce two types of serious trial in this country. Instead of the respected institution of the jury—12 people—making a decision, a judge will make the decision alone in some cases. That judge would come with a reputation and would be in a far more invidious position than any judge is now. The change is not necessary. The reason it should be resisted, which I hope the Government will accept, is that it eats into the principle that we in this country have jury trial for serious cases, and the defendant—not the Government or the judge—chooses.
  We debated yesterday at great length clause 42 and whether serious fraud cases were better dealt with by judge or by jury. The logic of the Government again coming up with a proposal that gives a discretion to the court seems to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and me—we have examined the matter carefully—to be that if the tests that remain in the Bill are passed, the judge will be driven to decide that the case can be a judge-only case. That outcome is the presumed outcome. Yes, the provision for an application to the Lord Chief Justice provides a threshold, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, that application is made without criteria or public debate, and as a result there is no necessity for decisions or reasons for those decisions to be stated publicly.
  Mr. Hogg: It is more offensive than that, because the relevant parties to the litigation do not have an opportunity to address the Lord Chief Justice.
  Simon Hughes: That appears also to be the case.
  Mr. Garnier: Have the Government applied their mind to the time available to the Lord Chief Justice? He is already a busy man; is he expected to throw away his existing list in order to deal with the applications of a private nature that the hon. Gentleman is describing?
  Simon Hughes: If there were a real issue—if we as a country had great difficulty securing convictions in serious fraud cases—that might be a matter that should daily command the attention of the Lord Chief Justice. However, serious fraud cases are not ones in which convictions are not regularly successfully achieved: 90 per cent. result in convictions—a higher proportion than in any other category of case heard before judge and jury. The Government are inventing a mischief in order to propose a solution, and their solution is the loss of jury trial. A defendant who happens to be charged with fraud may suddenly lose the right to a jury trial, with no say at all.
  I hope that we have made it clear to Ministers that we have arrived at our position for all sorts of reasons, not only history, success and reputation, but because of the danger that once the principle that serious cases should go before juries is broken into for some serious cases

  885
  today, it is possible to argue that it should be done for other serious cases tomorrow. Lesser cases do not go to juries; the change that we are debating would be the beginning of serious cases not going to juries, and defendants would have no say in that. If the Minister believes that that will enhance criminal justice and the reputation of the good parts of the criminal justice system, he is sadly mistaken. I am sure that, in their heart of hearts, he and his colleagues do not believe that.
  On jury tampering, I also welcome the concessions that have been made. I think that there is scope for agreement on the wording. I accept that there are cases where it may be necessary, when attempt after attempt has been made to have a jury trial and people have interfered, to pull the plug. That may be necessary when everything else has been tried. I think that the Government now accept that and that they are moving in the right direction. We are prepared to work on some wording in relation to clauses 43 and 45.
  I hope that the House is making it clear that clauses 41 and 42 are not a necessary precondition of the Bill passing through this place. I hope that the Minister understands that if the Government choose to pull the Bill because they cannot get their way on these two clauses, that will be the Government's choice, not our choice. It will be a choice that is not consistent with the reputation and the view of the British people, who trust jury trial more than they trust a single administration in the government of this country. I hope that the Government will realise that the reputation of the criminal justice system deserves better treatment, and that they will think again. We are willing to do so, and I hope that they will do so too.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I can be exceedingly brief.
  Although I do not want to embarrass him, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who sits beside me, said just now that a jury trial is the criminal classes trying the criminals. I do not agree with that. However, having heard my hon. Friend the Minister speak, I was reminded that Gladstone once said of Disraeli that his only principle was lack of principle. We are not discussing a Bill that is bobbing between two Houses with people trying to come to some convenient solution. We are discussing a fundamental principle. If we lose sight of that, it seems to me that we lose sight of what justice and liberty are about.
  I was not involved in consideration of the Bill in Committee, but I have read the reports of all the proceedings. It seems that most of the statements that have come from the Home Secretary have been both banal and didactic. An argument must be constructed before cursing people who disagree with a proposal. Perhaps one of the problems in this debate is that most of us can agree that we have the worst Home Secretary for the past 100 years, but some of us are suspicious that we may have the worst Home Secretary for the next 100 years. That is not good enough, and I do not say that in jest.
  Lady Hermon ros—
  Mr. Sedgemore: There are many Labour Back Benchers whose views I respect who are saying that
  886
  making this intervention into jury trials is not an important issue. That is not the history of the Labour party since the Representation Committee was formed more than 100 years ago.
  People have different sticking points in politics. I can only say that this is one of my big sticking points, and I would hope that it is a big sticking point for all my colleagues. My researchers have gone through all their election addresses individually since 1997, and none of them has advocated the abolition of jury trials in his or her election manifestos. What is this all about? Why are we striving might and main, according to the Home Secretary, to deal with about 20, 25, 30, 40 or 50 cases a year? I say for myself that I am debating whether it is worth while taking the Whip of a political party that will make a fundamental interference in liberty and justice.
  Mr. Hogg: We have been told by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for whom I have the greatest respect and against whom I have frequently appeared in court in the past, that we have the worst Home Secretary, probably for 200 years. I am bound to say that I think that he is probably right. The Home Secretary is one of the most illiberal individuals whom I have had the misfortune to listen to since I entered the House of Commons. I hope very much that the House of Lords will stick to its position. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) set out the detailed arguments, strongly reinforced by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, so I do not have to repeat them. I agree with them. I shall just make three points.
  Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for taking an intervention, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) did not do so, which I regret. May I say on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that the present Home Secretary is regarded as a very brave and courageous Home Secretary, precisely because when the Bill was first drafted, it did not extend to Northern Ireland. It was the Home Secretary, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and myself, who agreed to extend key provisions to Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please explain to me and to the people of Northern Ireland why he and his party do not object to non-jury Diplock courts, but continue to object to non-jury trials in respect of a small issue?
  Mr. Hogg: The last thing I want to do is to be critical of the hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, but last night my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield set out in considerable detail why we thought it right to retain the Diplock trials in the Province. I share that view. The special circumstances in the Province justify them. As for thinking that the Home Secretary is a brave and liberal chap, he may have his virtues, but liberality is not among them. He is one of the most illiberal Home Secretaries I have had the misfortune to see or read about in all my study of politics and history.
  I shall make three points, the first of which relates to clause 41. Let us be clear about it. The effect of the Government's provision is to create a presumption against jury trials. I do not believe that a liberal

  887
  Government should be doing that. We are given a concession: the word "may" is to be introduced into the Bill instead of the word "must", but there are no criteria of any kind. It has not advanced the cause one little bit. The presumption is still against jury trials, and for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield tonight and yesterday, that is deeply offensive.
  Clause 42 is a spectacular own goal on the part of the Government. What is being offered by way of a compromise is a private conversation between the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. I entirely agree with the kind remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about the Lord Chief Justice, but the idea that a trial can be regulated through a private word is bizarre. The people who are being tried have a right to say something about their position. What is proposed is a private word between two judicial figures, with the people actively involved being utterly deprived of any opportunity to make representations, and the ultimate decision being no doubt motivated by the decision of the Lord Chief Justice, which will never be announced to anybody. If that does not offend the principles of fair trial, I cannot think what does.
  Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend and I recall that in the last Parliament the Government were keen that we should pass the Human Rights Act 1998, which brought into domestic law the European convention. He and I also remember that article 6 brings with it into domestic law a right that the common law already recognizes—the right to a fair trial. If a trial is to be continued through the means of a private conversation between the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice we know not where and when, surely that conflicts with article 6 and the Human Rights Act.
  Mr. Hogg: Manifestly so, and my hon. and learned Friend and I will have great fun with that, should the matter come before courts in which we are engaged. The prospect of the forum being determined as a result of a private conversation is deeply offensive.
  I want to make two further points. First, in what I suppose passed for his peroration, the Under-Secretary told the House that, if the House of Lords stuck to its views, the entire Bill would be lost. That is complete rubbish; it does not even begin to approximate to the truth. The reality is that, if the Government want to make a concession on the several clauses involved, they can do so, and the Bill will then be saved. The Bill will be lost only if they refuse to make a concession, so I have the very nasty feeling that the House has been a trifle misled—would that be an appropriate word, Mr. Deputy Speaker?—as to the impact of the position that we are adopting tonight.
  10.15 pm
  Finally, I would commend to the Under-Secretary, his officials and his Front Bench colleagues a little modesty. The plain truth is that, in the other place, by a very substantial majority, the noble Lords have expressed their view. It was largely a free view, unconstrained by the Whip and expressed by those who know something about the matter and are not seeking
  888
  jobs. I am bound to say that that view has a greater legitimacy in my eyes than that of Labour Members, bound by the Whips, most of whom are looking for jobs. I prefer the views of those in the other place in this matter. They know what they are talking about and they have not been bought by ambition.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: There is not a great deal that I can add to this highly polemical and very instructive debate, except this: I have prosecuted the worst of them—
  Chris Ruane: The Tories.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Many of them, funnily enough, are Tories.
  I have prosecuted the worst of them and I have defended the worst of them, and I have gloried in the successes and suffered the defeats in that respect. I come here to defend the jury system only because it is part of us, not because it is anything else. It is part of us inasmuch as this Chamber is part of us. It brings together an enormously eclectic number of people in order to judge their fellow citizens. The idea that they are not capable of doing it is an insult to them and an insult to us. We are an extraordinarily eclectic group of people. The days when the squirearchy came here to sit on the Tory Benches and to patronise the representatives of organised labour on this side of the House are all gone. [Interruption.] Of course, they have toffs on those Benches, and let me say straight away that we have toffs on our side as well.
  We have become a glorious and eclectic mix of people and we trust ourselves to wrestle with the most profound, difficult and sometimes incomprehensible legislation. One message that I have is: for God's sake trust the jury system, which has served us for 800 years. The idea that juries do not understand the complexities of fraud trials is an insult to juries and an insult to those who have lived with them for 800 years. Nobody in the business or game would support that view. It is borne out by juries' high conviction rate; they know dishonesty and fraud when they see them.
  Let us support the system that has served us so well, and stop, at this stage, any erosion of this great liberty that we have. There were those who said that we should do away with jury trial for the least serious offences, and we beat them back twice in the last Parliament. Now, they have come back and said that we should do that with the most serious offences. Had we lost last time, we would now be squeezing into 800 years of liberty a tiny section of criminal activity, which would be wholly unacceptable.
  I want to finish on the question of jury nobbling. The jury is the strength of the system, not its weakness. It is almost impossible to corrupt 12 people, whether with money, bribery, threat or violence—that simply does not exist— but it is possible to corrupt, bribe or threaten one man. The great strength of our system is that it involves 12 people. In a very long life of crime—I used that phrase the other day as a joke, but the point is true—I have never known a jury to be corrupted or distorted to the extent that an unjust verdict was delivered. But if I were asked whether, if the Bill goes through, I could say that the prospect is that I will never see a single judge corrupted or bribed, I would describe that as myopia.

  889
  This country's glorious and wonderful system has been copied and adulated throughout the world. The House—on both sides—should resist with every sinew and vein of its body any attempt to erode what we have.
  Mr. Gummer: As so often, the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has put his finger on the pulse of the nation. I have great respect for him, which is why I want to address him very directly. Throughout all these debates, he has heard that only those whose commitment is to the Government Whip have supported him. All those who have taken, and can take, an independent view have opposed him. That means that he is about to do something extremely dangerous, which is to decide—or to attempt to decide—the future of English justice not by listening to all the voices and coming to a common position that the whole nation can support, but by agreeing with a prejudgment of the Home Secretary.
  My concern is that although I have listened to such debates recently and when we previously discussed these matters, I have never heard a proper argument that stands up, and the people outside have never heard such an argument. That matters more than anything else, as British justice works because the British people believe it to be just. The jury is a crucial part of that. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady would not speak but perhaps listen, she might hear something. I know that she listens to what the Whips say and votes as they tell her, but will she listen to the fact that no independent in the other House has considered that the case is proved? In a court, a case has to be proved, and in this court the case has to be proved.
  The court of Parliament ought to take seriously the fact that we need jury trials to give people confidence in the justice of British justice. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reflect on the fact that he has it in his hands to make British justice continue to be respected. He should not put in peril the whole of the Bill because he wants to do the work of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has shown himself unable to understand what 800 years of history mean. He is out of touch with the view of the general public. Will the Under-Secretary change the world by standing up for the general view instead of his boss's view?
  Mr. Garnier: There are two ways to look at the problem that the Government face when considering whether the jury system should be maintained. First, does it accord with principle, and, secondly, is it of practical utility? The experience of those of us who have practised in the courts before criminal juries and civil juries suggests that it works. There is a collective common sense that exists in a jury made up of 12 of our citizens randomly chosen.
  Of course, it is inconvenient for the Government. Of course, it is expensive and, of course, the Treasury will apply pressure on the Lord Chancellor's Department, or whatever it is called nowadays, to increase the rate at which trials are conducted so that they are more economically efficient, but it seems that that conflicts with the principle of whether, by removing trial by jury—[Interruption.] I know that the Under-Secretary
  890
  of State for the Home Department finds this immensely amusing. She is laughing at the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety. Perhaps she has good reason to laugh at her, but let me return to the issue. If we are to remove the trial by jury system, we have to be convinced that the principle that lies behind it should be thrown away.
  I am not going to go into a history lesson at this late hour. Many of those who support the jury system trace it back into the mists of mediaeval history. I do not need to do that. I need rely only on the principle that exists today—that in order for the criminal justice system to receive the consent of the public and, more important, the agreement of those who are tried, it is important that those who are tried are tried by their peers, wherever that is possible.
  As someone who tries criminals or those who are accused of crimes, and who has to deal with cases in partnership with a jury, I do not see prisoners, shackled and handcuffed, who are reluctant to be tried by their peers. I see people who would rather not be in a criminal court, but when they are convicted and sentenced they accept that the process is legitimate and that the people who have found them guilty are not distant, separated officials of the state but their equals.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) jokingly referred—I am afraid that jokes do not go down terribly well with his colleagues at the moment—to there being toffs on both sides of the House and to other sorts of people on both sides of the House. He will find reflected in the ordinary jury people of all walks of life and of different political and other opinions, who come together as a group of 12 to decide the guilt or innocence of the individual whose liberty they are required to consider. That does not seem to have occurred to the Government or to the ministerial team, who seem to celebrate in denigrating the one aspect of the criminal justice system that meets most closely with democracy and with what we are supposed to stand for in the Chamber—namely, a representative democracy, whether it be in the making of laws or in the application of laws. It is a poorer House of Commons—a poorer Parliament—that refuses to accept that the jury system works and is something that can be sustained and celebrated by reason of principle. It is a revolting Government—a Government who ought to be abhorred and despised—who cannot see the wisdom of experience and common sense that is to be found in the ordinary English jury.
  I trust that the House will sustain the Lords in their objections to the Government's refusal to accept common sense and popular wisdom.
  10.30 pm
  Paul Goggins: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that only small changes needed to be made to clause 42. I do not agree that they are small changes, but, if they are, why is he not prepared to go that extra distance to make the kind of agreement—
  Mr. Grieve: If I may correct the Minister, I think that he must have misunderstood. We have said consistently that clause 42 is fundamentally flawed and should not be in the Bill.
  Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman has made his views clear.

  891
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Costal (Mr. Gummer) described my colleagues who have supported this aspect of the Bill—indeed, the whole Bill—as people who were shackled to the Whips. Frankly, I know that they vote—
  It being one hour after the commencement of consideration, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [18 November].
  Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 220.
  Division No. 385] [10:31 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Chaytor, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Chryston)

  Darwen)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clelland, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Austin, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Bailey, Adrian

  Colman, Tony

  Banks, Tony

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Bayley, Hugh

  Crausby, David

  Beard, Nigel

  Cruddas, Jon

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cummings, John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Bell, Stuart

  (Copeland)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Berry, Roger

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Betts, Clive

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Blackman, Liz

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  David, Wayne

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Borrow, David

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Denham, rh John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brennan, Kevin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  E)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Wallsend)

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bryant, Chris

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Edwards, Huw

  Burden, Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Burgon, Colin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burnham, Andy

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Cairns, David

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, rh Derek

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  & Rye)

  Challen, Colin

  Foulkes, rh George

  892

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Linton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McFall, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rhymney)

  McKechin, Ann

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  McWilliam, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Shettleston)

  Sefton E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Urmston)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, rh John

  Mole, Chris

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moran, Margaret

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Morgan, Julie

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hatfield)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Olner, Bill

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Organ, Diana

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Owen, Albert

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Perham, Linda

  Kemp, Fraser

  Picking, Anne

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kidney, David

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pollard, Kerry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Bow)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  E)

  Lammy, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prescott, rh John

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lepper, David

  Purnell, James

  893

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Stringer, Graham

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rammell, Bill

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Bellshill)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Anniesland)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Timms, Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Ruane, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruddock, Joan

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Chester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salter, Martin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Sawford, Phil

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Ward, Claire

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Watts, David

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  White, Brian

  Singh, Marsha

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wilson, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Southworth, Helen

  C)

  Spellar, rh John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Squire, Rachel

  Woolas, Phil

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Worthington, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Stevenson, George

  Yarmouth)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Lochaber)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Vernon Coaker and

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Jim Fitzpatrick

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burstow, Paul

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Burt, Alistair

  Allan, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Cameron, David

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bacon, Richard

  Cash, William

  Baird, Vera

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Baker, Norman

  Barnet)

  Baldry, Tony

  Chidgey, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Chope, Christopher

  Barnes, Harry

  Clappison, James

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Collins, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Conway, Derek

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cotter, Brian

  Bercow, John

  Curry, rh David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Boswell, Tim

  Stamford)

  Brady, Graham

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Howden)

  Brazier, Julian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Breed, Colin

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Doughty, Sue

  Burnett, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel

  894

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maples, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Atcham)

  Westminster)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Fisher, Mark

  Mates, Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Maude, rh Francis

  look, Adrian

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fox, Dr. LJam

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Francois, Mark

  Coldfield)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Moore, Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Moss, Malcolm

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Norman, Archie

  Gidley, Sandra

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Goodman, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Grayling, Chris

  Ottaway, Richard

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Page, Richard

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Paice, James

  Greenway, John

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Paterson, Owen

  Gummer, rh John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hague, rh William

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Hammond, Philip

  Dinefwr)

  Hancock, Mike

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Abingdon)

  Randall, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Redwood, rh John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Heath, David

  M-Kent)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hendry, Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Ruffley, David

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Holmes, Paul

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Selous, Andrew

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jack, rh Michael

  Simmonds, Mark

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns &

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Kincardine)

  Keetch, Paul

  Soames, Nicholas

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Spring, Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Steen, Anthony

  Lamb, Norman

  Streeter, Gary

  Lansley, Andrew

  Stunell, Andrew

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Syms, Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Teather, Sarah

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Loughton, Tim

  Thurso, John

  McDonnell, John

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tredinnick, David

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Maclean, rh David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Viggers, Peter

  895

  Walter, Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Winnick, David

  Waterson Nigel

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Watkinson, Angela

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Whittingdale.John

  (Macclesfiled)

  Whittingdale, John

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Young, rh Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Hugo Swire

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Government amendment (a) to the words restored agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put. That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 36.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 215.
  Division No. 386] [10.46 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainger, Nick

  Caplin, Ivor

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Casale, Roger

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caton, Martin

  Allen, Graham

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Challen, Colin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  darwen)

  Chaytor, David

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Bailey, Adrian

  Chryston)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Coleman, Iain

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Colman, Tony

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bell, Stuart

  Cousins, Jim

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Cranston, Ross

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cruddas, Jon

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cummings, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Blizzard, Bob

  (Copeland)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brennan, Kevin

  David, Wayne

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline

  Davidson, Ian

  E)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Wallsend)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Denham, rh John

  Browne, Desmond

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bryant, Chris

  Dismore, Andrew

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Burden, Richard

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Burgon, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Burnham, Andy

  Doran, Frank

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Cairns, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Edwards, Huw

  896

  Efford, Clive

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ennis, Jeff (Barns/ey E)

  Kidney, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bow)

  Flint, Caroline

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  &Rye)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lepper, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Linton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McFall, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rhymney)

  McKechin, Ann

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  McWilliam, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Shettleston)

  Sefton E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Urmston)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, rh John

  Mole, Chris

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moran, Margaret

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Morgan, Julie

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hatfield)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Jones, Kevan (NDurham)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Olner, Bill

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Organ, Diana

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Owen, Albert

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Perham, Linda

  Kemp, Fraser

  Picking, Anne

  897

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stevenson, George

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Plaskitt, James

  Lochaber)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Pound, Stephen

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Prescott, rh John

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Purnell, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Timms, Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  Trickett, Jon

  Bellshill)

  Truswell, Paul

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Anniesland)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Ruane, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Chester)

  Watts, David

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  White, Brian

  Salter, Martin

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wilson, Brian

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Simon, Sion (B'ham Erdington)

  C)

  Singh, Marsha

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Yarmouth)

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Spellar, rh John

  Squire, Rachel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Vernon Coaker and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Jim Fitzpatrick

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Ainsworth, Peter (ESurrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Allan, Richard

  Breed, Colin

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Burnett, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Burns, Simon

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burstow, Paul

  Bacon, Richard

  Burt, Alistair

  Baker, Norman

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Barnes, Harry

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cameron, David

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Bercow, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Barnet)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Chidgey, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Surrey)

  Collins, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  Conway, Derek

  898

  Cotter, Brian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Curry, rh David

  Lidington, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stamford)

  Loughton, Tim

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Howden)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Dawson, Hilton

  Maclean, rh David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Malins, Humfrey

  Doughty, Sue

  Maples, John

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Evans, Nigel

  Atcham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Maude, rh Francis

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Westminster)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fisher, Mark

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Flight, Howard

  Coldfield)

  Flook, Adrian

  Moore, Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Francois, Mark

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Norman, Archie

  Garnier, Edward

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Opik, Lembit

  Gidley, Sandra

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ottaway, Richard

  Goodman, Paul

  Page, Richard

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Paice, James

  Grayling, Chris

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Pickles, Eric

  Greenway, John

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Grieve, Dominic

  Dinefwr)

  Gummer, rh John

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Hague, rh William

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Redwood, rh John

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Rendel, David

  Abingdon)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Hawkins, Nick

  M-Kent)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Robertson, Laurence (Jewk'b'ry)

  Heald, Oliver

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Heath, David

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Ruffley, David

  Hendry, Charles

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Holmes, Paul

  Selous, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jack, rh Michael

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

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Kincardine)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Soames, Nicholas

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Keetch, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Steen, Anthony

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Streeter, Gary

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Syms, Robert

  Lamb, Norman

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  899

  Teather, Sarah

  Wiggin, Bill

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thurso, John

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Tredinnick, David

  willis' Phil

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  (Macclesfield)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Wood Mike (Batley)

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Walter, Robert

  Young, rh Sir George

  Waterson, Nigel

  Watkinson, Angela

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whittingdale, John

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Gregory Barker

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 33 disagreed to.
  Government amendments (a) to (h) to the words restored agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 34 disagreed to.
  Government amendments (a) to (e) to the words restored agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 36 disagreed to.
  Government amendments (a) to (d) to the words restored agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 114 to 119 and 121 to 131.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 216.
  Division No. 387] [11:01 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Ainger, Nick

  Wallsend)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Bryant, Chris

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Burden, Richard

  Darwen)

  Burgon, Colin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Burnham, Andy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers-rh Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Austin, John

  Cairns David

  Bailey Adrian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Banks Tony

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C bridge)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Battle, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bayley, Hugh

  Casale Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Beard Nigel

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Challen Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Chaytor David

  Bell, Stuart

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Clark, Mrs Helen (petertborough)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Clark Paul (Gillingham)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke rh charles (Norwich S)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Blackman, Liz

  Chryston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clelland, David

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Borrow, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Coleman, Iain

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Colman, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cooper, Yvette

  900

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Crausby, David

  Sefton E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Urmston)

  (Copeland)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cunningham, Tony (Workingion)

  Hutton, rh John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  David, Wayne

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Denham, rh John

  Hatfield)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Doran, Frank

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Efford, Clive

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kidney, David

  Farrelly, Paul

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bow)

  Flint, Caroline

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  & Rye)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foulkes, rh George

  Lepper, David

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Linton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  Grogan, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hain, rh Peter

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hanson, David

  MacDougall, John

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  McFall, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rhymney)

  McKechin, Ann

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  MacShane, Denis

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Heppell, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Hermon, Lady

  McWilliam, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  901

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Shettleston)

  Singh, Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Miliband, David

  Finsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mole, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Margaret

  Southworth, Helen

  Morgan, Julie

  Spellar, rh John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Rachel

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Lochaber)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stewart, ian (Eccles)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, rh Jack

  Organ, Diana

  Stringer, Graham

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Owen, Albert

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Picking, Anne

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Pound, Stephen

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Truswell, Paul

  E)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Prescott, rh John

  Kemptown)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purnell, James

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Claire

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Watts, David

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  White, Brian

  Bellshill)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Robertson, John (Glasgow

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Anniesland)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Roche. Mrs Barbara

  Wills, Michael

  Rooney, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ruddock, Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Worthington, Tony

  Chester)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Yarmouth)

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Sheerman, Barry

  Veron Coaker

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Allan, Richard

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Amess, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  902

  Bacon, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Baker, Norman

  Hague, rh William

  Baldry, Tony

  Hammond, Philip

  Barker, Gregory

  Hancock, Mike

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Abingdon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Harvey, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Hendry, Charles

  Surrey)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Brady, Graham

  Hoey Kate (Vauxhall)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Hogg rn Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Holmes, Paul

  Breed, Colin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Horam John (Orpington)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burnett, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Burns, Simon

  Hurst Alan (Braintree)

  Burstow, Paul

  Jack rh Michael

  Burt.Alistair

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Butterfill John

  Johnson Boris(Henley)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Jones Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cameron. David

  Keetch, Paul

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Key. Robert (Salisbury)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride Miss Julie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Barnet)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chidgey, David

  Lain' Mrs Eleanor

  Chope, Christopher

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clappison, James

  Lamb' Norman

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Collins, Tim

  Leigh' Edward

  Conway, Derek

  Letwin rh Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cotter, Brian

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Curry, rh David

  Lidington, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Stamford)

  Loughton, Tim

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Howden)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Maclean, rh David

  Doughty, Sue

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Evans, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury &

  Fallon, Michael

  Atcham)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Mates, Michael

  Westminster)

  Maude, rh Francis

  Fisher, Mark

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Flight, Howard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Flook, Adrian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Coldfield)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Moore, Michael

  Francois, Mark

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale. Roger (N Thanet)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Norman, Archie

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gidley, Sandra

  O'Neill, Martin

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  æpik, Lembit

  Goodman, Paul

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Grayling, Chris

  Page, Richard

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Paice, James

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Greenway, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Grieve, Dominic

  Pickles, Eric

  903

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Redwood, rh John

  Teather, Sarah

  Rendel, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thurso, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trend. Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Sanders, Adrian

  Walter, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watkinson, Angela

  Selous, Andrew

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Wilkinson, John

  Simmonds Mark

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfok)

  Willetts, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

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

  williams Roger (Brecon)

  willis phil

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, rh Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Syms, Robert

  Richard Younger-Ross and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Hugo Swire

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords Amendment No. 114 disagreed to.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that because of the timetable imposed by the Government the second group of amendments—which has now been rejected and which comprised the Law Commission's proposals—has not been discussed at all. Would it be possible to ask those who are drafting the message to the other place to make it plain that we have rejected its views without even having had the courtesy of discussing them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The practice and tradition is that the message reflects simply the decisions of this House. That is not a matter for debate.
  Government amendments (a) to (n) to the words restored, and consequential Government amendments (o) to (q) agreed to.
  Question, That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment No. 120, put and agreed to.
  11.15 pm
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].
  I am
  On resuming—

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must acquaint the House with the fact that a message has been received from the House of Lords. The Lords insist on certain of their amendments to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign their reasons. They do not insist on an amendment to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the amendment proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill. They agree to the Commons amendments to certain Lords amendments and they do not insist on their remaining amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
Mr. Michael FallonOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you confirm that, as the House is now destined to sit tomorrow, the Sessional Orders will apply tomorrow and will continue to he applied tomorrow?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:To the best of my knowledge, that is undoubtedly the case. The Serjeant at Arms is aware of the difficulty that might arise if the House is sitting on Thursday. He is in contact with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to ensure that hon. Members have access to the Palace in the normal way.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, it is essential that hon. Members have access to the House. Surely it would be inconceivable to enforce the Sessional Orders with total strictness so as to prevent the public demonstration. It would be wrong of the House to insist that they be so enforced. That would be an infringement of public rights. I hope that that is not what we have in mind.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that my remarks contained no such implication.

Clause 1

  NHS FOUNDATION TRUSTS
  Lords Reason: I B.
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) to the Bill, Lords Reason 161CC, the Government motion to insist and Government amendments (a) to (bb) to the words restored.
  Mr. Hutton: The House of Commons has now approved both the principle and the detail of the Government's proposals on NHS foundation trusts on

  905
  five separate occasions. The will of this House is now clear, and it should always be the will of this House of Commons that must prevail.
  We should all be clear about one other thing: the only point or purpose in the other place continuing to carry these wrecking amendments is to stop this part of the Bill reaching the statute book. No other reasonable interpretation can be placed on how Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers are behaving. They have nothing new to say on NHS foundation trusts. They have moved no new amendments for this Hosue to consider this evening. They have nothing new to offer. All they are doing is holding up the proverbial parliamentary finger to the decisions that we have made in this House.
  That is not scrutiny. It is not revision of legislation. It is a naked attempt to thwart the democratic decisions of elected Members of Parliament.
  Anne Picking: My right hon. Friend and his Front-Bench colleagues will know that earlier tonight I voted against the Government on the particular issue of foundation hospitals. However, that fight has been lost. We are the democratic power in the House. We must decide what happens and I will abide by the collective responsibility of the House. The Lords should have no input in what we do. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she has said. It is obvious that we face a simple choice. As I said, the House of Commons has decided, on five occasions, to support the proposals. My hon. Friend did not support them but I understand and respect her genuine concerns about the issue. However, the House of Commons must now assert its predominance and its will in these matters.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: There may be many more Tea Room conversions, but in case there are not, will the Minister remind the House of how many Labour Members of Parliament there are and how many of them voted for his proposal earlier this evening?
  Mr. Hutton: That will be in Hansard and people can do the arithmetic. I think that about 80 per cent. of my right hon. and hon. Friends decided to support the Government tonight. Mathematics has never been my strong card and I am a simple soul, but that seems to be an overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: A few days ago the Secretary of State for Health said that the House of Lords was not entitled to amend the Bill because the Lords are unelected. Can the Minister of State explain how many Labour Members were elected on a manifesto commitment to introduce foundation hospitals?
  Mr. Hutton: That is not what my right hon. Friend said—[Interruption.] No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
  906
  There is a simple issue for us tonight: whether the will of the House of Commons should prevail. My view is that the decisions that we made in this House should stand.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hutton: No, I shall not give way.
  We have looked in detail at every square inch of the measure. We have accepted 90 amendments to part 1. I am afraid that the debate that took place earlier this evening in the House of Lords completely failed to recognise that simple fact. As my noble Friend Lord Warner made clear in the other place earlier tonight, no Government can ever concede to the unelected House the right to tell this elected House what will or will not become the law of our country. There can be no question of the Bill proceeding unless clause 1 and the other provisions in part 1 are included. On that issue—
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Hutton:I am not giving way.
  There can be no negotiation with unelected Conservative— [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way.1 I am not giving way—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it is clear to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the Minister is not giving way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is entirely a matter for any Member whether to give way to another.
  This is acknowledged to be contentious business and the hour is late: it would be better if it were discussed in a calm and moderate manner.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During our earlier proceedings, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell)—usually an eloquent and respectful Member of the House—criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for speaking too long. In fact my right hon. Friend gave way to the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends on a generous basis. I am trying to make progress in the debate. I have given way to others but I am not giving way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
  There can be no question of the Bill's proceeding unless clause 1 and the other provisions in part 1 are included. We shall not negotiate with Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers on that matter. We will not detach part I from the Bill.
  Opposition Members should think very carefully about how they want to proceed, because there is a very great deal at stake: a delay in implementing the new GP contract agreed with the British Medical Association, the loss to the national health service of up to £150 million a year through the provisions relating to the injury cost recovery scheme, the new provisions on NHS dentistry, the reform of the welfare food scheme, and the independent inspectorates.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister is representing the choice before the House as being whether the whole Bill proceeds or not. but the choice before the House now is whether part 1 proceeds or not. We are debating whether we proceed with foundation trusts in their present form. The rest of the Bill, as the Minister knows, is in a form that we are happy to see proceed.
  Mr. Hutton: I would simply say two things to the hon. Gentleman. The House has already decided to proceed with part 1. We have had that debate on five separate occasions and on each of those occasions the House has approved it. The other thing I would say to the hon. Gentleman and all his right hon. and hon. Friends, is that the Bill as a whole stands before the House tonight. Of course it is true that these amendments are about part 1, but the Bill as a whole is one piece of legislation, and I have made it very clear to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the whole Bill stands before us tonight and we have to make a decision on that Bill. [Interruption.] It does.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Hutton:No, I am not giving way.
  I am also moving one further consequential amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan must sit down if it is quite clear that the Minister is not taking his intervention.
  Mr. Hutton:I am also moving one further consequential amendment this evening. It responds to the concerns of both peers and Members of the House about the representation of staff governors on the boards of NHS foundation trusts. At present, the schedule provides for at least one staff representative on the board of governors. My amendment—the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—will increase that to a minimum of three. This emphasises our commitment to promoting the effective participation of elected staff representatives in the work of NHS foundation trusts and also demonstrates, I believe, the willingness of Labour Members to try to get a resolution to the matters before us tonight.
  The further amendment I am proposing to clause 1 and schedule 1 deals with the issue of commencement and when the clause should take effect. I consider that we in the House should continue to disagree with the Lords over their amendments. We have made our position clear. We should stand firm in insisting now that this is the will of the House, which must and will in fact prevail.
  Mr. Salmond:On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, Standing Order No. 97 allows the Speaker to certify Bills that make provision only for Scotland as such, so as to put them to the Scottish Grand Committee. If the Bill was considered to be only an English matter, could it not also be so certified; and if so, why have 43 Labour Members of Parliament for Scotland voted to impose it on England?
  908
  If the Bill, as I believe, has serious consequences for the health service in Scotland, why have 43 Scottish Members of Parliament from the Labour party voted to impose a Bill that will undermine the health service in Scotland?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The short answer is that there is no such provision in the Standing Orders.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I had hoped that, with eight hours for reflection, the Government might have come to their senses by now. The substitution of the Minister of State for the Secretary of State may reveal a lack of confidence in the Secretary of State's ability to put the case for the Government, and given the collapse in the Government's majority this afternoon that lack of confidence may easily be understood. The Minister of State said that the Government had taken this proposal through the House five times. I remind him that on each occasion the majority has been less than it was when it came before the House before.
  By contrast, the majority with which this proposal was rejected in the other place an hour or so ago was substantially larger than the majority by which it was rejected yesterday. Those results make it clear to everyone, except perhaps members of the Government, that though they may have technically won the vote in the House—even though with the assistance of Scottish Members of Parliament to whom these provisions will not apply, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has just pointed out—they have without doubt comprehensively lost the argument.
  1.15 am
  Let me remind the House that the proposals have now been rejected by a majority of English Members of the House of Commons on two separate occasions. The proposals now command the support of considerably less than half the Members of the House, and these measures will harm, not help, the national health service and the patients whom it serves. Not surprisingly, they are opposed by a remarkable range of professionals, trade unions and other bodies. As many hon. Members pointed out this afternoon, they will create for the first time in half a century a two-tier NHS in England.
  The privileges and advantages that the Government will bestow on just a fraction of NHS hospitals will not be extended for several years to the majority of hospitals that our constituents use around the country. Indeed, if the review that the Secretary of State announced in debate this afternoon is to mean anything genuine, there is now a question mark perhaps not just over the timetable for extending foundation trust status to non-foundation trust hospitals, but possibly over the question of whether other hospitals will receive foundation trust status at all.
  The Secretary of State did not explain what he would do if the review that he announced finds that foundation trusts are not working properly. I doubt whether it is worth asking him to explain this now, because his knowledge of the Bill this afternoon appeared to be somewhat sketchy, but we must recognise that there is now a real chance that foundation trusts will not work well because of the serious flaws in the Government's proposals. On top of the way that they are now creating

  909
  a two-tier NHS, the nature of the foundation trusts that the Bill will establish is so far from the concept originally proposed by the former Secretary of State—the concept originally endorsed by the Prime Minister and then undermined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will not achieve the benefits that the Government claimed for it.
  Foundation trusts will not enjoy the freedoms that true independence brings. They will be subject to the same star ratings that have plagued the lives of doctors, nurses and managers for the past few years. They will be strictly regulated by a body that is itself controlled tightly by the Secretary of State. They will be forced to operate a management and governance structure that is irrelevant to the needs of patients, ill defined and confused in its concept, and expensive and cumbersome to operate. The only gains that foundation trusts will make are those that they will achieve at the expense of other hospitals.
  What makes these damaging proposals all the more offensive to English MPs is that it applies to their constituents, but not to the constituents of those Scottish Members on whom the Government relied for their majority.
  Mr. Salmond: Is the shadow Secretary of State aware not only that 43 Scottish Labour Members voted to impose foundation hospitals on England, but that these proposals were vigorously opposed by the Labour party in Scotland, including in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Health?
  Mr. Yeo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, and it puts into context the use of the word "hypocrisy" by members of the Government earlier today in relation to this issue.
  The Secretary of State knows that the Opposition would like to give our support to measures that give greater freedom to doctors, nurses and managers in the NHS. He knows that, unlike him and most Ministers, I have direct personal experience of chairing an independent charitable trust that successfully transformed an ailing NHS hospital, using the freedom that release from ministerial control bestows.
  I therefore now make the Secretary of State an offer on behalf of the Opposition—I do so in good faith in an attempt to rescue the Bill. If the Government make concessions on two important aspects of the Bill, the Opposition are prepared to end their resistance to the Bill's passage through the House. First, the Government must abandon the costly, muddled, expensive and cumbersome governance procedures set out in schedule 1, and replace them with a simple management structure that does not involve elections by badly defined and probably unrepresentative constituencies. Secondly, they must change the rules relating to borrowing, so that borrowing by foundation trusts will not prejudice the ability of non-foundation trusts to access funds that they need to maintain and improve their services. That change will have to be accompanied by explicit Treasury consent.
  Those changes would go a long way towards avoiding the creation of a two-tier national health service, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire
  910
  (Mr. Lansley) is available to discuss the details of our proposal through the night and tomorrow morning if necessary. I appreciate that time is not on the Government's side. That is a problem that is entirely of their making. The two aspects of the Bill that we believe should be changed are ones that have caused concern in both Houses during the Bill's passage through Parliament, and have been widely criticised outside Parliament. It would have been helpful if the Government had listened to the concerns expressed by a great many people at an earlier stage, and acknowledged the strength of opposition to their proposals not only on the Opposition Benches, but in the Labour party. Nevertheless, it need not be too late to save this Bill.
  Even if agreement cannot be reached on those two points, I confirm that the Opposition will be happy to let the rest of the Bill, apart from part 1, go straight into law. Our aim throughout these proceedings has been to avoid damage to the national health service. We believe that our proposal responds to the concerns of a great many people who are worried about what this Bill will do to the NHS. If by any chance the time scale proves too tight to reach an agreed settlement before the House prorogues, we will of course be happy to set out the basis on which a new Bill could be introduced early in the new Session and given the swiftest possible passage through Parliament. In the absence of progress along the lines that I have indicated, however, we will continue to fight against this motion.
  Mr. Frank Field: My right hon. Friend was clearly right when he said earlier—although I would put it in slightly different language—that the two Houses must at some stage come to some agreement on this Bill. I want to make a plea to my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), as to why we should use this opportunity to think again about our stance.
  One of the most valuable things that the labour movement has given to this country is the NHS. The NHS now is a prisoner of our success. In every election that I have fought, I, and those who fought elections before me, knew that the NHS was behind our lines. It was untouchable. It had a Teflon defence. The defence was that although we loved this institution, it did not have the money to deliver the job. Therefore, whatever problems, difficulties or failures it presented to our constituents, we all knew that it could not do better. The great success of this Government is that the NHS now has more funds and a larger increase in funds than any other Government have ever provided or asked taxpayers to provide. However, by doing that, we have stripped away that great defence—the defence that the NHS, this great nationalised industry, cannot deliver in the way that our constituents want it to deliver.
  With the NHS moving from behind our lines into political no man's land where it faces attack from quarters who could never before attack it, we have to judge whether this small part of the Bill, which is causing such dispute within and between parties, will answer one key question that our constituents will ask. When we go to the polls, will they have seen that the money that they have willed from their wage packets and purses has been used as effectively as possible to increase the performance of this body that we have moved from behind our lines into political no man's land?

  911
  Let us consider the Bill, and I ask my hon. Friends to examine one aspect of setting up foundation hospitals. Before the spring of next year, the larger hospitals must from nothing create an electorate. Some of them will be searching for up to 3 million voters. We can imagine the legal disputes from some of those factions in our constituencies if they are not successful should we have a vote. We know what would happen. We all know from this institution to which we are so committed—
  Jim Knight: Is my right hon. Friend against democracy?
  Mr. Field: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will continue as this is the first opportunity that I have had to contribute.
  What will happen when we go to our local hospital to use it and look at the health side of its performance? Yesterday, I took my mother to St. Thomas's hospital. She had been some months before to see what was wrong with her heart. There was no follow-up appointment, so I phoned. Something had gone wrong, so we were given an appointment quickly—wonderfully. We then turned up and her file was there, but the results of the tests that she had had were not there. We had to wait while there was a search for those papers. The X-ray could not be found, so it had to be taken again. That hospital is under enormous pressure and it is trying to deliver a better service to our constituents and to our families, yet on the key issue of patient records this wonderful institution was losing things. If we pass the Bill tonight, we will also say to that hospital that it will have to set up an electorate. As well as trying to find and link papers to the patients who have come in for treatment, it will have to find up to 3 million people to take part in an election.
  Of course, at some stage there will be a deal with the House of Lords. We are not quite sure what that deal will be. It will partly depend on our vote. However, I make a plea to Labour Members to maintain their opposition to the clause on foundation hospitals. I do not do that as someone who has opposed reform of the health service. Perhaps my Front Benchers found me annoying in suggesting ways in which we could be quicker in transforming this old nationalised industry into one that is responsive to consumer demand.
  I pressed the Government to allow patients to go abroad, and 16 months later the Government, to some extent, conceded that. I asked them to take one target that everyone could see so that there would be no question of spin—that we would abolish day waiting lists before the next election and that we would bring in teams from abroad to achieve that objective. In doing so, we would break the Scargillite tendency among the consultants who have a vested interested in making sure that there are large waiting lists so that they can get private practice. There has been some movement, but precious little.
  I speak and make my plea not as someone who has made the traditional defence of the NHS that we heard earlier. I believe passionately that, if it is to have a future, it is the Labour party's job to transform it from this old nationalised industry—the only nationalised industry for which the voters had any affection—to one that serves them in this new century.
  1.30 am
  Anne Picking: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way because many of his remarks seem to be directed at me. I was a nurse—a front-line public service worker—for all my days until I came to the House, so I know what it is like to do that job. Our debate is not about foundation hospitals any more because we have debated that issue and voted on it—my personal position did not win the vote. However, we are now considering the democracy of this House, which must be sacrosanct.
  Mr. Field: I apologise if I was looking at my hon. Friend while making my remarks, but if she cares to look at the circle of hon. Members sitting around her, she will understand that it was more preferable to look at her than her colleagues. I was not sending her a personal message in any way because I accept her honourable position. At the end of the debate, I hope that we will all know that we voted in the way in which we believed to be right.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend on one point—if I may look at her again. Although it is quite proper for her to say that we have made our point and that we should insist that the Commons prevail, there is quite a long time until the opening of the new Session next Wednesday, so a lot of haggling could go on. There must be agreement at some stage and that must be satisfactory to the Government. My only plea is that when we consider how we vote, we do not do that on the traditional grounds of defending the old national health service, which is passing from our midst.
  I make a plea as an ardent advocate of modernisation. We will succeed only by modernising, but I cannot for the life of me understand how it can be in our long-term interest to push more hospitals down the route of having to encourage more of our constituents to vote for various boards, especially given that some people who are sitting not far from me find it difficult to explain how they will operate.
  I end my speech as I began it. We have moved the NHS from behind the safety of our lines into political no man's land. The electorate's test will be how we use their money to improve the service that the NHS provides. Will foundation hospitals have any influence on that before the next election? It will take a great deal of the time of some of the cleverest people in the NHS to get the scheme off the ground, but I wonder whether it will make any difference to a single one of our constituents. On that basis, I hope that at least some of us will insist on opposing this part of the Bill.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I rise to respond to the Minister, because he tried to say that we had a straight choice—take the Bill or leave it. That is not the choice before us, because we are debating part 1, which sprang up fully formed without any consultation. It did not appear in the Labour party's manifesto at the general election and did not form part of the NHS plan.
  The Government must understand—they have not addressed this worry at any stage during the Bill's passage—that the Bill will not ensure equity, or safeguard universality, in the national health service. It will not require decisions about foundation trust status to take account of their impact on the rest of the NHS on such hospitals' patches. It will not prevent a foundation

  913
  trust from adopting a predatory approach towards non-foundation trusts in its neighbourhood, and especially towards services and staff.
  We are talking about establishing an NHS in which competition, not co-operation, determines the form that it takes and how it progresses. The Bill confers a privileged status on foundation trusts in respect of borrowing and capital. The early wave of foundation trusts will have an easier ride when gaining access to capital at the expense of the rest of the NHS. The Bill still does not clearly deal with the cap on private activities within the NHS. The word used is "may", not "must". I urge Labour Members to read clause 15(1), which makes it plain that that is the case.
  The House of Lords has considered foundation trusts a number of times. It has given us a chance to reflect on the issues again. I encourage hon. Members to take this opportunity to reject foundation trusts in the Lobby.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: I hope that Labour Members can divorce the debate from a confrontation either between Labour and the Opposition or between this House and the other place. The central issue is, if we insist on having foundation hospitals, will that advance the great Labour project, to which I fully subscribe, to improve public services and, in particular, to make the health service what we want it to be? In that spirit, I ask my Front-Bench colleagues to think again and my hon. Friends to think carefully about how they vote. I realise that the Government will probably carry the vote, but they should bear that request in mind.
  My Front-Bench colleagues have regrettably failed to answer the serious criticisms levelled against foundation hospitals. The rest of the Bill does not depend on them and is acceptable to the House. I ask my Government to think again. I also ask my hon. Friends, who share my reservations, to stand by their concerns. Otherwise, I fear that we will be in danger of passing legislation that future Labour Governments—I am not worried about Governments of other parties—may wish we had not enacted.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: We have got familiar over the past five or six years with the fact that we have an arrogant Government. They always have to have their way. If they do not, they get petulant and bad-tempered. I am afraid to say that the Minister behaved like that. In that petulance and bad temper, they forget, or show less than regard for, our constitution. He said that the other place had no right to turn down the Bill, but of course it has a right to do that. Our constitution and the Parliament Act are clear on that point. The other place is entitled to use its constitutional powers. If the Government wish to do so, they can use the Parliament Act in the next Session, but they have no grounds for such petulant resentment at the other place for simply fulfilling its constitutional mandate.
  The substantive question is whether the House of Lords is right to take the view that it has. No one who has taken part in the debates on this matter today can be in any doubt that on this issue we need the other place
  914
  to take a different view. At best this is an extremely muddled Bill, and at worst it is thoroughly dishonest. Its whole premise—as the Government introduced it—is that foundation hospitals can enjoy some real benefits by achieving that status, but other hospitals will not suffer any disadvantages. That is an implausible proposition to begin with, but it has been clearly exposed today as bogus. We have learned that from the financial point of view it will be a zero-sum game. If the foundation hospitals are able to raise more capital, it will be pound for pound at the expense of the capital available to hospitals that do not have that status.
  Mr. Hutton indicated dissent.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister of State shakes his head, but I doubt whether he will be brave enough to rise to contradict me. What I contend has been established beyond peradventure.
  Another peculiar feature of the Government's propaganda on this subject is the claim that foundation hospitals somehow represent the recapture of hospitals for local democracy. In practice, all the powers will be drawn back into the bureaucracy by the regulator. Indeed, as the bureaucracy will determine which hospitals are allowed to become foundation hospitals, the Bill will increase centralisation, which is the exact opposite of the propaganda line. The Government have been disingenuous about the Bill.
  The most dramatic revelation this afternoon was when the Secretary of State was forced to make concessions to his Back Benchers. He made contradictory and irreconcilable concessions to various groups in his own party. He told one group that if it did not like foundation hospitals, it should not worry because the Government would have a review after 12 months and possibly go back on the whole idea. However, he told another group—one that did not like the exclusivity of the concept—that all hospitals could become foundation trusts within four years. The Secretary of State does not seek to contradict me, and it is obvious that those two assurances contradict each other.
  When incompatible, and I am tempted to say dishonest, promises are made on a Bill, it is important that the other place should take the opportunity to call a halt and say that we should not go ahead with it. Not only does the House of Lords have the constitutional right to take the view that it has, but it is clear from the way in which the muddle that the Government are in has been exposed by the debates today that the Lords are right. Thank heavens they have used their powers to ensure that the Government's contradictions and the Bill's shortcomings are laid hare. The House of Lords has done a great service to the country this evening. I hope that the other place will continue to stand firm and courageous, and send the Bill back again. If the Government have the courage of their convictions, they can use the Parliament Act in the next Session.
  1.45 am
  Kate Hoey: I shall be brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, I may go on longer, if that is the attitude. The House of Lords has done what it has the right to do.

  915
  If we do not like what the House of Lords is doing, we have to change the constitution, because the current constitution gives the Lords that right. To be frank. I am pleased that, apart from the provisions relating to foundation hospitals, the Lords have made several other amendments that improve the Bill.
  In my view, the Bill has no credibility. It has no real support within the national health service or in the country. I cannot understand why Ministers in my Government are not listening to what people throughout the country are saying. Their handling of this issue has been extremely short-sighted. Already in my area, thousands of pounds have been spent on a consultation exercise, not on the principle, but on the detail. That that has happened—that the money has been spent before the proposal has even been passed by Parliament—is quite disgraceful. The money being spent now and that will be spent in future could have been added to the money that the Government are already putting into our national health service.
  We have an excellent trust in Guy's and St Thomas's. Members of the board live in the community and forums bring in people from all parts of the community. At every consultation meeting that I have attended, I have not seen a single hand rise in favour of foundation trusts. We are doing something that has no support in the country, and the Government will rue the day if the Bill goes through tonight.
  Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) have just had the courage to articulate reservations which we all know are widely shared by Labour Members. I hope that, even at this late stage in our debate, Labour Members will reflect on what those two Members have said. The first time we voted on this issue, the Government majority was 35; the second time, it was 17. At that rate of progress, the vote later on could be quite tight.
  I say to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who opened the debate, the issue is not whether the Bill reaches the statute book, as he implied; the issue before the House now is whether the Bill reaches the statute book with part 1, or without it. All the other beneficial measures in the Bill will go on to the statute book if, in a few minutes' time, the House agrees with the Lords in their amendments.
  Two issues that have run through the debate this afternoon and evening remain wholly unanswered by the Government. The first relates to funding. If a foundation trust successfully raises money privately and uses those resources to construct a building that would not otherwise have been built, the consequence will be that another hospital does not get a building that was in the Government's plans, because the overall public expenditure ceiling cannot be breached. Every single addition, every single success scored by a foundation hospital, will be compensated for by a failure by another hospital. It is no good the Secretary of State pointing at his head. He and the Minister of State have had debates this afternoon and this evening to answer that point, and neither has done so.
  Hon. Members: Answer him!
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)I shall speak slowly, because even after three
  916
  explanations, hon. Members obviously do not get it. It is quite easy for those who can do arithmetic. The envelope for capital expenditure is sufficiently big to contain all of the demands because, unlike the Conservatives, Labour is building up investment, not cutting it.
  Sir George Young: With the greatest respect for the Secretary of State, I have to say that that does not answer the point that has been made time and again, for the following reason: he will never be able to get from the Treasury the totality of the money that he would like to spend on the NHS. If foundation hospitals were to be allowed to spend in addition to the provision made, there would be some advantage in their creation, but I repeat what I said a few moments ago: every success by a foundation trust will be matched by another building for a hospital that is not a foundation trust having to be dropped from the plans. That is the charge that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to answer throughout the debate.
  The second point was touched upon by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. The Secretary of State wants to make services more responsive to the needs of patients. We agree with that. However, he has democratised the wrong body. It is not hospitals that determine the shape or the volume of services that are consumed. It is the primary care trust that commissions the services from the hospitals. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make the NHS more responsive to local needs, he should have applied his corporate government measures to the primary care trust, not to the hospitals.
  Some Labour Members are cautious about voting with the Opposition. I have voted with Oppositions in previous Parliaments when there were Conservative Governments. If a Government Member thinks that it is right to vote with the Opposition because he or she believes that the amendment under question is right, he or she should do so. It seems to be perverse to rebel if it is thought that there is no chance of success, but to pull back on the one occasion when there is a real prospect of making a change. I understand that Labour Members have cover from their party conference if they want to vote in favour of the Lords amendment.
  If Labour Members want a satisfactory resolution—if they want all the measures in the Bill to reach the statute book but not part 1—they should vote with the Opposition. They know in their hearts that that is the right thing to do, and they should not listen to the bullying from the Secretary of State.
  Tom Levitt: I intervened earlier to point out how a Liberal Democrat Member was supporting foundation hospitals in her locality but voting against them tonight. I do not want to criticise her or to make political capital out of that, but she was right to support foundation status for the Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport. It is an up to three star hospital that requires two new operating theatres in short shrift. It is a hospital that needs to replace two more of its existing theatres within three or four years. Should that hospital have the right to decide when, where and how it replaces its operating theatres, or should it be a small fish in the big pool of Greater Manchester, never rising to the top and never being able to secure the operating theatres that it requires?

  917
  On behalf of the people of Stockport and High Peak, I want Stepping Hill hospital to be able to make its decisions about the services that it provides. The decisions on operating theatres would not be taking resources away from other hospitals and other trusts.
  Mr. George Stevenson: Has my hon. Friend given any consideration to the effect that his argument would have on North Staffordshire hospital trust and not the foundation hospital?
  Tom Levitt: I grew up in north Staffordshire and I had treatment in north Staffordshire hospitals, and I sympathise with my hon. Friend. I am explaining why no other hospitals will suffer because of my local hospital getting extra facilities.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) explained how he did not think that the model worked. He is living in the past. As long as there is more money going into the health service, conditions will not worsen in non-foundation hospitals. He is right in his analysis if there are cuts in the health service, as there were under Tory Governments in the past and as there would be under future Tory Governments. That is when his model would work.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that there are plenty of Vauxhall voters on the Government Benches. We have been listening to her extremely carefully.
  Tony Baldry: In their own interests, Labour Members should reflect on whether today will be their NHS poll tax. I shall explain why.
  In Oxfordshire, we have the Oxford Radcliffe NHS trust, which is a low starred trust. That is through no fault of the staff, the doctors or members of trade unions who work there. There are many structural reasons involving the bringing together of hospital sites and the Oxford teaching hospital. However, the hospital produces some very good medicine. It is a no-star trust, so it has little chance of becoming a foundation hospital. That is exactly the sort of hospital that should receive help from the Government, yet it will not.
  The Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre up the road has the highest star rating and will be in the first wave of hospitals to get foundation status. Unto them that have will be given, and from those that have not will be taken away even that which they have. Nurses working at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in one part of Oxford will be paid more than nurses working in the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust. Where is the equity in that? Where is the national health service in all that? The measure is a totally unfair way of proceeding. If Labour Members believe that that—
  Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Tony Baldry: No, I am short of time.
  918
  If Labour Members believe that that is the way forward for the national health service, they will seriously regret that they put part 1 into legislation, if that is what they choose to do.
  Dr. Richard Taylor: As somebody who has worked in the NHS for rather a long time, I am dedicated to it as a service for the patient. I agree that it is vital to decentralise control, but the proposal is the wrong way of decentralising services. It is wrong because it drives a wedge between primary and secondary care, and between hospitals, at exactly the time when the Government are looking for partnerships, collaboration and networking. It is ill thought out because of the lack of patient forums, at exactly the time when the Government are trying to improve patient and public involvement in health. I do not believe that the members of boards of governors of foundation trusts will be entirely independent of their executives.
  There is an alternative way. One has only to go back 17 of the 18 re-organisations that we have had in the past 20 years, to local district health authorities, which had locally elected members in the form of councillors, representatives of local bodies, a locally elected consultant and a locally elected GP, to see that they worked. With the resource management initiative that was abolished almost as soon as it was drawn up, they would have produced an efficient service. Even now, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection would have been able to prove that those organisations were living within their means or were underfunded.
  I would like us to forget about foundation trusts and consider other reforms while there is still time. A vote against the Government is not a vote against decentralisation; it is a vote against the wrong sort of decentralisation.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope I have a chance to remind the Secretary of State, who appeared to believe the reply that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about the effect of the financing of foundation hospitals on other hospitals, that that was not the view of his predecessor. When foundation hospitals were proposed, it was not the intention to cap capital spending. Borrowing was to be enlarged. It was the Treasury that insisted on a cap. Why does the Secretary of State think the Treasury insisted on putting a cap on capital spending, if there is now unlimited funding, no choices to be made, and all can have the investment that they wish? It was the Treasury that insisted that capital investment in foundation hospitals would be at the expense of other hospitals. He cannot seriously deny with a straight face, even at this hour of night, that he has lost that argument and several others as well with those in another place.
  2 am
  Dr. John ReidL: I have a considerable respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but there is one significant difference between the position that he faced and the position that we face now, which is that there is an increase in investment—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like it, but the difference between the

  919
  Tory Government cutting the capital investment envelope and a 7.4 per cent. real-terms increase for five years means that every feasible application for capital requirements, even counted against the envelope, can be met under the Labour Government, while they were consistently refused under the cuts of the Tory Government. That is the point.
  Mr. Clarke: Then will the Secretary of State explain why the Treasury insisted on a cap?
  Dr. Reid: The Treasury insisted not on a cap, but that any borrowing made by the foundation trust counted towards the general envelope. [Interruption.] That is not—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The House must listen to the Secretary of State.
  Dr. Reid: That is not an individual cap for a hospital: it is [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that these are serious matters, and they must be dealt with accordingly. May I also remind the Secretary of State that he is intervening?
  Dr. Reid: My intervention would be briefer if Opposition Members were prepared to accept the answer for which they have constantly asked. There is not an individual cap on hospitals, foundation trusts or otherwise—
  It being one hour after the commencement of consideration, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 249.
  Division No. 388] [2:02am

  AYES

  Adama, Irene (Paisley N)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainger, Nick

  Blunkett, rh David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Alexander, Douglas

  Borrow, David

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Anderson, Jenet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Baird, Vera

  Browne, Desmond

  Banks, Tony

  Bryant, Chris

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Battle, John

  Burden, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burnham, Andy

  Beard, Nigel

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cairns, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Betts, Clive

  Caplin, Ivor

  Blackman, Liz

  Casale, Roger

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  920

  Challen, Colin

  Hughes, Beverley (Stratford & Urmston)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Chaytor, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hutton, rh John

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Colman, Tony

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn, Jim

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  (Copeland)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Khabra, Piara S.

  David, Wayne

  Kidney, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Denham, rh John

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Lammy, David

  Doran, Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lepper, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Luke, lain (Dundee E)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, rh George

  McCabe, Stephen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Gapes, Mike (llfordS)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  MacDonald, Calum

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  MacDougall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKechin, Ann

  Hain, rh Peter

  MeKenna, Rosemary

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hanson, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McWalter, Tony

  Healey, John

  McWilliam, John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Heppell, John

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (BlackpoolS)

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettletson)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mole, Chris

  921

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mountford, Kali

  Soley, Clive

  Mullin, Chris

  Southworth, Helen

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Spellar, rh John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Squire, Rachel

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Organ, Diana

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Straw, rh Jack

  Pearson, Ian

  Stringer, Graham

  Picking, Anne

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pickthall, Colin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prescott, rh John

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Purnell, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rammell, Bill

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Ward, Claire

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

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooney, Terry

  Wills, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Woolas, Phil

  Wray, James (Glasgow Bailieston)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Boswell, Tim

  Allan, Richard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Amess, David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Brady, Graham

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Bacon, Richard

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Norman

  Breed, Colin

  Baldry, Tony

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Barker, Gregory

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Barnes, Harry

  Burgon, Colin

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Burnett, John

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Burns, Simon

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Burstow, Paul

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burt, Alistair

  Bennett, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Bercow, John

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cameron, David

  922

  Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Cash, William

  Holmes, Paul

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Chidgey, David

  Howard, rh Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Clappison, James

  Jack, rh Michael

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Collins, Tim

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Conway, Derek

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Keetch, Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Cotter, Brian

  Curry, rh David

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Lamb, Norman

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Lansley, Andrew

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Doughty, Sue

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Farrelly, Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  McDonnell, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &Westminster)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Maclean, rh David

  Flight, Howard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Flook, Adrian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Forth, rh Eric

  Malins, Humfrey

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maples, John

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham

  Francois, Mark

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Mates, Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Maude, rh Francis

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Gerrard, Neil

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Gidley, Sandra

  Moore, Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Moss, Malcolm

  Godsiff, Roger

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Norman, Archie

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Grayling, Chris

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Opik, Lembit

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Greenway, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Page, Richard

  Gummer, rh John

  Paice, James

  Hague, rh William

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Hammond, Philip

  Paterson, Owen

  Hancock, Mike

  Pickles, Eric

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Harvey, Nick

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Heald, Oliver

  Randall, John

  Heath, David

  Redwood, rh John

  Hendry, Charles

  Rendel, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  923

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Teather, Sarah

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thurso, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Ruffley, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Trend, Michael

  Salmond, Alex

  Trickett, Jon

  Sanders, Adrian

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Selous, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Short, rh Clare

  Viggers, Peter

  Simmonds, Mark

  Walter, Robert

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Skinner, Dennis

  Watkinson, Angela

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

  Weir, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wggin, Bill

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Willetts, David

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Spring, Richard

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Willis, Phil

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Streeter, Gary

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wishart Pete

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Syms, Robert

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, rh Sir George

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Mr. Peter Luff

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 1 disagreed to.
  Government amendment(a)in lieu of lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 161 disagreed to.
  Government amendments (a) to (bb) to the words agreed to

  MMR Vaccine
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
  2.18 am
  Norman Baker: Nineteen hours ago I was attending a breakfast meeting in Newhaven to discuss infrastructure works in my constituency. It seems a long time ago.
  The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is a difficult subject, but it is extremely important for my constituents. I do not profess to be an expert on the matter but I shall do my best to represent constituents who have presented me with a compelling set of circumstances that I feel obliged to raise on their behalf in this debate. I do so with the full support and encouragement of my constituent, Isabella Thomas, on behalf of her children Michael and Terry. I hope that the Under-Secretary has received from my office information giving the history of events.
  924
  My constituent has four sons. The two older boys both caught measles during the first years of their life when the single vaccine against measles was not offered. They are both fine. However, the two younger boys both received the MMR vaccine and suffered severe reactions that dramatically changed their lives. Michael suffered mild asthma and breathing problems after his third diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis and polio vaccinations, but was developing normally before he was given the MMR vaccine at 14 months.
  Within hours of the MMR vaccination, Michael developed high-pitched screaming and a high fever. According to my constituent, he was like a wild animal; he screamed when anyone touched him and cried day and night. He has been diagnosed with regressive autism and has an obsessive-compulsive disorder. He suffers from auditory hallucinations, increased clumsiness, chronic bowel disease, temperature control problems, severe headaches, loss of memory, breathing problems and rashes. Last year, he was unable to attend school very much due to his health problems. At present, he does not go to school, as no school can meet his needs. It is clear from a psychological report compiled this year that his condition is deteriorating. Medical test results have found the measles virus, consistent with the vaccine strain, in damaged tissue in Michael's bowel and in his blood.
  Michael's younger brother Terry also suffered minor reactions to his DTP and polio vaccinations. He was prone to febrile convulsions, but otherwise he developed normally. He walked at 10 months and his development milestones were satisfactory according to his health visitor at the time.
  As Michael had had such a severe reaction to the MMR vaccine, his mother was worried about giving Terry the same injection. However, under intense pressure, and after medical advice, she duly had Terry vaccinated. During the night after the vaccination, Terry suffered a fit and within a week he developed excessive temperature swings and loss of skills. Before the vaccination, he was potty trained, but he regressed the very next day. Within two weeks he began to suffer from constipation and chronic diarrhoea. Within a month he appeared clumsy and walked into doors. He stopped talking and would become completely silent. He no longer indulged in pretend play. He now suffers from fits, jaundice when ill, chronic bowel disease, very high fevers, rashes, regressive autism and excessive thirst. His medical test results show that he, too, has the measles virus, consistent with the vaccine strain, in the damaged tissue in his bowel.
  As I said earlier, I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters. I merely consider the evidence as a layperson. The Minister may be able to give me some explanations but none has yet been forthcoming from the medical profession. Given the circumstantial evidence, the conclusions that my constituent has reached are hardly surprising.
  My only previous involvement in the topic of vaccines was when I raised questions about bovine material in vaccines during an Adjournment debate in this place on 28 March 2000. I was concerned that the use of such material, which could be a transmitter of CreutzfeldtJakob disease, was allowed in vaccines years after it should have been withdrawn. Subsequently, the Government admitted that in a statement. In fact,

  925
  although it was thought that the risk of the disease was greater from injections than from food, action was taken on food as a transmission route but not on vaccines. Sometimes, when there are questions about the safety of vaccines, Governments, of whatever party, have the wholly laudable intention of not damaging confidence in vaccines generally, which are obviously useful for society, and are reluctant to admit that there may be a problem under certain conditions. That idea came to my mind as a result of that debate on bovine vaccines three years ago.
  I need to know how these conditions developed in Michael and Terry. How can they be explained if they are not an adverse reaction to MMR? Should some other medical explanation be forthcoming? The injections were two years apart and the adverse reactions began immediately after the vaccine was administered, so the circumstantial evidence is quite strong.
  My constituent, in a letter to me, says:
  "I wanted to keep my children safe from disease and I trusted the system. I thought the system would be structured to protect my children as individuals. I have been naive. The system is structured to protect itself."
  That is her view on the matter, and I hope that the Minister's response will go some way to reassure her and make her feel better about the situation in which she and her children now find themselves.
  I know that the Minister is not responsible for the legal system and therefore cannot say much about that, but my constituent is in a difficult situation. Her anxiety and stress has been exacerbated by a change to the legal aid funding of the class action. Her sons were awarded legal aid to pursue their case for compensation through the courts, but after several years of legal aid, on 1 October, just six months before the test cases were due to go before the High Court in April 2004, legal aid was stopped. Unless a judicial review requires the Legal Services Commission to revise its decision, it will be extremely difficult for her and many other parents to fight the case that they have progressed so far. Purely from the point of view of the use of public funds, it seems rather excessive and bizarre to have expended so much public money up to a particular point, only to pull the rug. There is a question mark in my mind about that.
  My constituent believes, rightly or wrongly, that the reactions that have been caused in her children and which have led to these, it seems, permanent conditions are a result of MMR. She holds that view very strongly and communicates it to those in the health service. She feels that because she holds that view, her children are effectively being denied effective treatment to deal with their conditions until such time as she is prepared to deny that MMR is the cause. That may be a misconception on her part, but that is what she believes.
  Whatever else comes out of this, I hope very much that we can find a way of providing effective treatment to help those children, because their mother sincerely believes they have been effectively abandoned in many ways by the health service as a consequence of the situation that has arisen and as a consequence of the huge controversy surrounding MMR in the medical profession and society at large. No doctor, it seems,
  926
  wants to be associated with cases that may be MMRrelated—or at least are in the mother's view—in case somehow there is a problem from their perspective, so the children are effectively denied medical treatment that would help them.
  I want to leave plenty of time for the Minister to reply so I will not speak for much longer. My constituent says that she thinks that the Department of Health has failed in its duty of care for her children. In a letter to me, she raises a number of points about the pre-introductory MMR trials, which she believes
  "were inadequate in that they failed to follow up adverse reactions for more than just a few weeks."
  She says that
  "it took the Department four years to identify and withdraw two of the three original MMR brands that had been introduced into the UK vaccination programme in 1988".
  I do not know whether that is true. She refers to the two brands Pluserix and Immravax, which she says were withdrawn in September 1992 because they contained a mumps strain that was apparently suspected of causing mumps meningitis. If the Minister has advice on that, I should be interested to hear it.
  Is it possible, I ask the Minister, that there was an earlier strain of MMR that was, in her view, less satisfactory than the ones being used now? Would that be an explanation of the situation in which my constituent finds herself? In the opinion of the Department of Health, is there a difference in the safety of different strains or is it the Minister's view that they are all equally safe, as the Government maintain they are?
  My constituent says that the vaccine policy makers failed by providing an inefficient monitoring system for adverse events following vaccination. To justify her position on that, she quotes a sentence published in The Lancet on 4 March 1995:
  "There is an urgent need to find more reliable methods of adverse event surveillance."
  Lastly, my constituent also believes that the Government's senior vaccine officers failed to investigate the children believed to have been damaged. She says that a full list of children then affected was presented to the then Health Minister, the chief medical officer and the principal medical officer during a one-hour meeting in 1997, when the Government were asked to instigate a scientific investigation of the children believed to have been damaged. Such an investigation would have been useful. Is the Minister aware of that meeting? If so, is she able to tell me what progress there has been as a result of the meeting?
  I freely admit that, as the Minister will understand, I am not an expert in health matters—my expertise, such as it is, is in environmental matters—but my constituent is extremely distressed. She has two children whose lives have been changed for the worse—it seems, permanently. There is at least a casual link in her mind between the conditions that the children now have and the administration of the MMR vaccine.
  The Minister will know just how difficult it is for parents to decide whether vaccinating their children is the right thing to do. There are risks in vaccinating and in not vaccinating. It is a very difficult decision, and my constituent feels that the medical profession encouraged her to take the wrong decision for her children. I hope

  927
  that the Minister can deal constructively and sympathetically with my constituent's case and give some reassurances that I can take back to her.
  2.30 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this debate on his constituent and the MMR issue. Many other hon. Members and I care greatly about the health and safety of children. Many of us, as parents, well understand the difficulties of deciding whether to have children vaccinated and, indeed, the concerns that any parent must have about the health of their child.
  Of course, autism can have a devastating impact on children and their families, and it is only natural that the parents of autistic children want to find out what has caused their child's condition, but it has proved difficult to find such a cause. The Department of Health has already asked the Medical Research Council to consider the evidence. The MRC produced a clear and authoritative picture of what scientific research has revealed about the occurrence and causes of autistic spectrum disorders. The MRC report clearly reflected the current state of knowledge. Like other authorities, the MRC identified a strong genetic component in the causation of autism.
  The Government have demonstrated their commitment to finding out more about the causes of autism by allocating a further £2.5 million to the MRC to help it to take forward the recommendations of the report. However, we know that some parents genuinely believe that their children's lives have been damaged by the MMR vaccine. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's constituency is one of them. Of course, they want to know what has affected their child. However, I have to reassure the hon. Gentleman and others that all the scientific research from around the world comes to the same conclusion: there is no credible evidence linking MMR and autism. That may not be a comforting conclusion for parents who believe that their child's autism was somehow triggered by MMR, but I cannot ignore the evidence and the scientific advice that we have received from around the world.
  Perhaps I can put the introduction of the MMR vaccine in the UK into context. The MMR vaccine underwent a thorough licensing programme and a review was carried out in 2001, which was prompted by concerns raised by Andrew Wakefield in a publication in 2000. The Committee on Safety of Medicines concluded that standard procedures were followed and that MMR vaccines were licensed on the basis of satisfactory standards of safety, quality and efficacy.
  Pre-licensing trials are normally not large enough to detect rare adverse reactions. That is why procedures are in place to monitor vaccine safety after licensing. Therefore the retrospective call for the original MMR clinical trials carried out in the 1970s and 1980s to be able to detect an increase in autism postulated in the 1990s is not sensible or justified. None of the studies carried out subsequently, however, has provided any support whatsoever for the claims that either bowel disease or autism is associated with the MMR vaccine.
  The hon. Gentleman touched on the withdrawal of the MMR vaccines containing the urabe strain of mumps vaccine in 1992. The identification of this issue
  928
  four years after the introduction of the vaccines is not proof that the clinical trials were inadequate. When the Department of Health became aware of the existence of a potential safety issue with that vaccine strain, it immediately asked the Public Health Laboratory Service to instigate detailed monitoring of possible vaccine-associated cases of aseptic meningitis. Initially, some 28 vaccine-associated cases were identified, which were all in recipients of MMR vaccines containing the urabe mumps strain. This indicated a risk of one case of aseptic meningitis in 11,000 vaccinees. As soon as those data were available in 1992, an alternative vaccine became available which did not have that level of risk and was equally effective. The vaccines were replaced in September 1992. Very rare adverse reactions sometimes cannot be identified until a vaccine is used in a wider population, which is precisely why we have the monitoring arrangements that we do.
  To turn to the monitoring arrangements—the yellow card scheme—I cannot go into all the detail in the time available to me, but as soon as the strain was identified, vaccines were withdrawn. That demonstrates clearly that if we identify a problem, we are able to act and respond—[Interruption.]I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) is saying from a sedentary position. If I could, I might be able to respond.
  A number of studies cannot find any difference between the rate of autism in children receiving MMR and in those who do not receive it. Other studies have found no sudden increase in autism associated with the introduction of the MMR vaccine in the UK in 1988, no difference in the age of diagnosis between MMR-immunised and un-immunised children, no difference in the MMR immunisation rates between those children with autism and the general population, and no link between the timing of MMR and the onset of autism.
  Norman Baker: One thing that I did not mention was some staggering figures on the incidence of autism in the United States, which tend to suggest, taking all the states on average, that there has been an overall increase of 870 per cent. between 1992 and 2002—from 12,000 cases to 118,000 cases in just 10 years. Has the Department of Health made any studies as to what the reasons might be for that gigantic increase in the US? Has that been investigated at all?
  Miss Johnson: Obviously, I am not responsible for health care in the US, although I appreciate that its experience may be relevant to ours. In the UK, vaccinations are not compulsory but voluntary. I do not have an analysis with me this evening of the US figures that the hon. Gentleman has quoted, and I cannot therefore comment on their validity or on what the scientific community has said about them.
  It is not just this country that has come to this conclusion about MMR—a huge number of countries around the world that use the vaccines have done so, as has the World Health Organisation, which states that MMR
  "has an outstanding safety record".
  The hon. Gentleman will have heard the recent views from Dr. Murch, who was one of the authors of the original papers that triggered the MMR debate. His words speak for themselves:

  929
  "No other vaccine has ever been studied in such depth and the evidence for its overall safety is comprehensive…There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism."
  He was one of the authors of the original report. He continues:
  "This statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study on a worldwide basis."
  I now turn to the question of measles virus in samples from autistic children, which the hon. Gentleman also raised. Some parents of children with autism have chosen to have samples of blood and tissue analysed privately. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that, in some cases, the measles virus consistent with the vaccine strain has been found in blood and other samples taken from the child. The detection of that has become the focus of much attention over recent months.
  There is only one laboratory of which we are aware that claims to find measles virus in tissue samples from autistic children. However, the head of that laboratory in Dublin, Professor O'Leary, issued a press statement last year because he was concerned about the way in which certain newspapers had reported the results of his work. He said that the newspaper reports were
  "misleading, erroneous, and are causing unnecessary concern among parents."
  He added:
  "I and my research team have consistently advocated the use of immunisation and the use of MMR to protect the nation's children from measles, mumps and rubella."
  Much evidence has been put into court about parallel testing of blood and other samples both by Professor O'Leary and other experts advising the court. The results of those investigations need to be put into the public domain, so that everyone, including the parents involved in the court cases, can see all the evidence and not just selected parts of it. We need to be careful about accepting just part of the story.
  The hon. Gentleman might also like to know about the test results of the recent court case taken against the manufacturers of MMR. He will be aware that three test specimens were claimed to have proved positive when tested by the laboratory on behalf of the claimants, and this became the centre of attention in a number of media stories claiming that Dr. Wakefield believed this to be the strongest evidence yet linking MMR to autism. However, the hon. Gentleman will also be interested to know that the results of the analysis of the same samples carried out by other expert laboratories were that no measles virus could be detected in the samples. I am not sure how the stories were run in the newspapers, but they probably did not serve the public's best interest. Scientists and the responsible media need to look at the evidence dispassionately, both for and against a theory, and not risk the idea that they suppress results.
  On legal aid, it is important to understand the process that has led to the decision by the Legal Services Commission to withdraw funding for the MMR litigation. After all the evidence from both claimants and defendants was put into court, I understand that the Legal Services Commission took the view that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with any prospect of success for the claimants. This decision was appealed by the claimants' lawyers and it was reviewed by the
  930
  funding review committee of the LSC. The committee is an independent body made up of solicitors and barristers from private practice, including a Queen's counsel with expertise in this sort of litigation. The decision to withhold further funding was supported on appeal.
  We should not forget that the LSC had already made an investment, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of £15 million in this case. Despite this investment, medical research had not proved a link between the MMR vaccine and autistic spectrum disorders and no link had been proven by any other medical authority. I also think that it is important to note that the LSC has said that, on further consideration, it regrets embarking on funding the scientific studies that have contributed to the £15 million costs.
  It is important to ensure that this £15 million investment of legal aid does not go to waste. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is imperative that experts look at this evidence, as they have with all evidence on MMR over the years, to reassure themselves that no evidence of a link has been overlooked. We also have the evidence about the view of the claimants' chances in court.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister ensure that the money that the taxpayer has spent so far does not go to waste? It appears that the research that has so far been carried out has been to no avail, simply because it does not appear suitable to take forward the court case. Will she assure the House that taxpayers' money that has gone into the research on the possible link between MMR and autism will not be put to waste, but will be followed up so that we can finally reach a conclusion on this question?
  Miss Johnson: The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I was saying that we hope that the money will not go to waste. I understand that most, if not all, of the expenditure is incurred by claimants, so much of the expenditure is effectively their property. They have the ability to put the information into the public domain, so the main onus does not rest with the Government.
  I turn to the examination of cause regarding autism children. Detailed information about more than 200 children was obtained from families, GPs and specialists who look after children. Experts reviewed more than 100 cases of autism and bowel disease in children, but they could find no syndrome that made those children different from any others with autism. They found no evidence to implicate the vaccine or to give any cause for concern about its safety. It is worth pointing out that only one parent admitted that their child's symptoms had appeared before the MMR jab. However, there were written records from health professionals showing that there were concerns about nearly 40 per cent. of children's development before they received the MMR jab.
  Exactly the same thing was seen in a study done by Professor Taylor, because there was clear evidence that some parents had originally acknowledged that their children had problems before the MMR jab but later said that the symptoms had appeared after it. That is not to say that parents do not tell the truth. It shows how fraught the situation can be, how difficult it must be for parents to deal with it, and how difficult it can be to assess evidence before and after such a jab.

  931
  Many scientific studies have failed to demonstrate a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism or bowel disease. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has considered the safety of MMR vaccines on numerous occasions and its conclusion remains that available evidence does not support an association between MMR vaccine and autism or bowel disease. Therefore the identification of at-risk groups is neither relevant nor feasible and the hypothesis that there is a connection does not hold
  932
  I am not sure how much time I have left, but I shall say a little about vaccinations in Japan. Japan does not use MMR vaccine, but that is because it cannot produce a vaccine with a mumps component that does not carry the risk of mumps meningitis. Japan uses single—
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes to Three o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOE BENTON in the Chair]

Ethiopia
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Gareth Thomas.]
9.30 am
Vera Baird: Ethiopia is the oldest independent country in Africa. With the exception of five years of Italian rule between 1936 and 1941, it has never been occupied. Its history is amazing. It is referred to innumerable times in the Bible and in many ancient texts, and it has many as yet unexplored architectural remains—churches hewn out of solid rock, steles and much more—that confirm its prominent place in man's early history.
At 1.14 million sq km, it is as large as France and Spain combined. Probably its most famous leader was Haile Selassie, but he was ousted in 1974 by the Derg, Colonel Mengistu's brutal Marxist dictatorship. In May 1991, after a long struggle, Mengistu was overthrown by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front. A new constitution was adopted in December 1994, when Meles Zenawi became Prime Minister. He continues in office as the head of a slightly uneasy coalition.
Ethiopia's population is multi-ethnic, with around 78 ethnic groups, and 80 languages are spoken. Most of the people in the highlands around Addis Ababa, the capital, are members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, but many lowlanders are Muslim; it is a 50:50 split, but there are some other Christian sects. They are bound together in a federation of states delineated by natural features of the landscape; they seem to coexist quite amiably.
Unfortunately, Ethiopia is best known for drought and war. The most notable war was the border war with Eritrea, now ended after a border commission and a commitment not to reignite hostilities, although there remain issues on the allocation of Badme to Eritrea. As for drought, securing a sustainable supply of food for its people has been a priority for the Ethiopian Government and for donors for about 20 years, but food insecurity remains the country's most deeply rooted problem. The major famine of 1984–85 was followed by further food shortages in 1992, 1994, 2000 and 2002. By 2025, Ethiopia will need to double its production of cereals to 24 million tonnes in order to feed its people.
The international community has responded to food crises in Ethiopia with food aid, but it has never sufficiently addressed the causes of those crises by investing in Ethiopia's poor rural communities. As a result, Ethiopia, its people and the international community have become trapped in a cycle of dealing only with the immediate crisis.
Ethiopia is a fascinating country. I have had the privilege of visiting it twice in the past two years, most recently courtesy of the Norfolk Fellows Trust, when I
264WH
travelled with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). Another of Ethiopia's problems is the scale of epidemics, most notably HIV. I shall not refer to them now, Mr. Benton, as I hope that my hon. Friend will catch your eye. Having been there with me, I know that he took a particular interest in the problem; he will be able to tell the Chamber what we found.
Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world. It ranks 169 out of 173 in the United Nations Development Programme human development report. It has a literacy rate of 32.7 per cent., and its economy is rural. About 85 per cent. of its population lives in rural areas, and most people have small farms leased from the Government. However, since the days of the communist Derg, the Government have owned all the land. Land policy was central to the political debate during the previous two elections.
There appears to be a popular mandate for the communal ownership of land, but it is subsistence farmed, and tef is the most usual crop. It is a nutritional miracle food that contains much more iron than wheat or barley and has high concentrations of essential minerals. It is made into injera. Together with maize, tef is the country's staple crop, and that is grown for food and for the local drink.
As the drought developed this year, after the failure of two lots of rain, it was thought that people would move from the land into the towns to look for food. The anxiety was that they would become a dependent urban underclass, unlikely to be able to return to the land. The fact that land cannot be sold for short-term survival, which would have happened, has helped to avoid that catastrophe. Therefore, land can be seen as a sort of social security. However, we were concerned to hear that land was handled by peasants associations and that it could be redistributed.
There are two sides to the issue: on the one hand, a family who have perhaps three or four sons need land for their children and may have to split an already small area of land into much smaller packages to accommodate more and more people; on the other hand, peasants associations redistribute land to other families, so there was perhaps unhappiness about the prospect of improving land lest it be redistributed. However, it is clear that the nationalised nature of land plays a role in stability and in three of the states no further land redistribution is allowed. There will be a move to longer leases and there will then be the ability to pass land on to children—indeed, to do everything with it except sell it. That land status played a very important role in the beginning of 2003 and there is a political commitment to its continuing.
We went to areas near Dirẽ Dawa and Harer with the World Food Programme to see how the food aid was being delivered in drought areas and the steps that are being taken to create sustainability in communities. I make a generalised comment, but, happily, it is clear that enough food aid came in sufficiently early to stop a major catastrophe occurring. However, that does not mean that there are not deep problems, even with this impressionistic view of Ethiopia, which is all there is time for me to mention.
Approximately half the population is in long-term, deep poverty; they suffer repeated droughts, the loss of their assets, and a decline in the price of coffee, which is

265WH
the main export crop, leading to the collapse of livelihoods. There is also a lack of infrastructure in poor communities. At the best of times, upwards of 5 million people will never be able to live sustainably on their own land because it is too poor and poorly irrigated to be adequately farmed, and they will be permanently dependent on food aid. In a good year, Ethiopia can produce food in abundance, but even then, because their livelihoods have crashed because of repeated drought, people are often unable to purchase the food that is available. Only 5 per cent. of Ethiopia's irrigable land has been cultivated; the country has great reserves of under-utilised ground water and annual surface water but there has been a lack of investment in water harvesting.
Driving out of Addis Ababa towards Dirẽ Dawa, we saw an amazing sight. It poured with rain, which, although absolutely essential for the crops that were starting to appear and, hopefully, will soon be harvested, ran down both sides of the road in an orange torrent, taking with it the topsoil and eventually running into the lakes, which were made shallower and shallower by the deposited silt. As the rain rushed along the side of the road, it flooded people's houses and was lost from the cultivable areas, carrying away the topsoil and making the lakes shallower, so that that source of water was lost. We saw clearly that it was a lose, lose, lose situation.
The cornerstone of the Ethiopian Government's rural development policy has been to try to turn subsistence farmers into commercial farmers. We heard that there are now 38,000 agents who have been educated to go out to farms to try to persuade them to change their farming. The export of fruit and vegetables from Ethiopia has tripled in the past year, partly as a consequence of that policy, and there is now a move to grow flowers for export in Oromia.
In the drought-ridden areas, there is an excellent project called managing environmental resources to enable transitions, of which I am sure the Minister will be aware, in which food is given for work. MERET aims to discourage people from being dependent on food aid—as long as they are able-bodied, they are given food aid on the basis that they contribute to the sustainability of the local community, for example by digging ditches for irrigation, developing terraces for crop growing, or planting trees where there has been deforestation.
Now that the latest crisis has died down, there is a clear need for the protection of people's livelihoods to begin in earnest. There should be cash-supported programmes focusing on building skills and infrastructure through public works in return for money, which can then stimulate recovery in rural communities. There needs to be rapid development of Ethiopia's ability to store food and transfer it from areas of surplus to areas of deficit. There is an urgent need to restock pastoralist communities, which have lost many of their animals. Women's access to and control over resources and assets should he greatly enhanced. There is also a need to protect small, infant industries, which are just starting to develop and produce diversification.
The food aid performance of donors has been patchy, but the habitual giving of food as aid, rather than providing cash to pay for long-term development, can
266WH
create a chain of dependency from wealthy donors such as the UK to poor communities. We are starting to change our approach, but the USA continues to give the majority of its aid in kind.
One of the infant industries to which I just referred is a new heavy steel plant on the outskirts of Addis Ababa. That is a welcome development, providing approximately 1,000 jobs and producing 220,000 metric tonnes of sheet steel. That economic development is to be encouraged. It is right that we have changed tack in the way in which we give our aid. At the end of October, the EU announced 3.8 billion birr for development projects over the next five years, intending to try to facilitate food security and economic development. On the same day, the Secretary of State for International Development was invited to an international conference on food security in Addis Ababa, and I know that he has agreed to go. It appears that we, with our EU colleagues, are leading the way into moving our aid on to a more sustainable basis.
I shall quickly refer to two areas of high importance and concern. The first is reproductive health. While in Ethiopia, we were privileged to talk to Dr. Duah from the United Nations Populations Fund. The Ethiopian Government statistics show that the country's population is 70.5 million. Population growth, which was 3 per cent., has now settled at 2.9 per cent. That is a very minor reduction, despite the high level of activity of charities such as Marie Stopes International, and the work on birth control carried out by UNICEF, the UNFPA, aid donors and the Government; 2.9 per cent. of 70.5 million represents huge population growth—the population will undoubtedly double before 2030. The birth rate is 39.8 per 1,000 people, notwithstanding a death rate per 1,000 live births of 103.2. The average woman has 5.55 children, and life expectancy for those children is about 40 years.
The UNFPA has a $5 million per year programme over five years for dealing with reproductive health, which is not very much. It hoped to focus its resources on a few regions, but it seems that the Government have a fairly clear policy of regional resource distribution according to a formula, and so resources have been spread rather thinly. It is estimated that 6 per cent. of the Ethiopian population use contraception compared with, for example, 40 per cent. in Kenya.
The national population conference in Ethiopia in June this year emphasised the need for urgent action. However, family planning is not popular, and presents political difficulties. There is also some sense that the Orthodox Church will not help. Charities told us that the Orthodox Church has no doctrinal problems with birth control, but it seems clear that it will not come off the fence. I am grateful to the ambassador for making it clear that there is no hope of that. That is a great tragedy. The 500,000 orthodox priests in Ethiopia are each an integral and respected part of the community. They could certainly help to break down the myths that stop people from taking up the use of contraception as strongly as they should.
The issue is clouded in myths and traditions. Dr. Jember, in a sustainable development project in a poor area of Addis Ababa, told us of a fear that the contraceptive pill made a person weak and unable to manage their work. Unsurprisingly, there is a notion that a child is a gift of God, a measure of status and an

267WH
insurance policy for old age. Women are expected to have children. One tribe tells its males that they should abandon their wives if they do not produce one baby a year. I am not surprised, and no one else will be, that some women are bitter that they are denied control over their futures. Maternal mortality in Ethiopia is the highest in the world.
Availability of contraceptives is low, irrespective of the lack of will to take the methods on. The UNFPA spends half of its budget on physical contraception, as the major supplier of the public health system. However, no programme of contraception will work without Government support, strong political will and the help of non-governmental organisations. As we went around, day after day, talking about attempts to make sustainable communities and engender a livelihood for Ethiopia, we were concerned not to hear about sufficient reproductive health to curb the increasing population. Great concerns exist that the Government pay insufficient attention to the issue.
I was recently reassured by the important announcement that the US Packard Foundation has announced that it will spend $40 million on expanding its reproductive health work in Tigray and the southern states. I understand that the request that Packard should spend resources on reproductive health came from the Prime Minister, which I find strongly reassuring. The Government are clearly taking up the idea that better contraceptive advice is needed. However, there is a long way to go.
There is no doubt that UK resources should be applied. We had concerns that donors would not be able to do much about myths about child bearing if there were no political will to tackle them. A donor country cannot easily impose conditions about ways of life and morality on a recipient country. It was a relief to learn that the Packard Foundation's project has been encouraged, as it shows that Ethiopia is keen for all the help it can get.
In ways that are too obvious to set out, reproductive health is integrally linked with women's rights. I went to Ethiopia on the second occasion to look at women's rights. Ethiopia has a modern, gender-egalitarian constitution. Article 35 should be read out in ringing tones:
"Women shall, in the enjoyment of rights and protections provided for by this Constitution, have equal right with men."
It gets better:
"Women have equal rights with men in marriage as prescribed by this Constitution."
Better still:
"The historical legacy of inequality and discrimination suffered by women in Ethiopia taken into account, women, in order to remedy this legacy, are entitled to affirmative measures. The purpose of such measures shall be to provide special attention to women so as to enable them to compete and participate on the basis of equality with men in political, social and economic life as well as in public and private institutions."
Women played a significant role in the overthrow of the Derg, and have earned that equality.
All the institutions are in place. The Ethiopian Parliament has a standing committee on women's affairs, which is chaired by Dr. Ethiopia—a notable female MP who recently visited the House of Commons. She is proud to say that there are two men and 11 women
268WH
on the committee. There are quotas to ensure that women have a voice in public life and there are efforts to train women candidates for public office. The committee felt that the issue of gender equality was mainstreamed.
A new family code has recently been adopted, and there is a new criminal code to outlaw marital rape, which was outlawed here only 10 years ago. Ethiopia is doing very well to outlaw both that and female genital mutilation. We were told that over 90 per cent. of women in Ethiopia suffered from genital mutilation. They are a bold and strong Government who outlaw something as prevalent as that. There is no doubt about their commitment to equality, or that it is affecting the metropolitan areas.
Julie Morgan: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the work of the national committee on traditional practices in Ethiopia, which considers not only the many beneficial traditional practices but the harmful ones? The women in Parliament have been particularly involved with that committee.
Vera Baird: Yes, I believe that we did talk to someone who was on that committee, although I am not certain of that. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are beneficial traditional practices as well as some harmful ones.
I have been lucky enough to go to Ethiopia twice in the past two years, and I can track the improvement in women's roles from my own experiences. I was first asked to go by the British Council in order to train some of the judiciary to deal with domestic violence cases. At that time, the new family code, which expressed the new constitutional principle of equality, was functioning only in Addis Ababa, although the constitution is national. The old civil code, which goes back to Haile Selassie's day, made it perfectly clear that the man was the head of the family and that the wife owed him a duty of obedience. The penal code states that nothing is a criminal offence if it is done according to law. Judges outside Addis Ababa were saying, "We can't do anything about domestic violence. The man is the head of the family; his wife owes him a duty of obedience. If he has to enforce the duty of obedience on her by assault, that is not a crime because it is done according to the law in the civil code." That position was very hard to argue against. I said that judges must look at the constitution and interpret those difficulties through the equality clauses of the constitution. That was a hard argument.
This year, I was asked to teach police officers how to police domestic violence. I asked them whether they felt that there was any impediment on their legal powers similar to that which the judges had experienced. They laughed and said that it was perfectly clear that the constitution now prevailed and that everybody accepted it. That seemed to be empirical evidence—although pretty rough and ready—that the march of women in Ethiopia is going forward ever stronger, but it is easy to paint too rosy a picture. In a country that until recently had laws allowing the subordination of women, there is still a huge tradition of that.
We were privileged to meet the head of the Ethiopian Women Lawyers Association, who has recently received the African Nobel prize for her help with women in

269WH
Ethiopia. After receiving the award, she was interviewed and was asked what she thought the position of women in Ethiopia was. She said that it is poor and does not compare with that in the neighbouring countries, as they have little social and economic power and are still prisoners, especially in the rural areas, to old traditions and views.
The prevalence of abduction of schoolgirls is still clear, so much so that parents are reluctant to send their daughters to school. If a young man asks a girl to marry him and she is not interested, his usual tactic is to abduct her with his friends and rape her. Then, when no one else wants her, she becomes his. There is also a strong tradition of female genital mutilation, and although rape in marriage may technically be outlawed, it is prevalent. There is also still a good deal of domestic violence, so there is a long way yet to go.
There are now clearer statements than ever before of the Government's good intentions on reproductive health and women's rights, but there appears to be a long lead-in time before either desirable policy comes to fruition.
I have said little about the Government, who have had a difficult time in contending with war and repeated drought. They appear to aim to do well and attempt to comply with international human rights treaties, and although they are not perfect, they do well to try. They appear to be run intelligently and have strong plans and powerful initiatives. There is a sense that, because the Derg was an oppressive regime in which initiative was regarded as rebellion, the civil service may still be slow to respond to Government initiatives, but that problem is not isolated in Ethiopia.
Mr. John Bercow: I understand the significance of what the hon. and learned Lady says about hidebound social traditions that have constrained or undermined the pursuit of gender equality. On the theme of governance and pluralism, is it the hon. and learned Lady's impression that the elections that have taken place have not yet been fully free and fair? Can she offer any advice on that?
Vera Baird: We did not take it as our job to investigate the democratic viability of the country, but it is notable that the ruling coalition has a majority of about 97 per cent. To some extent, that may speak for itself. None the less, there is no doubt that that Government intend well by their country, and perfect democracy may not be an essential concomitant of progress.
Andy King: I, too, visited Ethiopia twice, with some colleagues who are present. The Ethiopian Government's intentions are honourable, and they are dedicated to bringing about an improved condition for the people of their country, which, as was rightly said, is vast. One of the Government's priorities was capacity building, which my hon. and learned Friend referred to in terms of the judiciary and police force. What evidence did she see of the central policies delivering changes to the outlying states?
Vera Baird: The empirical observation that I can make is that, at both training sessions that I was asked
270WH
to take, people from each state in Ethiopia had come to Addis Ababa. That suggests, although only impressionistically, that a network is developing from the cosmopolitan metropolis outwards to the states.
Overseas investment in Ethiopia is critically needed, and tourism is one of the country's greatest hopes. Like my colleagues, I can give direct testimony to the interest and beauty in Ethiopia—Simien national park, the rock-hewn churches of Lalibela, the castles of Gonder, the fantastic and unique former kingdom of Axum and the stunning Blue Nile falls. It is as beautiful as eastern Africa and as historic as northern Africa; it has as interesting peoples as western Africa and all the wildlife of southern Africa. It is a country with multiple problems but with a reasonably stable Government with clear hope and strong plans. There is a saying in Ethiopia when one looks on something that is particularly beautiful: before he made it God must have washed his hands. I am sure that everyone who has visited this complex, but now optimistic country, would agree that before God built Ethiopia he certainly washed his hands.
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Before I call the next speaker, I should point out that I intend to commence the wind-ups at 10.30 am. Five hon. Members have indicated that they want to speak and I ask them to bear that in mind.
10 am
Mr. Tom Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Benton. I will try to keep my comments brief. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing the debate and on an excellent introductory speech. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on his appointment. I am sure that he will add to the quality of the Opposition Front-Bench team. I leave others to make judgments on the general quality. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows what I mean.
I first took part in debates on Ethiopia during the major crisis of 1984. We were told then that it would be a one-off, yet here we are with a sense of déjà vu. What is taking place now, outlined by my hon. and learned Friend, was predictable and predicted. The international community must clearly challenge it. It is not just that things in Ethiopia are bad, but that that is against a backdrop almost throughout Africa of food crisis, drought, plagues and conflict. None of that helps.
As we have heard, the crisis is of staggering dimensions: 14 million people are at risk in Ethiopia and Eritrea. That is bad enough given that in a normal year 4 million such people would face a crisis of famine. Across southern Africa, 13 million other people face death and famine. There have also been many natural disasters in the Congo, in Uganda, in Mauritania and elsewhere. Transcending all that is the issue of global warming. I do not want to depart from the debate, but it is relevant during the visit of the American President to point out that environmental matters in the Kyoto agreement are as relevant to Ethiopia as they are to the rest of Africa and elsewhere. They simply have to be addressed.
There are some who criticise our response, Bob Geldof perhaps among them. We will not criticise him for the contribution that he has made. I cannot quote

271WH
precisely what he said, so I will paraphrase. He asked why on earth we cannot give food to non-governmental organisations to help the people who are in desperate need. He said that he was a citizen of Europe and that he expected more from the European Union. Many of us would want to echo that last point.
Even if that food aid were delivered in the way that we want and in the time that we want, there are still some structural challenges, particularly in Ethiopia as well as elsewhere in Africa, some of which my hon. and learned Friend addressed. One such challenge is population. Since the 1984 crisis, the population of Ethiopia has grown from 40 million to almost 70 million. The problems with world trade, including the fluctuations in coffee prices, are a great blow to Africa, coming as they do on top of the existing difficulties of economic situations and abilities to export and earn. In addition there is the scourge of HIV/AIDS.
The problems are of a staggering dimension. Some people think that money flows in when there is a crisis, but that the problems are then forgotten. One aid worker in Addis Ababa is reported as saying, "If you don't have starving babies, you don't get the money." Recently, there was a particularly relevant and thoughtful article in The Independent by Declan Walsh, in which he said:
"Funding does not always follow famine."
In recent years the Balkans received $300 per capita in aid, Albania $111—which is not an enormous sum—and Ethiopia $16.
If we are to address the problems, we must discuss the challenge set by the Ethiopian Government, which does not have a bad record on good governance, for the G8, the IMF, the World Bank and the UN. It is worth considering how much the essential development that is needed for Ethiopia to recover and thrive has changed. Twenty years ago, 80 per cent. of World Food Programme resources were spent on development, compared with 20 per cent. on aid for emergencies. That trend has been reversed, which is a short-termist, knee-jerk reaction. That reversal does not represent the vision of aid agencies that work there and address practical problems day in, day out. They experience frustration, knowing that, for example, in respect of the millennium goals set for Africa, the targets for 2015 will not be met until at least 2050.
In view of the time, I shall conclude. We know what is happening in Ethiopia, and we know the early warnings. Our friends in the aid agencies tell us that the situation will almost certainly recur in two, three or five years' time, but that can and should be avoided. So what should we tell aid agencies in Addis Ababa? What is the UK Parliament's message to the Zenawi Government, who are committed and set higher standards for anti-corruption policies than most other developing countries? We should tell them that we genuinely recognise their problems. We congratulate the Department for International Development, and hope that its efforts are emulated in Europe and elsewhere in wealthy parts of the world. We must tell our friends in Ethiopia that theirs is a country of great beauty. We want them to share in the mineral resources of Africa. We want transparency and accountability, and we want those mineral resources to be fairly shared for the benefit of the many, not just the few.
272WH
If we can address the problems of the need for food aid when it is required and the need for water, which people are crying out for, as well as the need for fair trade, conflict resolution, and the issue of blood diamonds, we should be entitled to say that security, good politics and good government are at least as important as providing transient warehouses full of grain. Those warehouses are there temporarily, and do not respond to the hearts and minds of people who deserve better.
10.10 am
Mr. David Borrow: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing the debate. Following our return from Ethiopia in the summer, we felt that an Adjournment debate would be appropriate, and I am grateful for this one. My visit to Ethiopia in August was my second; I went there as part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation in December 2002 with my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King), who are present this morning.
The visit last December was timely in that, while we were there, the international donor community was meeting the Ethiopian Government to discuss the food aid crisis there. It was interesting to see how Ethiopia has improved its early warning system, which gives advance warning of food crisis. That is done by measuring rainfall during the two rain seasons in spring to early summer and the main rains in August and September. Those rains were very patchy, and made clear to the Government the risk of famine. Instead of 5 million people needing food aid, it was calculated in December that the figure would be 12.5 million.
On that basis, the international community reached agreement with the Ethiopian Government to deliver food aid. Having visited in December, it was interesting to visit in the rainy season this year towards the end of the famine period, when crops were in the fields, and to see how successful that programme had been. The international community and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's Government were very successful overall in handling that crisis, and should be congratulated on that.
However, that does not deal with the issue of sustainable development. The population constraints that my hon. and learned Friend mentioned have struck me on both visits. They are very real and need to be tackled, as does the issue of how the land is used or misused. I remember visiting the West Harerge area, Asbe Teferi and the Messio district in December last year, and there were piles of sticks or charcoal everywhere. The forests were being cut down to produce fuel to sell for income. One could see, even from the hotel in Addis Ababa, that the hillsides that were covered in forest a generation ago were completely denuded. In many parts of the country, the effect of that was the same as the problems that we saw in Harer in August: when the rains came there was no forest left on the hillsides to keep the rain within the land. It came as a torrent off the hillsides and was wasted. We visited a project where trees had been planted to replace those lost, but it is clearly still an issue.
Another issue is that of water management. It is a sensitive issue as the waters of the Nile are used extensively by Sudan and Egypt, although they

273WH
generally come from the mountains of Ethiopia. It is clear to me that even in a year such as 2002—a poor year for rains—there was sufficient rainfall, if managed properly, to feed the people of Ethiopia. The problem is that the infrastructure is not in place and irrigation systems do not exist to ensure that the land can be used productively. The pressure on the land means that there is great pressure to increase grain production, but instead of pressure to produce tef, which is part of the staple diet, there is pressure to produce maize. If it is successfully grown, maize produces more grain than tef, but it is very susceptible to anything less than the optimum rainfall, so if there is only half or three quarters of the optimum rainfall, the maize grows, but does not come to proper fruition. One sees half-grown stalks of maize everywhere, because there has not been enough rain, whereas tef and other indigenous grains will grow even if there is poor rainfall, and they will produce a crop, even if it is not of the size that one sees in a very good year. At least tef produces some grain; maize is either completely successful or produces nothing at all, which was a real problem in 2002.
That situation derives in part from issues of land tenure and the willingness of people at village level to invest in the land that they occupy, but do not own. They fear that if they invest in improving the land, it could be reallocated when the village council next meets to decide who gets the land. A real issue is how to devise a system that encourages farmers at local level to invest in improving the land.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Borrow: I will take a short intervention; I am mindful of colleagues who wish to speak.
Mr. Bercow: Is not what the hon. Gentleman has described an argument for establishing proper private property rights?
Mr. Borrow: We need to be fairly careful about giving prescriptive advice to an independent country, particularly one such as Ethiopia, which has a long, proud history. However, there is a problem, which I think it recognises, with how land tenure operates there and the knock-on effects.
I shall touch on HIV/AIDS, which was the main reason for my visit in August. The official figures show a prevalence rate of between 6 and 7 per cent. That is based on antenatal testing in 34 centres throughout the country, 28 of which were in urban areas and six in rural sites. The figures show real variation. The infection rate is 3 per cent. in the rural areas, but in some urban areas it is much higher. It is 20 per cent. in Bahir Dar, 19 per cent. in Jijiga, 18.7 per cent. in Nazret and 13.2 per cent. in Addis Ababa.
I have some scepticism about those figures. The National Intelligence Council in Washington projected a possible figure of 18 per cent. on the figures that it had for 2002. We had discussions in August with UNESCO and it felt that the figure was higher. My feeling from speaking to people at all levels, particularly on the visit in August, is that there is real recognition that HIV/
274WH
AIDS is a problem. When the figures are 18 or 20 per cent. for Uganda, Kenya and other parts of east Africa, it is difficult to believe that the figures are so much lower for Ethiopia, and that the assumption is that they will remain so much lower.
There may be particular issues in Ethiopia that make its figures much lower. We heard that the army has a strong sexual health policy: condoms are issued to soldiers. In many other places, the army is often a strong instrument for spreading HIV/AIDS, so the Ethiopian Government are to be congratulated on their policy. The fact that so much of Ethiopia is very rural may also make a difference.
That said, I sense that there could well be a major problem with HIV/AIDS in Ethiopia in years to come. It is applying to the global fund to deal with the issue and to secure drug funding in respect of mother-to-child transmission. That is crucial, but in many ways we need to know more about the scale of the problem. I am not sure that the figures are as robust as those available for other African countries.
My overall impression in Ethiopia was that the Government are doing their best in very difficult circumstances. They coped well last year with the risk of major famine, but the international community will have to feed 5 million or more people with emergency food aid in the years to come unless we put in place, or help Ethiopia to put in place, a structure that brings the productivity of its land and its food production in line with its population growth. That is unsustainable. We must work with the international community and the Government of Ethiopia to determine what policies are needed to improve the productivity of the land and to manage the population growth better than has been managed in the past 20 years. I fear that the international community will become increasingly reluctant to find funds for emergency famine aid if it is requested year after year with no end in sight.
10.20 am
Julie Morgan: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on securing the debate.
Time is short, so I shall talk briefly about some of the issues that emerged on my visit to Ethiopia last July as part of the British Council's pairing scheme for Westminster and Ethiopian women MPs. I was linked with Dr. Ethiopia, whom my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. Dr. Ethiopia visited my constituency in Cardiff, and I spent five days with her in Addis Ababa and Nazret. I want to talk about the issues that she wanted me to raise, and on which she wanted me to work with her.
The British Council should be congratulated on starting the scheme. Now that many visits have been made, it is important to determine how to sustain them and how to work together to resolve issues such as those that Dr. Ethiopia raised with me and I raised with her.
Dr. Ethiopia was very concerned about health, which is high on the agenda. We all know that Ethiopia has one of the highest child mortality rates in the world: 166 per 1,000 births. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) referred to HIV/AIDS. Project workers in Nazret said that it was a huge issue and told me that coping with young people who tested positive was very difficult.

275WH
Dr. Ethiopia took me to a district health centre—Woreda 13—in Addis Ababa, and one of her great passions is to try to develop it. I was extremely impressed by the quality of care that it gave. It was very holistic and examined every aspect of the lives of mothers and children. It urged mothers to use contraception, encouraged the use of deprovera and tested for HIV/AIDS. It also gave good antenatal and postnatal care, and children were vaccinated. All those treatments were available at the same time, and there was an extremely high rate of breastfeeding, which this country would envy. We have much to learn from the way in which the centre operates. However, Dr. Ethiopia drew to my attention the fact that although so much good work was being done at the centre, which was progressive, its resources were poor. It had no ambulances to bring in mothers to deliver their babies, the delivery bed was so old and broken that it was depressing, and there were no heaters, dish washers, sterilising equipment or microscopes.
Any aid that we decide to give must be sustainable. There is no point in sending over an ambulance in a great charitable rush when there is no money to run it and no spare parts are available. Very small resources may help centres such as the one in Addis Ababa, which is already doing a tremendous job. I had a great deal of admiration for what it was doing. I ask the Minister to take on board the fact that sustainable aid can help in places where progress is already being made.
The other major issue raised with me by women in Ethiopia—I met mainly women and it was women's issues that were brought to my attention—was the effect of the harmful traditional practices that are still carried out and which particularly affect women and children. I was in the Parliament for what I think was an annual debate on the traditional practices of Ethiopia. As I mentioned in an intervention, there are many good and positive traditions, such as breastfeeding, the care of mothers after delivery, the care of elderly and disabled people and many others, that we would want to emulate.
Nevertheless, there are harmful practices, and women in the Parliament are leading the fight to get them outlawed, as they threaten the human rights of women and children. The practices in question were debated in Parliament for a whole day and I was tremendously impressed by the way in which they were being tackled at all levels—through the school curriculum, through the training of trainers and through the mass media. However, there were very limited resources for the task and the areas that could be covered were also limited.
Parliament accepted, fundamentally, that the traditional practices challenged mothers' and children's rights and caused additional health problems, as my hon. and learned Friend mentioned; permanent damage can result from childbirth at a very young age. I want to ask the Minister how we can give sustainable help on health issues, and provide help in the matter of harmful traditional practices.
10.27 am
Mr. David Drew: I shall take careful note of your strictures, Mr. Benton, and keep my remarks to three minutes. I welcome the introductory comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who gave a clear exposition of what
276WH
Ethiopia is like. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) mentioned the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation last year, of which I was a member; one thing that I remember is that we shared our visit with a certain Mr. Rumsfeld, which is something that we might care to forget.
I want to make two clear points. The first was touched on by my hon. and learned Friend, but it is crucial: to achieve sustainable development, Ethiopia needs to remain at peace. It can do so only if it has territorial sovereignty; the countries that surround it are Djibouti, Eritrea, about which I shall say more shortly, Kenya, Somalia and the Sudan. Pleasingly, the British Government are investing time in trying to overcome the boundary dispute with Eritrea. While we were there, we met General Gordon, who is the grandson of the General Gordon—that's Britain for you.
It is crucial that we invest time, money and real effort to resolve the dispute in the Badme area. If there is a return to war, everything else will fail. Of course, there is internal tension. It is clear that the Government are still dominated by the Tigreans. That causes resentment elsewhere in the country. We need to provide the means to develop good governance.
I do not think that the other point I want to make has yet been mentioned. It is a simple fact that Ethiopia is an under-urbanised society. Addis Ababa is by far the dominant centre, but its population is less than 2 million, in a total population of 70 million. There are no other centres of any size in the country. Some form of urbanisation is needed, and we need to help with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble made a point about infrastructure, and transport in particular is woefully inadequate. There is one rail line to Djibouti. A developed country cannot be established on that basis. Telecommunications are also relevant, as any hon. Members who tried to use a mobile phone there will know. Ethiopia is about the only country in the world that has not yet got its act together to set up a network. That is due to its dilemma of trying to maintain some vestige of belief in the rural society, which has a strong grip on the population, while aiming for development.
10.30 am
John Barrett: I, too, congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on her interesting speech, and all other hon. Members who have spoken so passionately this morning. Like others, I visited Ethiopia this year, and, all being well, I should return next year.
This is the latest in a series of debates concentrating on Africa. When the eyes of television news crews, and therefore of the world, are focused on places such as Iraq and the middle east, it is important to remember those countries that face grinding poverty every year. We must continue to assist them if we are ever to meet the UN's millennium development goals. The hon. and learned Lady, along with all other speakers, fairly and effectively spelled out both the short-term and the long-term problems facing Ethiopia. On both counts, we have a duty to help.
The UK should be a champion in the war against global poverty—I know that the Minister and his Department are genuinely committed to that cause.

277WH
Other Members have demonstrated why Ethiopia should be at the top of our list of priorities—its chronic symptoms include 82 per cent. living on less than a dollar a day, 15 per cent. suffering from HIV/AIDS and adult illiteracy of almost two thirds. Those underlying problems cause the crises that sometimes—not often enough—feature on our televisions and in our newspapers.
In the short term, we have a responsibility to respond to humanitarian crises as they occur. Approximately 5 million people require food aid almost every year. The Government—the Department for International Development specifically—have a good record of contributing to UN appeals, something that other countries would do well to emulate. However, as the World Bank has pointed out, official aid to Ethiopia fell considerably between 1995 and 2000. The $2.5 million that DFID recently pledged to fight malaria in Ethiopia is a massive forward step, and a good example of our Government's contribution. Over 100,000 people die from malaria every year in the country, and while this debate takes place, some 17 Ethiopians will be killed by it.
The hon. and learned Lady was right to mention the equally, if not more, important challenge that faces us: that of the long term. How can we help Ethiopia to develop in a sustainable manner so that it can treat its sick, feed its people and help them out of poverty? Most of all, how can we ensure that Ethiopia has all the necessary tools to resist external shocks, particularly the environmental shocks that appear to be becoming the norm, and to minimise their impact?
Earlier this year, I visited Ethiopia with the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) and representatives of Oxfam. We saw the food aid that was being provided to help to mitigate the effects of the drought in the rift valley. On my way there, I passed several windmills, designed to pump water from below the ground. Most of them had fallen into disrepair, because the initial investment and good will that had enabled them to be built was no longer there, so they had not been maintained. Rainfall is crucial. It is not rocket science to say that when the time, energy and money are provided to build Ethiopia's infrastructure, we must ensure that that infrastructure is maintained—that is at the very heart of long-term development.
When I was there, I found that there was a particular requirement for considerable and sustained investment in rural development, particularly in water management and infrastructure. It struck me that a diversification from agriculture is needed. Farming is almost entirely dependent on smallholders, which leaves the country particularly vulnerable to the external shocks that I mentioned. A related issue is the ongoing problem of land tenure. The average holding is only one hectare and because all land is Government owned, farmers are not encouraged to invest in the land that they work. That problem will increase as population growth outstrips agricultural growth.
The current debate in Ethiopia about land reform needs to involve the Ethiopian people so that the environment is managed. This is a matter of life and death. There are real problems of going straight to private ownership of land. If people are so poor that
278WH
they cannot produce enough to feed themselves, the temptation may be just to sell their land and move into the city, which does not solve the problem.
The ongoing crisis in the coffee industry has also taken its toll on Ethiopia, a country heavily dependent on that industry. Not only has coffee production decreased by between a quarter and a third over the last year because of the drought, but coffee prices have collapsed by some 70 per cent. over the past four years. There are small projects that can benefit those in direct need. When I was in Ethiopia, I was fortunate enough to see the Negele Gorbitu coffee farmers' co-operative, an excellent set-up that benefits its 1,400 members enormously. However, even with the co-operative, farmers still only get 100 birr—roughly £8—for 100 kg of coffee.
It did not take me long to work out that when I buy a cup of coffee here, I pay roughly what one farmer gets for producing the coffee for 1,000 cups. That is a scandal, and that is even with a pro-farmer co-operative that leaves out some of the middlemen between the farmer and the supermarket. The difference in the price that the farmer receives and what we pay in a supermarket is outrageous. That also links to trade agreements, imports and exports, but I do not have enough time to go into that this morning.
In the short term, we need to help coffee producers weather this storm. However, if the coffee crisis shows us anything, it is that Ethiopia must be less dependent on one crop and even less dependent on agriculture. That is not easy but it must be a long-term goal. The fact that coffee comprises 60 per cent. of Ethiopian exports has meant that the collapse of the market has had a massive negative impact on the country's income. That is very serious, especially as Ethiopia is still servicing $6 billion worth of debt. Last year it spent almost $120 million in debt repayments, 12 per cent. of its GDP. That is outrageous.
For a country with so many problems to be paying so much money on debt, money that could be spent on food and medicines or health care and roads, cannot and should not be tolerated. That money, if spent annually on poverty-focused development, could make an enormous contribution to visible improvements for the people of Ethiopia.
Ethiopia, along with many of its neighbours, is also in the grip of HIV/AIDS. Although it is not as widespread as in other parts of Africa, particularly the south, it is still a major problem. There are possibly 1 million AIDS-related orphans and, in many cases, knowledge and skills are being lost and not passed down from one generation to the next. Not only must we ensure that Ethiopia can afford to treat those suffering from the virus, but we must ensure that the delivery mechanisms for health care are improved so that access to medicines is increased.
If Ethiopia is to become the country that we all want to see, its next 70 years must not match its last when it comes to war. Too much has gone wrong in the past. When more money is spent on guns than food, when more money is spent on soldiers than doctors, we can never hope to tackle poverty. The ongoing and sometimes daily shootings that take place along the border serve as a reminder of this. That is why the promotion of and persistent attempt for peace is so

279WH
important for Ethiopia's long-term development. It must be a safe place to visit for the tourism industry to develop.
In the short term one of the most pressing problems facing Ethiopia is the removal of the 2 million land mines estimated to remain in the country. Ethiopia remains one of the most heavily land-mined countries in the world with regular casualties caused, especially along the northern border with Eritrea.
This has been a valuable debate, which has served to highlight the short and long-term difficulties and challenges. Of course the burden does not and should not fall entirely on the shoulders of the Minister and his Department. However, there is a role for them to pursue in terms of aid to improve trade and infrastructure. If successful, we can hopefully meet in this place in the coming years to celebrate the improvements and advances in Ethiopia, rather than revisiting many of the problems that have plagued the country over the decades.
10.40 am
Mr. John Bercow: I begin by congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) both on securing the debate and on the vivid portrait that she painted of a beautiful but beleaguered country. She was ably followed by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), with a characteristically powerful speech, and by the hon. Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett), all of whom brought something different to bear on consideration of the plight of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world.
In the short time available, I shall focus on a few issues on which I am interested to solicit the Minister's response. First, the aftermath of the war with Eritrea was mentioned. We would all agree that sustainable peace is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of sustainable development. The Minister will be familiar with the decision taken by the boundary commission that was set up by the Algiers agreement. It is underpinned by and has the support and authority of the United Nations, and it has to be implemented if peace is to be achieved and maintained.
The Minister will be aware of resolution 1507. My concern, based on a recent parliamentary answer by the former Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and on the work contained in the Africa research bulletin, is that peace could be in danger of losing out. Can the Minister tell me what the Government are doing in concert with the United Nations, the United States, the African Union and the European Union to ensure that the momentum for peace is maintained? He will be aware that the Ethiopian Government are anxious about the lack of domestic support for the agreement that has been reached. Does he feel confident that the Government of Ethiopia will be kept on track and that peace will be achieved?
Secondly, I come to the issue of debt relief. Starkly, there seems to be a problem. The Government gave £12.3 million in aid to Ethiopia last year, yet, consistent with existing arrangements, it sought £15 million back in
280WH
debt repayment. The Minister will be aware that completion point, which is the jargon in debt relief, was expected to take place in the third quarter of 2003, but World Bank analysis shows that the debt will not be sustainable for Ethiopia after that completion point. Total debt is already about 150 per cent. of gross domestic product. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West correctly pointed out that the cost of servicing that debt has risen to about $118 million a year and there is genuine anxiety about whether debt relief and reduction will be ongoing and sustainable.
Does the Minister accept that there is an inherent tension between giving money with one hand and taking it away with the other? I do not suggest that just one Government are culpable; it is a long-standing phenomenon involving an international system that doubtless requires a thorough rethink. However, I should be grateful if the Minister said whether he thinks that there is a problem that needs to be tackled. In the process, he might also like to say something about the direct Government budget support to assist the Ethiopian Government in the pursuit of its poverty reduction programme of £60 million spread over three years. Can he say precisely how those moneys will be used to best effect to ensure a direct benefit to the cause of poverty reduction?
Many hon. Members focused on agricultural production and the significance of coffee, and I want to press the Minister on the issue of a future processing plant. If Ethiopia could export, not in raw form—green beans—but on the strength of a processing plant, that would be vastly more commercially beneficial. We discuss that ambition and we hear periodic pronouncements from Nestléand others, but are there concrete grounds for hope that that worthwhile aspiration could, before long, become a practical reality to the benefit of Ethiopia? If the Minister could also, in the 10 minutes available to him, say something about the debate on land reform, crop diversification, water and irrigation, he would be displaying a pithiness and intellectual distinction that we would all like to emulate.
On the issue of food relief, the Minister will be aware that the food security coalition donors have another conference next month, possibly similar to the one last year, to which the hon. Member for South Ribble referred. The Ethiopian Government understandably want to receive the moneys that will flow from those donors and to be able to deploy the resources as they see fit. However, there is concern that it will not be able to manage those resources, and that it should benefit from the expert assistance on offer from the non-governmental organisations. Oxfam is one of the bodies that thinks that it has a role to play. Does the Minister agree with that concern? If so, are the Government taking steps to ensure that such co-operation happens?
We have heard much about HIV/AIDS. I have received different indications as to whether the spread of AIDS in Ethiopia is likely to get worse or better. The NGOs with which I have spoken advise me that the issue has not been effectively tackled, and they are pessimistic about the short-term prospects. It has been put to me that one quarter of Ethiopian children could be orphaned due to AIDS within eight years. That is not only a human health tragedy, but it has implications for the Ethiopian economy. It will be an obstacle to

281WH
industrial investment, commercial expansion and economic growth, and will concomitantly have implications for the chances of poverty reduction.
Will the Minister comment on the Ethiopian Government's policies on HIV/AIDS, as articulated first in 1998, and more recently in the plan for 2000–04? Reference is made to transmission education, behavioural change, and care and support for infected individuals. What are our Government doing to help the Ethiopians, given the dramatic significance of antiretroviral treatment and appropriate care in cutting transmission rates? Transmission rates could be reduced from 35 per cent. to 5 per cent., so a premium must be attached to pursuing the best public policies. Will the Minister comment on what the British Government are doing towards those worthwhile objectives?
This has been a stimulating and wide-ranging debate. I suspect that all hon. Members agree that too many people in Ethiopia have suffered too much for too long. There is a pressing need for this and other Governments, as well as international agencies, to pool their financial and intellectual resources to assist Ethiopia. We should not impose solutions but work with Ethiopia to help it to realise its human potential and tackle the problems that have undermined it for so long. I am anxious to hear what the Minister has to say and, on the strength of my nine minutes, I rest content and look forward to his response.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I, too, congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on initiating the debate and on the excellent way in which she outlined many of the issues currently facing Ethiopia. I should also like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on their contributions. They have added additional focus to other issues facing Ethiopia. I also welcome the contribution of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). This is the first opportunity that I have had formally to congratulate him on his appointment, and I look forward to regular opportunities to cut my teeth on his performances.
If ever a country serves to remind us of our responsibility to look beyond our own borders, Ethiopia is it, not least because it faces huge levels of poverty. Of its 67 million population, 47 per cent. live below the national poverty line. Ethiopia's people face the regular threat of drought and famine, chronic food insecurity, the ongoing backdrop of the recent conflict with Eritrea and, as a number of hon. Members have outlined, a growing HIV/AIDS problem. If one adds to that mix Ethiopia's historic debt relief needs, the ongoing human rights abuses that still occur there, and the low status of women, we begin to get a sense of the scale of the challenge facing Ethiopia and its friends in the international community in helping its population to survive but, more importantly, move on and live their lives outside the daily challenge of poverty.
282WH
The UK's support is within the framework of Ethiopia's own sustainable development and poverty reduction programme. That programme, which the Ethiopian Government worked up, includes a strong commitment to empowerment, gender equality and democratic governance, all of which are fundamental to poverty reduction. We plan to provide substantial funding in the form of a multi-annual programme of direct budget support to back up that programme. In order to create a solid framework for our development partnership with Ethiopia, we have recently signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding setting out the necessary mutual commitments and establishing the basis for ongoing dialogue between the two countries. In addition to that memorandum of understanding, we are providing technical support in key areas, including food security, capacity building, education and HIV/AIDS, to which I hope to return if time allows.
In this financial year, we are seeking to spend some £19 million supporting Ethiopia. That will rise to some £42 million in 2004–05 and £57 million in 2005–06. As I have said, much of that money will be allocated in the form of budget support. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston referred to the debates on Ethiopia in the House in 1984, and the excellent work that Bob Geldof did in bringing Ethiopia's plight to the attention of the world. As he rightly said, there is a sense, in many people's eyes, that Ethiopia is continually associated with the need for more humanitarian aid and the ongoing difficulties of food security.
We have been one of the largest financial donors of humanitarian assistance. Since January 2002, we have provided some £50 million in relief. Most recently, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned, we have provided some $2.5 million to help UNICEF to tackle the problem of malaria. That support is provided both through voluntary agencies and through the United Nations for food and non-food relief. Last year the possibility of famine was again identified; fortunately, it was identified early. The Ethiopian Government quickly sought help from external donors, many of whom responded extremely generously.
On Monday, I had discussions with representatives of the World Food Programme. Current estimates suggest that the food pipeline is in good shape and that cereal needs are certainly covered this year. Indications are that, in most parts of Ethiopia, rainfall was better this year in comparison with last year. Assessments are under way, but it looks likely that food production will be much better than it was last year.
Health issues remain a serious concern. Signs suggest that parts of the east of the country face problems because of inadequate seasonal rains. However, the idea that food aid alone is not a sufficient response, a point made by several hon. Members, is absolutely right. Other issues, such as health care, water and sanitation, are equally critical to child survival. We, and other donors, need to pay more attention to that problem.
The Ethiopian Government have put considerable time and effort into their coalition for food security initiative, which seeks to address some of the underlying causes of food insecurity. That will be discussed at a meeting between donors and the Government, where the UK will be represented, on 1–2 December. It is right that we are there. We have a shared focus on wanting to

283WH
address those underlying causes. I am sure that we will have opportunities to discuss the results of those meetings in the House.
The hon. Members for Edinburgh, West and for Buckingham rightly raised the issue of debt. Ethiopia reached the first phase of debt relief under the enhanced heavily indebted poor countries process in November 2001. Ethiopia no longer has to service around $1.9 billion worth of debt, and clearly that allows those savings to be spent on the needs of its poor. We hope that those debts will be formally written off, probably in the first half of next year, once completion point is achieved.
The hon. Member for Buckingham highlighted concerns that Ethiopia's debt-to-export ratio has risen sharply. That is largely due to global interest rate and exchange rate movements as well as lower export prices; coffee has been mentioned. We are concerned that such a rise could damage Ethiopia's prospects for long-term debt sustainability. Ethiopia's level of need is such that additional debt relief from the international community is merited to reduce that threat. We are working to achieve that. Ethiopia is receiving full—100 per cent.—debt relief on moneys owed to the UK.
I will not say too much on the peace process, other than that dialogue to reduce tensions on the border is clearly necessary. We remain firmly of the view that the recommendations of the boundary commission need to be implemented and adhered to. Clearly, ongoing political dialogue between Eritrea and Ethiopia is needed. We are closely watching the developments in both the UN work and the African Union work in that area.
The hon. Gentleman alluded to concerns about human rights abuses. We hope to discuss human rights on a regular basis with the Ethiopian Government as a result of the memorandum of understanding that has been signed.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, in particular, referred to the problem of HIV/AIDS, and expressed rightful scepticism that the current statistics on HIV/AIDS have captured the seriousness of the problem in Ethiopia. I should say that, as well as the UK, the international community is focusing on HIV/AIDS as an important issue in Ethiopia, which we believe has the fifth largest problem with prevalence in Africa. Some $60 million has been set aside by the World Bank to tackle the problem, and the UK is providing some £7 million to help intensify, better co-ordinate and increase the effectiveness of Ethiopia's response to the problem.
I recognise that I have been not been able to answer all the questions raised by hon. Members. I will look carefully at the debate in the Official Report and reply later.

ATOL Scheme
11 am
Laura Moffatt: I am delighted to have secured this debate, as it concerns an important matter that must be brought to Members' attention.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that my constituency contains Gatwick airport, so the airline industry is important to Crawley and the surrounding areas. We welcome the Government's approach to airport expansion, air travel and the careful management that the air industry needs. I wanted to raise an important issue for holidaymakers that relates particularly to the air travel industry. All Members would welcome the expansion of travel for people who, for many reasons and especially for holidays, can now travel abroad. That must be welcomed, as it widens horizons, makes for a smaller world and improves our understanding of the rest of the world.
However, today's debate is not about the travel industry alone, but about the protection of travellers against the insolvency of the company with which they book. Only a few Members will have a major airport close to their constituencies, but all will have constituents who travel, and that is why the debate is so important. It affects all consumers in the United Kingdom.
I shall begin with an overview of the UK package travel industry. It takes 20 million people on holiday a year, employs 50,000 people and has an annual turnover of £8 billion. By any standard, that is a significant industry for the UK's economy and its citizens. Civil Aviation Authority figures show that around 60 per cent. of UK air passenger traffic to or from another European Union country is on charter airlines owned by or associated with tour operators. The largest tour operators in Europe are: Preussag of Germany, which owns Thompson; Thomas Cook AG of Germany, which owns Thomas Cook; Thomas Cook UK, which was formerly JMC; MyTravel, which was formerly Airtours; and First Choice Holidays. First Choice Holidays, Thomas Cook UK and MyTravel are all based in my constituency.
We know that since the events of 11 September, there has been increased insecurity in the air transport business, and companies have been hit hard. The business is settling down, but the impact of the cost of bonded insurance has been significant. It has widened the competitive divide between those that are required by law to carry ATOL—Air Travel Organisers' Licensing—protection and those that are not. Our world is also changing, and an increasing number of people choose to book not through tour operators, but directly, often via the internet, with companies such as easyJet. Such companies have offered highly competitive options that have opened up the possibility of foreign holidays to many, which I applaud.
The package holiday industry has changed dramatically since the legislation introduced in the early 1990s. The increased use of the internet to book travel, in particular, has affected many aspects of the business, including private as well as business travel. That change is significant, for reasons that I will outline. For now, however, I offer an overview of the scale of those changes.

285WH
Personal use of, and access to, the internet has expanded enormously in the past 10 years. Between September 1999 and September 2002, internet usage doubled to 11.4 million households. By September 2002, 46 per cent. of all homes in the UK were said to have access. The latest figures show that 57 per cent. of the adult population—23.3 million people—have accessed the internet at some time. Some 46 per cent. of us have bought goods and/or services online.
This is a growing market. Increasingly, people may choose to put a package together themselves using the internet. In the past few years, low-cost, no-frills airlines have helped to expand the market. That is a good thing, which we should welcome because it has extended personal choice, increased competition and driven down prices. No-frills airlines have provided important business at Gatwick. There is no doubting the value and quality of the service that they provide to many of my constituents, but—and this is a big but—consumer protection legislation and regulation has not kept pace with those changes.
Air Travel Organisers' Licensing was set up after a spate of airline collapses in the late 1960s, which some of us here may remember, when many holidaymakers were stranded in Spain. In the 1990s, the legislation was revised, but at that time booking on the internet was not common. The scope of the existing regulations needs widening to ensure that a greater number of the 20 million Britons who go on package holidays each year are protected in a way that is equitable and transparent, regardless of how a booking is made.
Under package holiday regulations, operators are required to carry an ATOL licence, which the CAA issues. Crucially, however, the regulations do not cover package holidays booked through no-thrills airlines—I mean no-frills, because, in fact, they are quite thrilling, and certainly provide an excellent service. As I said, the package holiday regulations require holiday organisers to hold a CAA licence to provide financial protection for consumers in the event of insolvency.
Operators not covered by the regulations—mainly no-frills operators that offer internet booking—incur no such costs and so can be very competitive on price. Consumers, however, are often unaware of that. There are similar problems in other areas of the travel industry—for example, with coach holiday companies. Travelrisk Management contacted me about today's debate. It has problems with bonded coach holiday insurance, and is subject to the package travel regulations. People booking direct on the internet, however, have no such protection.
There is a need to ensure full consumer protection throughout the market. Recent figures provided by the Office for National Statistics show that the market is changing and that the number of travellers protected by ATOL bonding has declined in the past three years from more than 90 per cent. to 75 per cent. That could leave as many as 9 million holidaymakers each year with no financial protection.
Changes in the level of internet access and the growth of the no-frills operators, which I very much welcome, have resulted in a significant reduction in consumer protection. Some 25 per cent. of consumers are exposed to some degree of risk, and most are not aware of that.
286WH
An EU Council directive published recently recognised that the definition of "package" in the original 1990 directive was no longer adequate for the reality of the market. The CAA, which is aware of the increase in people using the internet who are therefore not covered by ATOL protection, recently conducted research into consumer awareness of the risks posed by do-it-yourself packages. It found that 29 per cent. of people regularly book their holidays via the internet and that 57 per cent. of those people did not know what ATOL protection was. When asked what they thought would happen if their tour operator went bust—we all hope that that will never be the outcome—people who had booked via the internet responded to a variety of suggested scenarios, and 50 per cent. of them consistently said that they expected to get a full refund.
I know that many organisations responded to a recent CAA consultation on that matter, and I want briefly to highlight a point raised in that consultation by the Consumers Association, which clearly represents those who may be affected. The association said that the issue to be resolved was
"the ambiguity in the current wording of the Package Travel Regulations, so that they clearly cover all tailor made packages."
Those who are most vulnerable—people who have to operate to a tight budget, who may not have additional cover, who increasingly use the internet to reduce the cost of their annual holiday in the sun, and who will not be able to bear the cost when things go wrong—will always be the most affected. Although I do not understate the importance of ensuring a level playing field for business, it must also be recognised that the changing market is failing the people who are least able to protect themselves.
ATOL protection has served the industry well until now, but other models should be considered. For example, the Netherlands operates a system where cover is provided by a common bond, which passengers pay for directly, and it is held at an independently agreed level to cover any situation that arises. I know that the Minister is aware of that system. Clearly, any legislative changes should be Europe-wide to ensure consistency, and therefore the European Parliament, too, must deal with legislative change.
I ask the Minister to give a positive response to what I believe to be modest but fair proposals for changes to the law. Consideration should be given to extending the scope of the existing package travel regulations, and legislative time should be made available for that. I offer any support and help that the Minister might need to achieve that. Since the late 1960s, we have not experienced a time when hundreds or thousands of Britons are stranded abroad without any protection. However, I have outlined how difficult the market can be, and the careful handling that the airline industry requires because of the many airlines collapses around the world. We cannot ignore the possibility of that continuing to happen.
The growth of the airline industry and of air travel is to be applauded. My constituents travel as never before. I want to ensure that they will be protected in the unlikely event that problems occur, and that they can be brought home without difficulty. I sincerely hope that the Minister can respond positively to my request.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on securing this important debate. I am aware that some of our major tour operators are based in her constituency and that she takes an assiduous, active and informed interest in travel and aviation matters. She is a real credit to her constituents. I also thank her for staying miles away from the forthcoming aviation White Paper; other hon. Members might have taken the opportunity to get stuck into that.
ATOL is a statutory scheme managed by the Civil Aviation Authority. It was introduced in 1973, and protects holidaymakers from losing money or being stranded abroad if their tour operator defaults. Since 1990, it has been the primary means by which the UK has implemented the EC package travel directive. As my hon. Friend said, there are also a number of trade schemes to protect consumers of package holidays that do not involve air travel. If she wants to pursue similar matters in relation to coach travel and other forms of travel, I would be grateful if she wrote to me.
All tour operators selling flights and air holidays must hold an ATOL licence from the CAA. Before granting or renewing a licence, the authority carries out a range of checks on the firm's financial fitness and management structures. The licence holder must then lodge a bond—a financial guarantee provided by a bank or insurance company. If the licence holder subsequently fails, the CAA uses the bond to pay for people who are abroad to continue their holidays and travel home, and to refund those who have paid but have not travelled.
The ATOL system covers all air packages, flights, and flight-only seats on chartered flights, as well as discounted scheduled tickets that have been sold by a travel firm. Over 1,850 travel firms hold ATOL licences, thus protecting about 28 million passengers who book flights or air holidays each year. The value of the holidays that are protected is nearly £15 billion; the CAA holds bonds of nearly £2 billion. Over the past 17 years—the period for which consistent records exist—ATOL has covered over 300 travel organiser failures, at a total cost of £160 million. Almost 190,000 people have been brought home and more than 1 million people have received refunds.
This year, the Government have taken steps to ensure that the ATOL scheme continues to provide sufficient protection for consumers. Several travel organisers and agents—mainly small ones—were avoiding the cost of ATOL licensing by selling the elements of a package holiday under separate contracts. They would obtain a flight from an ATOL licence holder and add it to accommodation or other services sold under a separate contract. A reference to ATOL could have misled customers into believing that all the components of their holidays were protected, only to find that they were only partly covered, or not covered at all, against the organiser's failure. On the recommendation of the CAA, and after fully consulting the trade and the public, we decided to change the regulations to close that gap. Agents that sell air package holidays under split contracts are now required to hold an ATOL licence.
As my hon. Friend said, the UK package holiday industry has been a great success story over the past 50 years. It has enabled millions of UK citizens to travel
288WH
abroad, and to enjoy a range and quality of holidays that their predecessors could only have dreamed of. The industry has been innovative, competitive and imaginative, and the ATOL scheme has worked well. It has provided peace of mind at a reasonable cost for holidaymakers, for many of whom a holiday is the largest discretionary expenditure of the year. When the European Commission carried out a comparative study of protection arrangements across Europe, the UK scheme was singled out for its coherence and effectiveness. I fully concur with my hon. Friend's comments about the efficacy and success of the scheme to date.
I also agree with my hon. Friend that the market for overseas holidays is gradually evolving. Led by the no-frills—rather than no-thrills—carriers, most airlines now sell a substantial proportion of their tickets on the internet, and they are often linked to other services such as accommodation and car hire. As people grow more confident as travellers and consumers, more and more are putting together their own packages. In those circumstances, the purchaser has separate contracts with different companies and does not enjoy ATOL protection. As my hon. Friend says, that has led to calls from many in the tour operator business for the ATOL scheme to be extended. In particular, tour operators feel that they are disadvantaged if airlines selling via the internet and providing links to other services do not require ATOL protection.
The CAA recently conducted a major consultation exercise covering a wide range of financial protection issues, and the scope of the application of ATOL was one of the central questions addressed. The closing date for the consultation was a few days ago, and the CAA will now consider the many responses received. Many complex and problematic issues are involved, and I understand that it is likely to be several months before the authority can make recommendations to the Department for Transport. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that when we receive those recommendations, we will consider them thoroughly and with an open mind, and try to ensure that the ATOL scheme keeps pace with the evolution of the market, as we have done with the disaggregation of the holiday contract, and filling the gap. To say that is not to preempt what the CAA will say; we shall approach the recommendations with an open mind.
In the meantime, I recognise that it is not always easy for consumers to know whether they are covered. That is one issue that the CAA review will address. For now, I say firmly to consumers that if they want protection, they should always look for the well-known ATOL symbol. If there is any confusion about whether their holiday transaction is covered by ATOL, they should ask. If they do not see that symbol on their documentation, they must assume that they are not covered. Holidaymakers should remember what an excellent deal ATOL cover provides. I am told that the average cost is about £2 per person.
I should say something about the air travel trust fund. In the event of a failure, should a company's bond be insufficient to meet the cost of repatriation and refunds, the ATTF provides a back-up mechanism for everything else that is in place. I regret that the powers to replenish that fund were allowed to lapse in the 1980s, and the fund has been in deficit since 1996. However, it

289WH
continues to provide funding of last resort by means of a commercial loan backed by Government guarantee. The Government intend to take powers to replenish the fund as soon as parliamentary time permits. In the meantime, we fully support the ATOL system and will continue to underwrite the fund's borrowing. Holidaymakers who book with ATOL licence holders can therefore be assured that if their tour operator defaults, they will be reimbursed if they have not yet travelled, or repatriated if abroad.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate these issues with my hon. Friend. No doubt we shall return to them many times in the coming months as and when the CAA consultation comes to fruition. Given the proximity of her constituency to Gatwick, and the fact that many of our major tour operators are located in her constituency, I fully understand that this is an important constituency matter for her. She deserves full credit for having done the broader leisure industry, and the country, a service by airing her views.
Initially, the CAA is on the case. As and when we review the results of its consultation, we shall see in what direction we should go to revise or reconsider the system. At that stage, which I fear is a few months off, I shall be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend, and whoever else she thinks appropriate, to discuss the CAA's findings and the outcomes, in the context of the matters that she has raised today concerning an industry that is important to the wider economy. For that, I am enormously grateful.
11.24 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

St. Helena
2 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I want to thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for securing the debate and I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for agreeing to substitute my name in view of the hon. Gentleman's duties in the Chamber.
I was fortunate to be one of the three Members on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to St. Helena last month. I therefore speak with a special knowledge of and interest in the island and its people. After what I saw and the people whom I met, I must conclude that the Government's track record on St. Helena, one of the 14 British overseas territories, is at best disinterested and at worst deliberately neglectful. That is especially true when the record is contrasted with those of other EU countries that care for their dependent territories so differently.
The Saints—as the St. Helenians are called—want their island to be self-sufficient. That means that the Government must help them to help themselves, instead of merely treating them as a backwater dependency. It is like the old Oxfam adverts, which showed the need to encourage people in the third world to create their own food, rather than have it sent to them by developed countries. The French view their overseas territories as a department of France—equivalent to metropolitan Paris. That ensures that their West Indian islands, such as Martinique, and their Pacific islands, such as Tahiti, have a standard and quality of life similar to that in mainland France. The Spanish will receive ¬1.846 million between 2000 and 2006 for renewable energy in the Canary islands alone.
That aid dramatically contrasts with the embarrassing and obscene waste of public money that the British taxpayer has had to find. The Minister's Department spent, not ¬1.75 million, but £300,000 in 1999 to install three small wind turbines on St. Helena to reduce electricity costs there. In an answer on 3 November, the Secretary of State for International Development said:
"Due to various technical problems, the turbines operated only Intermittently until October 2002. Since then, they have not been in operation at all." —[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 493W.]
So, £300,000 of taxpayers' money was spent on three small wind turbines that really did not work for long. According to the Secretary of State's figures, the fuel costs saved while the turbines were operational were far less than half the set-up costs. The British taxpayer has paid around £170,000 for a totally wasted operation. Furthermore, the Department's evaluation team has just left the island—it was there at the same time as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation. The further cost involved was £90,000. The team has yet to produce its report—I am sure that it will be compelling.
I contrast that situation with the competently installed American turbines on Ascension island, which were spinning round and creating electricity while we were there. The turbines are working well and producing considerable savings. Our Government provided the wrong sort of wind turbine in St. Helena. In Tenerife, there are wind farms with 40 or 50 turbines in groups,

291WH
which were provided by EU money and which produce considerable energy savings. The money has come from structural funds. Why does not St. Helena have a wind turbine park such as the one in Tenerife, paid for by structural funds? Why do France and Spain get preference for their islands, while Britain does not? Why is what is good for the Canaries not good for St. Helena?
Peter Bradley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is creating a great deal of wind. He mentioned 1999, when the St. Helenians were not British citizens because of action taken by the Conservative Government in the 1980s. Will he acknowledge that the granting of citizenship to the St. Helenians means a great deal to them? I hope that he will credit the Labour Government with righting a wrong.
Mr. Steen: I am not going to spend my time arguing for or against the past, but I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says. I am concerned about the present. I accept that the Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred has benefited individual St. Helenians, but it is disadvantageous to the island as a whole. I am not suggesting that we should go backwards; we must go forwards and put matters right in view of that Act. I do not, however, agree with his unparliamentary remark about wind.
The wind patterns in St. Helena are similar to those in the Canaries and Ascension island. All those islands are volcanic, and they have similar topography. It is strange that the French and Spanish have built tremendous energy-saving parks out of EU largesse, while the British taxpayer has had to pay for a failed experiment on St. Helena which has still not been put right. I hope that the Minister will answer this question: why cannot St. Helena have a good wind park with turbines to reduce electricity costs which is paid for by the EU rather than by the British taxpayer?
I gather from a note that I received from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office this morning that St. Helena is eligible for structural funds. Some ¬6.9 million was rolled over from European regional development fund 8, but the proposal for cliff stabilisation was not approved. The reason is not clear, although it may have stalled because it was wrongly ordered, which is another example of the Government getting the issue wrong. Now ¬8.6 million has been earmarked under ERDF9, and the St. Helenian Government are producing a single programming document. It is strange that while the French in Martinique and the Polynesian islands and the Spanish in the Canaries have obtained multi-million pound schemes, we are playing around for peanuts in St. Helena, where small sums have been spent on unsuccessful execution.
St. Helena is a volcanic island, and its wind pattern is similar to that of other such islands. It may be a little further away from Britain than they are from Spain or France, but it is not that much further away. Regardless of the past, the Minister has an opportunity to explain both the Government's commitment to St. Helena and his wish to visit it.
St. Helena is currently one of the most isolated places on the planet. As one approaches it after nearly a week at sea, one sees a mass of vertical black rock cliffs between 800 and 1,000 ft high encompassing the entire
292WH
coastline and dropping sheer into the south Atlantic. The island is about 1,300 sea miles from Cape Town, more than 1,000 miles from Angola, the nearest mainland, and at least 700 miles from Ascension island, which is the next port of call.
I do not know whether you have had the good fortune to visit the island, Mr. Gale, but it is certainly worth a visit. The Portuguese discovered St. Helena in 1502. It was first settled by the East India Company in 1659 and taken over by the Crown in 1834. It is most famous for its renowned and involuntary guest Emperor Napoleon, who was imprisoned in Longwood house in 1815. Longwood house is now a beautifully preserved museum with many of the original artefacts that Napoleon used. Elba, from which Napoleon previously escaped, currently attracts 800,000 visitors a year, so Longwood house must have considerable potential.
For hundreds of years, St. Helena was a vital staging post for all ships needing water and provisions in the south Atlantic. The number of ships calling at the island peaked at 2,000 a year. The birth of the Suez canal greatly reduced the need for such facilities and, since the advent of air travel, St. Helena has been passed over physically and metaphorically. The island's only means of contact is the Royal Mail steamer, RMS St. Helena, which plies a route between Weymouth and St. Helena via the Canaries, where all the wind farms are, and the Ascension islands, where the Americans have their wind farms. It docks in Cape Town—I did not see any wind farms there.
St. Helena is currently more isolated than during the Napoleonic days. At the time of the most recent census in 1998, its population was 5,157. It is estimated that since the passing of the Act referred to by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), the population has declined by about 25 per cent. to 3,900. That is largely because that Act restored British citizenship to the Saints. Although they deserved to have that status restored, it has adversely affected various aspects of life on the island. The current estimated population compared with that of the 1998 census illustrates how serious the haemorrhaging has been. A 25 per cent. decrease in four years is considerable.
When we visited the island, we discovered that against the odds its institutions were impressive and that they provided hope. There are three tiers of schools: three first schools for children aged four to seven; two middle schools for ages seven to 11; and the Prince Andrew community high school for ages 11 to 18. Declining numbers of pupils and teachers has meant that one middle school is downsizing and the learning support centre for primary level pupils with extreme learning difficulties is in some trouble.
Teachers in St. Helena earn considerably less than cleaners in Ascension island, so, understandably, teachers are leaving in droves to wield mops. Since 2002, those with PGCEs and other recognised teaching qualifications have been able to come to Britain, where the drive for teachers means that they can earn 10 or 12 times as much as they can in St. Helena. The island's good education system is currently at risk. Will the Minister stand by with benign indifference to the islanders' plight while the decline continues as teachers abandon the island?

293WH
St. Helena remains one of the most remarkable time warps in the world. There is virtually no crime; people care for and consider each other; there is a strong sense of community; and everyone knows everyone else. Although they are rich spiritually and socially, the people are materially quite poor. In 1989–1990, St. Helena received £24 million from the Government. That figure has gone downhill ever since, and last year, grant aid was only £9.5 million.
The average wage is between £3,000 and £4,000 a year, so the island's survival is wholly dependent on the Government's modest stipend administered by the Governor, David Hollamby. He understands the island's problems and works closely with the island's Executive Council and Legislative Council, which greatly impressed me with their collective wisdom and common sense.
The Saints are proud people; they do not want handouts. They want to be like every other self-respecting people: independent and financially self-supporting. On the one hand, the Government keep them short of money; on the other hand, they are not given any opportunity to help themselves. The EU, which has provided billions of euros for the French and Spanish islands, has provided virtually nothing except hurdles and obstructions for the Saints.
One island product is its wonderful wild honey. I have a sample with me. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), what amount of wild honey has been imported over the past few years, he replied:
"No wild honey has been imported from St. Helena over the last five years. EU rules do not allow the export of wild honey from St. Helena to the European Union."—[Official Report, 5 November 2003: Vol. 412, c. 632W.]
However, St. Helena has a very strict bee ordinance. It is 700 miles away from any other land mass, so its beekeeping credentials are impeccable. I know about beekeeping because Buckfast abbey is in my constituency, and the monks' beekeeping record is second to none. In fact, the beekeeping credentials on St. Helena are considerably better than those in other EU countries. Not surprisingly, St. Helena's bees are free from disease, such as varoa, which has spread throughout the European bee population blighting the quality of honey.
According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation:
"For a country to be eligible to export honey to the EU, it is essential for its name to be added to the EU's list of 'third countries' eligible to do so"—
a nice piece of bureaucracy. It continues:
"To achieve this, they need to show the administrative procedures—
more bureaucracy—
"are in place for the analysis of honey for residues of antibiotics, sulphonamides, pesticides and heavy metals."
They do not have any of those in St. Helena. The organisation also says:
"The laboratory used (which does not have to be within the country) has to satisfy EU accreditation legislation."
294WH
When a list of such "third countries", which had received provisional approval, was published on 1 January 2003, St. Helena was not there. Why was it not there? I believe that the reason is simple. St. Helenians do not have the laboratories and the beekeepers do not have the money to pay for the tests. As Leo's Pure Wild Honey states on its label, it is produced from contented bees in the flowering meadows of St. Helena, and Napoleon loved it, too. What better endorsement could there be? In contrast, honey from the Spanish islands of the Canaries has been through all the processes.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. I feel obliged to point out to the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members are not allowed to use props. In order to facilitate the debate, I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to treat his labels as notes, but that is on the understanding that he does not wave the bottles around.
Mr. Steen: You are so right, Mr. Gale. I was about to point out that the Canaries produce honey at about £6 a bottle. The St. Helenians can produce it at £2.50. One is very pure and delicious. The other tastes of heavy metals and the other things that one gets if one does not buy honey from St. Helena.
That is my point about honey, but what about Arabica coffee? I shall not wave a packet of Arabica coffee around—that would be quite inappropriate—but I brought one just in case you felt it would be appropriate to look at the label, Mr. Gale. Such coffee grows well in St. Helena. There is considerable potential for the industry to expand. Being a coffee buff, I can vouch for it as one of the best beans of its kind. Why is it that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs explained in response to my question of 5 November that imports to the UK of St. Helena coffee had fallen from 1.8 tonnes in 1998 to only 0.7 tonnes last year?
At a time when coffee houses are on every street corner, and exotic and special coffees are an obvious money-spinner, what are the Government doing to help to market and encourage the export of St. Helenian coffee? I wonder whether there are any incentives to help the St. Helena coffee growers, or are they caught by a procedure similar to the bee ordinance? The EU prevents honey from getting in; is it preventing coffee from coming in as well?
There cannot be a more distinctive or unique location than St. Helena. It is an exclusive one too. The problem is that St. Helena only manages to attract 1,000 tourists and 7,000 day visitors a year, and even those numbers are now dwindling. In 2000 the QE2 was forced to turn away as the sea was too rough to carry out the docking procedure; the same thing happened to the Crown Odyssey in 2001, and last year the MV Aurora and the QE2 were unable to dock. The simple reason for that is that there is no dock. There is no port, jetty or breakwater.
All embarkation and disembarkation of passengers in St. Helena entails transit by launch between the harbour steps at Jamestown and ships anchored a quarter to a half a mile offshore. To get from the ships offshore, one has to walk down the gangway on to a wooden platform secured to a launch. The problem is that with a swell, the gangway might be between eight and 10 ft off the

295WH
platform, so passengers have to jump at the right moment, as the platform moves up. Passengers who jump at the wrong time could suffer injury. Because of the prevalence of civil actions for negligence, the captains of ships are understandably reluctant to allow passengers, who may not be very nimble, to embark on what could be a fateful journey. I am told that the fear of actions from passengers going down the gangplank and getting their timing wrong is the sole reason that the big passenger vessels do not stop at St. Helena.
A breakwater at Jamestown has been on the cards since the early 1990s. In 1998, the consulting engineers, Coode Blizard, produced a report on wharf development that was subsequently submitted to the Department for International Development in the form of a financial proposal by the St. Helena Government. The Government rejected the breakwater element of the proposal, for two reasons. First, it did not meet the DFID target of an economic internal rate of return of at least 8 per cent., so that ditched it. Secondly, the Government did not consider Coode Blizard's design for the breakwater to be sufficiently robust to make enough of a difference. Imagine the Spanish or French letting that happen in one of their little islands. They would not have it; they would push ahead for development and get the money from the EU, but our Government spend their time finding reasons why progress cannot be made there.
In answer to a parliamentary question, the Secretary of State for International Development, no less, said that
"the St. Helena authorities are including plans for wharf improvements and an investigation of alternative options for passenger landing arrangements at Jamestown. We shall be monitoring this proposed work very carefully"—
perhaps the Under-Secretary can say how carefully he is monitoring it—
"and will keep the matter under regular review."—[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 493W.]
When did the hon. Gentleman last review the matter? What is the state of play now? Has any progress been made?
The total loss of revenue to the island due to the loss of cruise ships has been devastating. It is estimated to be at least £250,000, and it is probably more. Due to the difficulties of landing, cruise liners have taken St. Helena off their itineraries altogether. No Cunard Line ship calls there now, and Cunard says that it is not about to start again because it cannot risk it.
The lack of transport connections is the major obstacle to economic revival. Someone who misses the RMS St. Helena may have to wait up to two months for the next ship; it is no good putting a hand out at the request stop, because no ship is there. One cannot go 1,300 miles in a speedboat from Cape Town, and one cannot go in a rowing boat from Ascension island, which is 700 miles north. Although a breakwater will help tourists from cruises, the only hope for better transport links is an airport, which has been talked about for years. The Department's offer of a contribution to the airport costs of up to £26.3 million is based on the lowest cost, at 1990 prices, of a replacement for RMS St. Helena, which will be pensioned off in seven years.
The proposed site for the airport is a black, wild, windswept and deserted piece of flat rock, which ends in a sheer drop of some 800 ft into the ocean. It is a desolate
296WH
place; as far as one can see there are massive slabs of volcanic black rock and a few local birds, known as wire birds. In many ways it resembles Dartmoor in my constituency, but without marsh bog covering. There is no infrastructure nearby—no roads, no water, no electricity, nothing except wire birds. However, without the airport there is little future for St. Helena and its people.
The governor recognises the situation well. Last year's referendum confirmed that the people wanted an airport. With an airport, tourists will start to trickle in; I suspect that they will largely be French tourists wanting to see Longwood house, Napoleon's final home. I do not often pay tribute to the French Government, but I do so in this case for the quality with which they have preserved and conserved a national monument and its gardens. The curator's guided tour is compelling and will attract, if not the 800,000 people who go to Elba, a sizeable number. Tourism will bring job opportunities, new wealth creation, new hotels and new opportunities to sell local produce such as honey and coffee.
While I was in St. Helena, two EU officials were inspecting the hygiene at the fish processing plant. I have never seen so many officials in my life as when I was on St. Helena. Everyone who stopped in the street was another official checking things—no one was checking the bees, though. For years, the plant has provided fish for the Saints. That industry has flourished, even though there is a shortage of boats capable of fishing in the sandbanks a few hundred miles off the coast. Furthermore, without an extended market, there is insufficient consumer demand to merit additional investment in a more robust fleet.
Tesco, no less, recognises the potential of imports of canned fish from St. Helena; indeed, one can buy canned tuna from St. Helena from the shelves of most stores. It seems satisfied with the hygiene standards, but the EU is still carrying out inspections, even though I am told by the secretary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association branch in St. Helena, Ms Ethel Yon—who organised our trip magnificently—that the last case of food poisoning was in 1994, when an elderly lady ate a partially cooked turkey. No other incidence of food poisoning has been recorded, although there is some speculation as to how Napoleon died.
Offshore fishing is probably one of St. Helena's biggest potential assets. It is the island's largest natural industry. Thanks to the sale of fishing licences for foreign vessels, it looked like a money-spinner. Revenues from those licences have plummeted, though. In answer to my question of 11 November regarding licence revenue in the last five years, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), said that in 1999 the total revenue was £614,000, but last year it was down to about £56,000. When I asked to what extent the Government provided air surveillance of St. Helena's 200-mile exclusive fishing zone to determine the number of fishing vessels fishing legally and illegally, that Minister answered:
"The Government do not provide any air surveillance of St. Helena's fishing zone."— [Official Report, 10 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 42W.]
Both the Government and St. Helena are considering other methods to control illegal fishing, including the possibility of using satellite surveillance to identify

297WH
individual vessels in the 200-mile zone. However, if there is no means of enforcing licences, it is no wonder that few see the point in buying one. I am glad to hear that the Government are looking into other means. Satellite surveillance sounds like a particularly good option, but it will not come cheap and I doubt that the Government will pay for it. Again, the fishing industry is in a Catch-22 situation.
As for the Government's attitude to the islanders, I expect this Minister to jump up and down, saying that the Government very much appreciate the loyalty and determination of the islanders. No doubt he will cite the fact that the island provided an entire regiment to fight in the second world war. Some of the survivors marched down Whitehall this year. An entire regiment from the population of St. Helena is proportionately a very large sacrifice. Why do the islanders not deserve the recognition that other Commonwealth countries receive?
The Saints are passionately loyal to Crown and country. It is fitting that visits have been made to St. Helena by George VI and the Queen. Visits were made by Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret in 1947, the Duke of Edinburgh in 1957, Prince Andrew in 1984 and the Princess Royal last November.
In contrast, despite St. Helena's being a British overseas territory, no Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have ever been to St. Helena—they do not even know where it is. In answer to my question of 3 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow, said:
"St. Helena has never had a visit by a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister. There are no current plans for an FCO ministerial visit to the island."—[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 400W.]
I therefore decided to ask this Minister, from DFID, about his visits to the island. I refer to his answer of 10 November:
"I have no plans at present to visit St. Helena, and St. Helena has never had a visit by a DFID Minister."—[Official Report, 10 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 61W.]
What does one conclude from all that? One concludes that the issue is not important to the British Government. If I am wrong, this is an opportunity for the Minister to put the record straight, as I am not the only hon. Member who feels that the Saints have been treated rather shabbily.
The answer to the problem is simply to give the people the tools to enable them to help themselves. We should ensure that the airport and breakwater get built; the obstacles preventing exports to EU countries are overcome; the infrastructure is in place for tourists; and the wind turbines work and produce electricity savings. St. Helena is supposed to be one of the windiest places in the world, yet we cannot even get that right for the islanders. We also need to provide banking facilities, so that they can borrow money for home improvements, starting businesses and buying fishing vessels, as there are no banks there. The French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese do that for their offshore islands.
Why is our track record so bad? Our track record for overseas territories, if St. Helena is any example, is totally unimpressive. I hope that the Minister will use
298WH
this opportunity to make it clear that the Government are wholly committed to making St. Helena a prosperous, happy and flourishing island. If he does, our visit will have been worth while.
2.29 pm
Mr. John Smith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), whose speech was interesting, although I cannot agree with everything that he said. That was characteristic of our recent enjoyable and extremely interesting visit to the island of St. Helena, and it is a reflection of how important Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visits can be—there were three hon. Members from three different parties, with very robust views that did not always coincide. I am sure that we learned an enormous amount from the visit.
I should also like to place on record our thanks to the delegation secretary, Sir Paul Jackson, who did an absolutely superb job on what I am sure was a difficult trip, because of the logistics of putting together a visit to such a remote part of the world. That sums up the island's whole problem. Its geography means that it experiences structural, economic difficulties and makes it very different from other nations' overseas territories and dependencies.
I want to address the island's geography in my short speech. I indicated that I do not share all the hon. Gentleman's views, and one view that I do not share is his overriding observation that St. Helena's problem is that all Governments—not just this one—have neglected the island and seemed disinterested. I concluded the opposite: St. Helena's problem is that there has been too much Government interference. The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the officials. I have never met so many officials from different Departments, including the Foreign Office, DFID, the Department for Education and Skills, and the EU. The island was full of people, all with good intentions, wanting to do good for St. Helena.
Governments are not very good at creating wealth, although they are very good at distributing it and at delivering public services. Indeed, 80 per cent. of those in St. Helena who are lucky enough to have a job work directly for the public sector, and most of the other 20 per cent. work indirectly for the public sector in one way or another. That is the problem that we must address. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to a number of important issues relating to small businesses on the island. We should encourage those businesses in any way that we can, and obstacles to them should be removed. However, it is my view—based not only on my visit to St. Helena but on general experience—that that would not solve structural problems.
I have some experience in economic development and regeneration and in the attraction of inward investment in my home country of Wales, which has suffered enormous structural problems in the last two or three decades with massive capital restructuring and the decline of the traditional heavy industries such as coal and metal. Over 80 per cent. of the population were employed in those industries, which disappeared over a short period. In a sense, there is a parallel with St. Helena; despite its remote location, the island was the centre of the world because it was, for a long time, one of the most important refuelling stations in the world.

299WH
There is an historical link between St. Helena and my constituency and the ports of Barry and Cardiff in south Wales, not only because the RMS St. Helena docked at Cardiff until recently, but because for many decades we provided the coal for the refuelling station that was visited by ships from all over the world. The island was a vital strategic location, which meant that the East India Company and other private companies profited by having a link with and visiting the island. Most of the wealth—[Interruption.]
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. There is a Division on the Floor of the House. The sitting will resume in 15 minutes.
2.34 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.36 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): The Division is off, but I understand that another is imminent. [Interruption.] The 15 minutes for this Division will start from 2.36 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.51 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Gale. You indicated that there would be a 15-minute suspension, but before that we were waiting for at least three minutes. I hope that the benefit of that will also be extended to the debate.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): The delay was two minutes and that has been taken into account.
Mr. John Smith: I assure you, Mr. Gale, that that will not encourage me to speak at unnecessary length. I agree with many of the points that have been made about some of the smaller industries, but I differ slightly about what the big problem is. The big problem is too much Government interference and the need for the major restructuring to make the island a success. However, I am sure that all three of us who visited St. Helena would agree that the one thing that is vital for its future is an airport.
In short, if we are having a debate on the future of St. Helena we should have a debate on the airport proposals. We must ensure that they not only succeed but succeed quickly and that DFID makes an early decision on the favoured bidders for the initial proposals. For goodness' sake let us get on with it. I mentioned my experience in these matters; I fear that if we fail to act quickly in this area we will miss an opportunity.
I said earlier that the private sector will solve the problems of these islands; if it does not, they will not be solved at all. It will not be enough for the Government simply to go in and build an airport. The Department has it absolutely right when it calls for a much broader
300WH
set of proposals based not just on the construction of an airfield, but on the provision of an air operator and a sustainable economy, built round the airport and based on tourism. The hon. Member for Totnes quite rightly referred to the tourist potential. That is the biggest potential of all and the one on which the Government should focus.
I am sceptical when I hear grand ideas about how, if Governments build this and that, all of a sudden the future will be transformed. The experience on some of the projects mentioned, such as windmills, and others shows that that tends not to work. Indeed, the diesel-generated power station is a bit of a disaster in itself. I therefore took an interest in these proposals. It is not my intention to express a preference for any one of them. It is for the Government to decide and to use the existing rules on competition to do so.
I thought it was important, however, to establish whether those bids were serious. By coincidence, one of them involves two major companies located in or near my constituency. I made a point of making contact with them, not to give them favourable access in consideration of their bids, but to find out whether they were serious. I wanted to ensure that we were not talking about a company bidding for the airport, rushing in, pouring lots of concrete and then rushing out again, leaving the islanders with an airport that was never used, or not used enough, which would end up requiring an even greater subsidy from the British Government. I am delighted to be able to say that at least one of the bids is extremely serious, and it involves an air operator with a track record and some of the world's best specialists in construction and in the provision of sustainable economies.
One air operator that has expressed an interest is TBI, which is based in Wales. It runs the airport in my constituency and has a wide portfolio of successful airports throughout the world. I am not saying that it should undertake this project, but it is the sort of company that should be involved, because it delivers on air services. A company with such a worldwide reputation would not become involved in a project unless it was likely to succeed.
Similarly, Ove Arup, which is involved in at least one of the bids, has its international office in Cardiff. I recently met with Mr. Steven Luke, not to indicate any preference towards that bidder rather than another, but to find out whether the bid was serious, and I am delighted to say that it most definitely is. Ove Arup has some of the best experts in the world, who have visited the site and assessed its potential, with regard not only to the construction of the airport and the civil engineering involved, but to the operation of the airport and the development of a viable large commercial hotel that would attract the low-volume, high value-added tourism that the island needs. The company has done its homework—it is not just using business-speak or Government-speak.
This project can be successful, and the only criterion to which I should draw attention—I am sure that my colleagues who accompanied me on the visit agree—is that there should not be any unnecessary delay in considering the bids that are now before the Government, because that would put off the sort of high-quality contractors that are interested.

301WH
We must solve the geographical problem: access to the rest of the world. If there were a direct flight to Paris, that would attract the rich French tourists who want to come and see where Napoleon spent his last few days and died in somewhat questionable circumstances—I am sure that those will be debated for another 100 years or so. We have been there, and it is worth seeing.
The future of St. Helena is the airport, the airport, the airport, and a decision on it must be made quickly. I know that there is a risk, and that the Government must consult widely. Moreover, the Saints must be encouraged to share the ownership of the project. As someone with some experience in this field, I advise the Government to tread carefully because, when we were on the island, we heard concerns expressed about the "threat" that large-scale investment, especially that based on foreign tourism, could present to the islanders' cultural values and heritage. Coming from Wales, where we have similar problems, and the associated problem of language, I know that people from small communities are sometimes fearful of that type of investment, but in fact its effect is often the opposite of what is feared.
The biggest challenge facing the island is depopulation. If it continues at its current rate, only the elderly and young will be left on the island, and that will make the provision of a sustainable economy impossible. My colleagues and I were immensely impressed with the skills, talent and ability of the young people. We all regularly visit schools in our constituencies, but when we visited Prince Andrew school, I was astounded and impressed by the ability and latent talent of the young people. The future of the island depends on exploiting those talents. The only way to do that is through investment, and the only way to attract investment is through the construction of the airport. The honey was delicious—I refuse to say, on the grounds that it may incriminate me, whether I brought any home—but it is not the solution to the island's problems. The solution for the future of St. Helena, and this is my one plea to the Minister, is to get on with that construction project. It can work and it will work, as long as we do it in good time.
Mr. Roger Gale (in the Chair): Order. It may be convenient to tell hon. Members that, if there are no further Divisions in the House, the debate is scheduled to finish at 3.47 pm. Three Front-Bench spokesmen have suggested that they want 10 minutes each to wind up. I shall therefore call the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) at about 3.17 pm. Two hon. Members who are not on the Front Bench wish to speak, and if they pay attention to the fact that 15 minutes remain, they will both be called.
3.1 pm
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Thank you, Mr. Gale, for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and commending him for raising the issue of St. Helena.
It is vital not to forget that we, as Members of Parliament, represent not only people on the UK mainland, but British citizens living overseas. It is sad
302WH
that the Minister replying today represents the Department for International Development, because St. Helena is British; it is not a foreign territory. St. Helena, and all remaining British overseas territories, should be treated as we would expect our constituents to be treated, so this debate is vital. During business questions last week, I suggested that we should debate issues relating to overseas territories more regularly. There is no annual debate on overseas territories but there should be.
Today we have the opportunity to focus on St. Helena, a territory I have not had the privilege to visit, although I hope some day to have that opportunity, and I have visited several other British overseas territories. However, having spoken to many people from St. Helena, including Calvin Thomas, who is one of our distinguished doormen in the House of Commons, I know how proud they are of being British. They want to feel like they are part of our country, just like every one of us and each of our constituents.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who has since left the Chamber, stated that the people of St. Helena were granted British citizenship only in 2002. That is correct, but it does not devalue the fact that those people were British subjects long before then. St. Helena remains a British territory. It seeks not independence or greater autonomy, but the opportunity to make its own decisions and govern itself. British Governments of all parties have let down the people of St. Helena. How can it be right that the people of that wonderful territory do not have access to an airport and are treated as second-best British subjects?
Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that if a St. Helenian wants to study at a university in Britain, he pays between eight and 10 times more than a British subject from the UK? He also pays substantially more than some students coming from Europe. Does that make sense?
Mr. Rosindell: That makes no sense to me at all. As Members of Parliament, our job is to ensure that all British people are treated in the same way and given the same opportunities, and it is disgraceful that someone from St. Helena is not given the same opportunities as our constituents.
My hon. Friend referred on several occasions to the attitude of France, the Netherlands and Spain towards their overseas territories, which is different from the attitude that our Foreign Office has adopted over the years. I am afraid to say that I suspect that the Foreign Office has long hoped that our overseas territories would seek independence or join another country. I hope that that does not happen, as the remaining territories want to, and should, remain British. We should encourage them, and we should value and cherish the overseas territories that we have.
I want to commend the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who chairs the all-party group on St. Helena, of which I am proud to be a member. I hope that more prominence is given to the needs of St. Helena and that the British Government will ensure that the EU does not impose restrictions on our overseas territories without giving them the advantages that the overseas territories of other European countries are given. I

303WH
accept that St. Helena is not part of the EU, so how can it be right that restrictions and regulations are imposed on it? I know that the same is true for other overseas territories. The Falkland Islands have had similar restrictions imposed on them while receiving no benefit—how can that possibly be justified?
I endorse everything that has been said about the need to push ahead with the development of the airport. St. Helena is a honeypot for the future, which we should encourage to develop in tourism and trade. We should give it the advantages that it needs to be self-sufficient while retaining its unique British status.
I hope that the Minister will consider one important point that has not been mentioned—democracy. The people of St. Helena are British, like us, but they have no vote in British elections. They cannot send a representative, or even part of a representative, to this place. How can it be right that we can debate, make laws for and effectively decide the future of that territory, when its people have no vote or say in how this place is elected? That cannot be right in democratic terms, and it is not how France, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark treat their overseas territories, all of which have votes in elections to their Parliaments.
Our system is undemocratic and wrong, and I hope that that and all the other valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and other hon. Members will be taken into account and that the Foreign Office will change its attitude. I hope that St. Helena will remain British, like Gibraltar, in perpetuity.
3.8 pm
Bob Russell: I apologise to you, Mr. Gale, and to the Chamber for not being here at the commencement of this debate. I was in the House presenting a ten-minute Bill.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate and I thank the hon. Members who have spoken, in particular the three Members who have recently returned from St. Helena, an island that I had the great pleasure of visiting four years ago on the previous Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit. By all accounts, the economic situation on the island has deteriorated in that time, and the population has fallen, arguably to below break-even point. Clearly, something has to be done.
The airfield is a vital—if not the most vital—aspect. However, there is more to the matter than that, because by my reckoning more citizens of St. Helena now live off the island than live on it. Get-up-and-go people are getting up and going, and one reason is that, given the education on the island, if a youngster is to progress through higher or further education, it is in the family's interest to move away to the United Kingdom.
Families establish residence here to qualify for an education system that is currently denied them, although, ironically—and I am sure that Napoleon would have been amused by this—a young man or woman from France can attend university in the United Kingdom for a fraction of what it costs a young person from the island of St. Helena, who is British. There is a difference between this country's treatment of its citizens who live on St. Helena and its treatment of those who live on the mainland of the United Kingdom.
304WH
It is not as if St. Helena is a rich country. It is not a third world country, but per capita income is considerably lower than in this country. I should explain that my interest in the island involves an extraordinary coincidence, in that the patron saint of Colchester is St. Helena. The spelling is the same, but the pronunciation is different. My wife and I and our three children all attended St. Helena school. That fact and a couple of constituents with connections with St. Helena are the reason for my keen interest in the island and its future.
We have a historical obligation to the people of St. Helena because the island played an integral part in sustaining empire for between 200 and 400 years. We have an obligation to the citizens who live there; I hope that we can create an economic climate such that some of those who have left will feel that they can return, and those already living there will be able to remain. I commend all that has been done. I suspect that per head of population the island of St. Helena has more spokespersons in this House than any other part of the Commonwealth or, indeed, the United Kingdom.
Something has to be done. We treat children differently if they come from St. Helena, but interestingly we are more than happy as a nation to recruit young people from St. Helena into Her Majesty's armed forces. There are more Saints per head of population serving in the British Army—about 50 young men and women from a population of fewer than 4,000 people—than there are from any other part of this country. If that sort of recruitment could be replicated across the UK, we would not have a shortfall in the Army.
This has been a welcome debate. I hope for some encouraging answers from the Minister. He is relatively new to his post, so he is not saddled with the baggage of those who have gone before. Four years ago, the new airport was on the agenda and a decision was imminent. Four years later, it is on the agenda and a decision is imminent. The best thing that I can suggest to the Minister is to tell us that the airfield is progressing. If he cannot give that assurance today, I recommend that he make an early visit to St. Helena. He would then make history; he would be the first Minister of any generation ever to visit the island. Royalty has been there, but no Minister has.
3.14 pm
Mr. Nigel Jones: It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Members for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), who were interesting and enthusiastic travelling companions—as, indeed, are you, Mr. Gale.
In the last 25 years the British taxpayer has spent £250 million—a quarter of a billion pounds—on St. Helena, without the island becoming remotely financially self-sufficient. We have heard that the population of the island is declining rapidly. There were 5,000 people on the island 18 months ago. When we were there last month, the population was 3,800. It has lost almost a quarter of its population in 18 months. Something is seriously wrong, and something needs to be done. St. Helena has lost its raison d'être, to use an expression that Napoleon might have used. The island used to be a great strategic asset to the East India Company and the British Crown as a provisioning point for naval and

305WH
merchant ships. That has gone now, and the island has become a supplier of migrant labour to Ascension island, the Falkland Islands and the UK.
I should declare a constituency interest. St. Helena has enjoyed an education link for several decades with Cheltenham's colleges of higher education, which now form the university of Gloucestershire. Professor Tony Charlton, head of the link programme, sent me an e-mail at the weekend to say:
"Without sufficient numbers of well qualified teachers (in appropriate subject areas&) then education on St. Helena will fail to meet the diverse needs and aspirations of pupils and young students (and their parents). Similarly, even access to the best educational opportunities will fail unless the students' potentials are matched to local (and other) demands for employment. Employment has been one of the major concerns on the island for decades. If you take into account the large number in government employment, then few islanders are gainfully employed."
He continued:
"The island's most pressing needs are for: well trained teachers given attractive financial incentives to train and then remain on the island (&also&other professionals such as nurses, police, social services personnel); meaningful—and productive—employment opportunities especially for the young; a commercial, trading and training infrastructure so that the island can not only become less financially dependent upon the UK but will also be able to generate monies to help attract islanders to remain on island; improved transport to and from the island, for islanders, traders and tourists; and an improved communication infrastructure (e.g. electronic communication facilities) so islanders can access world-wide information."
Before I went to St. Helena, I sought out Saints in my constituency. Several of them came to see me. Most of them came to train in the UK as teachers; most did not return to St. Helena. Although we are delighted that they have made their homes here, they point to and underline the main problem of St. Helena, which is population loss.
The need for air access to St. Helena has been discussed for decades. It simply is not sustainable in the modern world to rely on a single ship, the RMS St. Helena, plying its way up and down the Atlantic ocean, making occasional calls at St. Helena with fresh supplies, islanders returning for, perhaps from holiday, and a few tourists. Air access is vital. To underline what the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan said, airport, airport, airport—those are our three priorities.
The Government have set aside £26.3 million. The island's people, including Members of the Legislative Council, believe that that is a firm commitment. I want an assurance from the Minister that it is, because the Government do not seem to have made the final commitment to providing air access. A study of the four bidders is under way; hopefully, that will soon be concluded. We want a statement from the Government that there will be air access to the island.
I want to question the sum of £26.3 million. That is apparently the likely cost of replacing RMS St. Helena at 1990 prices. What kind of economic basis is that for making international development decisions? The actual cost of RMS St. Helena was £33 million, as it overran its initial estimate of £19 million. The airport will certainly cost more than £26.3 million. I would like the Government to revisit those numbers. I do not want them to take the £26.3 million away; I want the figure
306WH
nailed down and, if necessary, given to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) for safekeeping. It is important that the airport goes ahead.
The RMS St. Helena requires an annual subsidy of £1.5 million, which is set to increase. As evidenced in places such as the Scottish islands, airports, particularly small ones, require subsidies to support them. St. Helena is no different. The airport will require a subsidy, which will eventually be provided by the St. Helena Government when the economy picks up. The current subsidy for the RMS, or something like it, will need to continue in the early days of the airport. Do the Government propose to subsidise the airport in the early years?
We have heard about ship access. I have some video footage—for sale at an enormous price—of the hon. Member for Totnes descending from the RMS St. Helena on to a barge. There was an extraordinary swell, but he made a very good fist of it; it was a good landing. Even when there is an airport, the island will require ships to carry freight. Better provision, such as a deep-water jetty or wharf, is needed for landing freight and passengers. We have heard that cruise liners could not send passengers to the island last year because of the choppy water. Not for the first time, the island lost a considerable amount of income because of that. Is there a Government commitment to contribute to the building of a deep-water jetty or wharf?
With air access, there is a good prospect of attracting greater numbers of tourists to St. Helena. We have heard about Longwood house, where Napoleon died. Fans of Napoleon would be showing dereliction of duty if they did not visit Longwood. The museum on Elba attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors—
Mr. Steen: Eight hundred thousand.
Mr. Jones: As we have heard, it attracts 800,000 visitors a year. Longwood has far more authentic artefacts to offer. I do not suggest that St. Helena needs hundreds of thousands of visitors, but many would come if transport links were improved. People would visit St. Helena for the sea. The island has no beaches, but does have fishing and scuba diving. Sea lovers would find a host of attractions, including a wide range of sea life and numerous wrecks, which offer a fascinating opportunity for divers. However, it may be necessary to introduce measures to ensure that those wrecks are not stripped of anything valuable.
As far as eco-tourism is concerned, many of the endemic species have died out, but some have survived, such as the wire bird—a long-legged plover, which we have seen—and the gumwood tree. The St. Helena National Trust's efforts to plant their millennium forest deserve to be applauded and supported. The forest is to include a section named the Colchester plantation, which will be devoted to the gumwood. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester has raised more than £500 for that, some of which was from me.
Eco-tourists might like to visit the phenomenon that is Jonathan the tortoise at Plantation house. He is almost 200 years old, is reputed to be the only living creature to have met Napoleon, and has a harem of five large lady tortoises. They are all thought to have come from Mauritius. It is believed that the island may cease to exist when Jonathan passes away. I hope that that will not be the case.

307WH
I was surprised to find so little agricultural or horticultural activity on the island, as it must be possible to grow vegetables or keep chickens there. Besides providing a fresh source of food, island-produced vegetables and chicken would reduce the need to import food from South Africa, and they would be something to offer to the visitors that the island hopes to attract.
One health problem on the island that was brought to my attention was the high incidence of hypertension. As someone who suffered a heart attack a year ago, I readily sympathise. My doctor tells me to eat five portions of fresh fruit a day, and I suspect that one of the reasons for the hypertension epidemic on St. Helena is the lack of fresh food. Tinned vegetables on display in shops contain a lot of salt, which is a major cause of hypertension. Growing more fruit and vegetables on the island would help to solve that problem.
The health system on the island is generally excellent. There is a well equipped cottage hospital and four doctors who can cope with most operations and run Government clinics. I had a titanium stent inserted into a coronary artery following a heart attack last year, and I was interested and comforted to he told that the procedure could have been carried out on St. Helena. However, if a medical emergency occurs for which the hospital is not equipped, there is no air ambulance to take the patient speedily to South Africa or the UK. On such occasions, the islanders become acutely aware of their isolation and the need for an airport.
We have heard little about the plan for a new constitution, which is provoking much thought and discussion. There is a disagreement between the island's Legislative Council, which wants a three-tier system of government, and the Minister, who wants a two-tier system. The only advice that I can give the Minister is that if the islanders get the system that they want, they are far more likely to make a success of it than if something is imposed on them from London. Members of the Legislative Council raised a range of issues with us, including the infrastructure, the wind turbines, illegal fishing—they really do want their 200-mile limit to be patrolled properly—and the EU regulations regarding illegally imported honey, which were mentioned. They also want a ministerial visit.
What struck me as the RMS St. Helena chugged gently towards the island is just how far it is from anywhere else. For somewhere this remote to have survived into the 21st century, with the sea as the only access, is a tribute to those who decided to stay. However, the shrinking population is a threat to a viable future. If the much discussed airport and wharf are built in the next few years, a more prosperous, albeit changed, future for this distant outpost of the Commonwealth should be secured. Without significant, dramatic and urgent change, including air access, Her Majesty's Government will be faced with another bill of £250 million, if not more, in the next 25 years.
3.26 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate on St. Helena. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on his able and vivid speech about the issues. I was extremely
308WH
interested to hear the first-hand accounts of three colleagues who visited St. Helena only a few weeks ago. Over the years, we have all learned that there is no substitute for seeing a place in the raw in order to learn about it. I have just returned from North Korea—an isolated country. It will be interesting to talk about another country that is isolated only for the completely different reason of geography, not for reasons of politics or demography.
I have abandoned my set speech, as I do not want to go over ground that has already been well trodden, and I want to give the Minister as much time as possible to reply to the several points that have been made. I shall row in behind some of those points. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, in his usual vivid and interesting style, asked several interesting questions, one of which is of particular concern to me: windmills and the Government's injection of capital into a project that seems to have failed. I hope that the Minister will tell us what went wrong, what he intends to do to put it right and in what time scale. I come from a part of the world—Devon and Cornwall—where there are many windmills that seem to work extremely well, much to the irritation of local people. I wonder why this project has failed.
Hon. Members also talked about the treatment of St. Helena compared with the overseas territories of other EU countries, especially in relation to access to EU structural funds. I hope that the Minister will tell us what rules apply to St. Helena in that regard and why funds have not been made available in recent years.
We also heard about the costs of accessing education in the United Kingdom, which seem to defy logic. I appreciate that that is not entirely within the Minister's remit, but in preparing for the debate I read that he had been made aware of the issue some time ago and that he would look into it. Can he tell us today why students from St. Helena have to pay the top rates to gain access to our institutions of further education, and much more than UK and EU students?
Finally, we have heard much about the airport. It is obvious that the airport is critical, and I shall return to the matter after I have made four points, which I hope will take the debate forward.
First, I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) about changes to the strategic position of the island. Once upon a time, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) said, it was almost in the centre of things. Ships had to pass the island, and it was a strategic refuelling stop, so people had a reason for going there. Such changes happen not only to islands and countries; they can happen even to towns. Market towns that have no market may start to struggle, and a coal mining town that no longer has a coal mine will certainly start to struggle. Places like that need to find a new, strategic raison d'être. That is what the island has been trying to do.
One does not need to be a genius to work out that tourism is obviously an important part of the island's future, but one cannot do tourism in today's high-flying, mass-communications age without an airport. How many people have the time to sit on a ship for a week, travelling from Europe to St. Helena, enjoy a week's holiday and then spend another week on the ship going

309WH
back? That is not a viable way to run a tourism industry. The issue seems to come down to the island having an airport.
Secondly, it is absolutely fundamental that the Government are responsible for infrastructure. We know that a capital project of that kind could not possibly be achieved by the island itself. The Government clearly have a responsibility for it. I do not propose a love-in with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, but I agree with him that it is a question not of there being more government but of the Government doing the right thing.
The Government should provide the infrastructure, even if it is the enhanced port and docking facilities that were so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. I shall probably dream tonight of his legs waving around in the breeze as he tries to jump from a gangway on to the shore or on to a ship—it is a vivid impression. If the Government can move forward on proposals for the airport and the upgrading of the docking facilities, I am sure that the islanders will find the energy and enterprise to do the rest. I have read some of their websites recently, and it seems that they are not short of innovation and energy; they will provide the facilities to make the project work and come up with ways to attract tourists.
We have heard about Longwood house and Napoleon. We are all fascinated with that remarkable character, and that fascination will not go away. All tourist industries need a focal point; and the island has not only that but a beautiful climate. With the right sort of airport, it could become self-sufficient over a number of years if people focus on tourism. It is important that the Government deliver on that.
Thirdly, why has there been such delay? The issue has been raised many times in the House. I do not point the finger at the Minister, who is relatively new to his post; it is not his fault. However, the Government have taken an awfully long time deciding whether to back an airport proposal. For some time, it seemed that they were calculating whether it might be better to pump money into a new ship rather than an airport, but the advantages of an airport over a new ship cannot be compared.
The subject was raised in a debate in the House in 1997. It was explored again by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in 2001, and it has been raised several times since. Each time the Government were pressed for a decision. Will the Minister say what has happened? How far forward are we in reviewing the bids that have apparently come in? What is the time scale for the start and completion of the project? We need definitive answers.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) said how sad he was that DFID should be dealing with one of our overseas territories. I wonder whether it is the right Department to oversee such a massive infrastructure project. Would it not be better, for example, if the Department for Trade and Industry were to be in charge of such a project? I am not saying anything negative about the Minister, but I wonder whether the Government's thinking is right. Was the transfer of responsibility for overseas territories from
310WH
the Foreign Office to DFID a few years ago a step in the right direction, and did it affect our thinking about overseas territories? We do not want St. Helena to have handouts for ever and a day; we want to build self-sufficiency and give the islanders what they need.
The Government have often said that they want to make the island self-sufficient. That is clearly the right policy, but it has not yet happened and we have heard some alarming tales about population loss and a struggling economy. It has been obvious for many years that an airport is the main infrastructure project necessary to turn the island around, but it has been subject to dither and delay with the result that the island's economy is struggling. We look to the Minister today to give the residents of St. Helena some much-needed hope.
3.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this debate. He was, as ever, characteristically robust in his approach, but he was misguided in his conclusion that the Government are neglecting St. Helena. I completely reject that conclusion, but I welcome the opportunity to set out in more detail what the Government have been doing for the island. There is considerable interest in the House about St. Helena, and during oral questions in October I gave the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) the opportunity to come and have a longer conversation with me. I was toying with ways of offering other hon. Members the opportunity to consider the issues facing St. Helena and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping me out.
We heard an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and an interesting insight from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), as well as interesting speeches from the hon. Members for Colchester, for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).
St. Helena is one of the most isolated of our overseas territories, being equidistant in the south Atlantic ocean between the coasts of Africa and south America. St. Helenians are a proud people and I am privileged to have responsibility for the development issues facing them. I feel somewhat hurt that the hon. Member for South-West Devon might be seeking to take responsibility for St. Helena from my Department just as I am enjoying getting to grips with the issues facing it.
Many hon. Members rightly touched on the innovative spirit, skills and talents of the people of St. Helena. I have not been to the island, nor, as the hon. Member for Totnes said, do I have any immediate plans to do so, but I have been very lucky to have had two full and helpful discussions in London with visiting representatives from the island's Executive and Legislative Councils. I had the pleasure of meeting Councillor Eric George, a senior member of the island's Council, on both occasions. He was accompanied on the first occasion by Mr. John Newman, the Speaker of the island's elected Assembly, and on the second occasion by Councillor Eric Benjamin, another Member with long experience in the Assembly.

311WH
On both occasions, we discussed the challenges and constraints of the island's economic development. We reviewed progress towards the development of air access and reflected on the implications of the recent decline in the island's population. We considered the prospects for privatisation of some Government services to free up additional resources and examined the need for further assistance to help with the implementation of a proposed move towards a ministerial system of government, to which the hon. Member for Cheltenham referred. I look forward to further discussions on those and other issues with two other councillors who will be visiting London next month for the overseas territories consultative council.
Hon. Members are right to draw attention to St. Helena's difficult economic background. Indeed, over some five centuries St. Helena's economic fortunes have endured what can only be described as a roller-coaster ride. The real low point came in 1976 when Union-Castle Lines ceased the regular service between Southampton and Cape Town which had maintained St Helena's essential physical access to the outside world for decades.
As the island had no airport, the Labour Government stepped in to ensure that access was maintained, and the Conservative Government who followed rightly continued that. Ever since we have provided St. Helena with a cash subsidy of over £1 million a year to support regular calls by a dedicated passenger and cargo vessel. The present one was purpose-built for St Helena's needs in 1989 at a cost to the Government of some £32 million. It would have been cheaper but for the fact that the company making the vessel went into receivership in the middle of the process. The vessel will reach the end of its economic life by about the end of this decade, and we will have to look at the situation then.
The new ship, which was launched in 1990, represents just part of the Government's consistent and unflagging commitment to St. Helena over the past 30 to 40 years. Our contribution since 1997 alone, when DFID was established, amounts to over £50 million. In addition, during the current financial year, we expect to spend over £10.5 million on a combination of budgetary and technical assistance support for the island community. We have given the St. Helena Government assurances on a number of occasions that our support will continue for as long as it is reasonably required.
We are about to start negotiating a new three-year aid package with the St. Helena Government. It will take full account of their strategic development planning. St. Helenians potentially have access not only to British Government funds but to the European regional development fund. Some £9.5 million has been set aside through to 2007, and that has been earmarked by the St. Helena Government for wharf improvements, rock stabilisation on the wharf and possibly improvements in landing arrangements. I will come on to that in a little more detail shortly.
Our shared goal for St Helena, as it is for other overseas territories that still require our support, is to try to achieve sustainable economic and financial self-sufficiency for the island as soon as possible. In an
312WH
increasingly competitive global world, however, we recognise that this will remain a major challenge for such a small, isolated island that has a declining population.
Like the St. Helena Government and hon. Members, we remain concerned about the decline in the island's population. St. Helena cannot continue to lose its people at the current rate, even if some have every intention of returning either on retirement or at some future point in their career. We are working closely with the island authorities to find ways of encouraging more Saints to stay on or to return to their island.
Bob Russell: What point must the population reach for the island no longer to be economic? Has the Department even considered the possibility of a total depopulation of the island of St. Helena as a cheaper option?
Mr. Thomas: No, we have not. It would be entirely wrong for us to do so. We should concentrate our efforts on what we can do to encourage people from St. Helena to stay on the island. With that in mind, and with the support of the St. Helena Government, we are considering advertising some key posts on enhanced remuneration terms to make them more attractive to St. Helenians. I am thinking, for example, of the post of financial secretary and the post of head of Prince Andrew school.
Hon. Members have rightly identified air access as the key issue. As the hon. Member for South-West Devon said, the issue has been around for some time. One company submitted proposals to us for establishing air access. We considered them in detail and did not feel that the proposition stacked up at that point. As hon. Members will know from written answers that I have given, in April we launched an international competition to attract further interest in the idea of establishing air access. We have made it clear that the advances in air transport technology make an airport on the island a real possibility, thus opening up much greater opportunities for tourism. The competition has received four expressions of interest, which are being evaluated. We expect to receive the evaluation and share it with the St. Helena Government on 17 December. We will then have to consider its results in detail. I understand the point about the need to progress as quickly as possible. Clearly, we will keep the House informed about what we can do.
If air access can be developed, it will be some time before it comes on stream. We are assisting the St. Helena Government with an important review of the existing scheduling and routing of the RMS St. Helena to try to achieve more time for it in the south Atlantic waters, perhaps with more regular and more frequent calls to St. Helena. Further decisions on that are needed. We are looking again at the issue of the breakwater, which a number of hon. Members have raised and which the St. Helena Government continue to press with us. The hon. Member for Totnes, in particular, raised a number of other issues. I will write to him in detail with the answers.

Travellers Sites
3.47 pm
Mr. James Paice: I have to confess that I am not a great fan of this Chamber, but one of its advantages is that one sees Ministers whom one has never set eyes on before. I am delighted that that does not apply to the Minister who will reply to this debate, with whom I debated some aspects of travellers on the Floor of the House on Monday evening. I am pleased to have this opportunity. I understand that some hon. Members apply for debates in this Chamber and get them willy-nilly. I have been applying for weeks for an hour-and-a-half or a half-hour slot. The debate could easily have lasted for an hour and a half, but I am grateful for the opportunity that I have got.
I have been fortunate enough to be the Member of Parliament for South-East Cambridgeshire for 16 and a half years. Throughout that time, travellers have been one of the most crucial issues. For centuries, Cambridgeshire has attracted travellers, and it goes back to the days when it was one of the leading fruit-growing and vegetable-growing counties in the country and large numbers of casual workers were needed. Interestingly, having just secured the debate, I received from the National Farmers Union a document that it has entitled, "Britain's Rural Outlaws"—I stress that the title is the NFU's. The document underlines some of the problems faced by my constituents and many other country people and rural dwellers throughout Britain. It states:
"Nearly 80 per cent. of farmers questioned by the NFU have suffered at the hands of these 'rural outlaws' over the past five years with the estimated cost to the industry a massive £100 million per year."
It continues:
"Over 20 per cent. reported that they have been the victim of physical threats, over half have had farm equipment stolen and nearly 10 per cent. have had their livestock injured."
The NFU extrapolated those results and applied them to the 270,000 farmers in England and Wales, estimating that the total cost to the rural community of unauthorised travellers could be as high as £98.8 million, nearly £100 million per annum.
The residents association of an area in my constituency called Smithy Fen, just outside the village of Cottenham, carefully listed for me some of the problems that residents have suffered in the past few weeks. It referred to
"Noise: we suffer daily, and particularly from 9.00pm through the early hours of the following morning, the blasting of car/van horns accompanied by loud music on an almost incessant basis."
It then listed
"Obstruction by day and night: cars/vans 'patrol' the area, half a dozen or more at a time, and when it suits they double/triple park thereby obstructing the single track droves,"
which are a feature of the fenland area,
"Speeding: the Fen Droves are narrow and straight. Once farm traffic has ceased for the day the speedsters are out…50, 60, 70mph bursts from Porsches, Mercedes, BMWs…etc. Drove junctions, farmers' storage pads, private driveways are used as skidpans for hand-brake turns…daily occurrences.
Stoning: of cars and tractors.
Bullying: the school bus is no longer safe for residents' children"
314WH
and, finally, there was abuse of animals. The residents association said:
"The level of intimidation is such that it is no longer safe to walk the Fen."
Those are not one person's complaints but a document produced and signed by a large number of my constituents who live in the area.
A letter from an individual constituent who has lived in the area for a long time brings a sense of proportion to the issue. We are not talking about scaremongering, or, as is occasionally suggested, intolerance towards those who live another lifestyle. My constituent states:
"Travellers have been on the Fen for forty years or so and there are thirty-three officially approved sites. Not always 'angels'; they fly-tipped, burned-out the odd car, were guilty of some littering, and were not averse to fights and general disturbance, but they largely policed themselves or were properly policed at the appropriate times. In the past they have been guilty of certain breaches of planning…but such breaches were identified and, from memory, quickly remedied. In short, the authorities seemed to have control and such afforded a generally peaceful and mutually respectful co-existence. Earlier this year a large number of Irish travellers arrived…many of the 'olde English' were intimidated into departure, this time the breach was to status quo and as a consequence since the arrivals, and on-going as I write, we endure…littering…roadside damage…noise…joyriding'".
Those are all the issues to which I have just referred.
I stress that I do not seek to brand the large numbers of people who live a travelling lifestyle as criminal or antisocial or suggest that they engage in such behaviour. They are entitled to live that lifestyle. They have their own law and rules by which they abide and, as my constituent said, people have learned to co-exist with them.
However, my constituents expect travellers to abide by the same rules, and the same criminal, planning and other legislation as the rest of us. I stress that equality of treatment under the law is all that we seek. As a Front-Bench spokesman, I officially welcomed the measures in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is shortly to be enacted—the Minister will know whether it has received Royal Assent since Monday night—but they refer to unauthorised camping on private land where the landowner has not given consent. I want to concentrate in this debate on the situation in which travellers are camping on land that they own, or which other travellers own. Travellers are increasingly buying land, legitimately—I hesitate to suggest where the money may be coming from to buy the land, but it usually comes in the form of notes from a back pocket. They buy land legitimately, create hard standings, often install services, and park a caravan.
Mr. James Gray: My hon. Friend is describing exactly what is happening in Startley and Minety in my constituency. These people turn up with disproportionately large amounts of money—goodness knows where they get it from—paying sometimes £25,000 or £50,000 an acre for the sites. Not surprisingly, the farmers sell the land to them. It is a real problem.
Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend illustrates that the problem is not unique to Cambridgeshire, but is happening increasingly in other parts of the country. I know that other hon. Members have experienced similar

315WH
situations. Travellers are buying up land; sometimes they then sell it off in smaller parcels. I cannot say where the money comes from; what concerns me is that legally these people know what they are doing. They are very clever, and understand the law and planning legislation. They know that in cases such as these, possession is half the battle. Once they own the site, have created a hard standing and have put the caravan there, they can nearly always stay there.
I shall now narrow the debate to the situation in the South Cambridgeshire district. It is important, because it underlines that, in my area at least, the local authority has done everything that it could be possibly be expected to do—indeed, more than some of my constituents would have liked—to meet travellers' needs. On the last six-monthly count, there were 290 caravans in the South Cambridgeshire district parked on approved, private pitches, and 30 more on approved sites provided by the local authority. There were 104 parked on unapproved sites. Those numbers continue to increase. With a total of 340 caravans on approved sites in South Cambridgeshire alone, I hardly think that anyone could suggest that South Cambridgeshire district council is not fulfilling its obligation.
That brings me to the planning guidance under which the council has to operate: circular 1/94, issued on 5 January 1994 by the then Department of the Environment, headed "Gypsy Sites and Planning". Paragraph 8 states:
"In preparing or amending their development plans, local planning authorities should indicate how they have taken account of their duty under the 1968 Act to make adequate provision for gypsies residing in or resorting to their areas."
Paragraph 10 says:
"It is important that policies for gypsy site provision are set out clearly in development plans…With such policies in place in plans, there will be more certainty for all concerned when planning applications are determined by local planning authorities or appeals are considered by the Secretary of State."
Critically, paragraph 26 states:
"The existence or absence of policies for gypsy sites in development plans could constitute a material consideration in matters of enforcement."
I am describing what has happened in the past few weeks and months. At Easter there was a massive influx into southern Cambridgeshire of what are known as Irish gypsies. They parked in a range of different places, sometimes on unauthorised property, often on private land. I shall not go into all those situations in detail but suffice to say that, after a while, they were moved on. A large number of them descended on the area known as Smithy Fen just outside the village of Cottenham, and they are still there. In some cases, they may have purchased other land from other travellers, but they have parked on land for which planning approval has not been granted.
The result was that the district council served a range of enforcement and stop notices. I have a list of them here; I shall not read them all out, but they all relate to land between Setchell drove and Water lane in the Smithy Fen area. It is not only that travellers descended on the place, parked there, that the council served notices and that they have now been to appeal; they also displaced a lot of people who were there.
Last night, a parish council meeting considered a planning application for eight caravans in the neighbouring parish of Rampton in my constituency.
316WH
They are for a family of traditional travellers who have lived in Smithy Fen for a long time and have now been displaced. In a statement, the family said:
"We the Price family have resided within a 15 mile radius of Rampton for about 50 years, we are a close family unit and wish to live together collectively. Many in the village know us from the Black Horse public house and Friday's light and life gospel meetings, we have done jobbing work for many local farmers over the years and can supply character testimonials. We understand the fears of the village however unfortunately due to a ruling by a government planning inspector John Roberts on 14/10/03 who overruled an enforcement notice issued by SCDC regarding Pine Lane, Smithy Fen, Cottenham—we find ourselves in an unenviable position where we have a neighbouring travellers site that we did not want and places us in an intimidating and intolerable position, we fear for our property and our safety, it is for this reason alone that we must leave the land which we have considered as home for the past 12 years."
I hope that the Minister fully comprehends the importance of that statement. They are a traditional travelling family who have lived in Smithy Fen for 12 years—lived in the whole area for 50 years—and they have been intimidated and forced out of their homes because of the influx of other travellers. That would be fine if the planning arrangements supported them in their time of need.
The district council served enforcement and stop notices and the inspector who heard the appeal came forward with his pronouncement. The inspector's report is a complete travesty of anything that could be called justice. He starts by making congratulatory statements about the district council—that is why I concentrated earlier on planning guidance and the need for provision within structure plans for travellers sites. He refers to policy SP 4/6 of the proposed revised structure plan, which
"requires adequate provision to be made for gypsies who reside in or resort to the County."
He refers to the fact that the council produced nine criteria that would have to be met, which had gone through the local planning inspector. He said that there is
"a new policy H29 which allows for caravan sites for gypsies and travelling show people outside the green belt in certain circumstances."
He states that there is no evidence that policy H29 is likely to be modified further, and he notes that
"It would normally, therefore, carry considerable weight."
The report continues:
"The criteria based policy H29 has the advantage of being capable of application to any number of sites, as part of an assessed need or otherwise."
In paragraph 14 of the report, the inspector says:
"The duty lies upon the local authority to assess need and facilitate provision."
I hope that by illustrating the total number of approved sites earlier I have shown that the local authority has facilitated provision.
Somewhat perversely, the report later states:
"The occupiers of the appeal site should not be required to prove that they, or their close relatives, have traditionally or habitually resorted to the area or resided in it."
That is despite the fact that people who have traditionally resided in the area in question have been displaced.

317WH
Of the appellant families, the inspector, Mr. Roberts, says that
"some of them at least have close family ties with people living on authorised pitches nearby".
If I bought a piece of land to build a home next to a member of my family because I wanted to be near my family, I would not have a prayer of getting planning consent if that plot were outside the village envelope. However, because of some purported family relationship—I have no idea whether it is true that there is one—that family will be given planning consent. Adding to the calumny, Mr. Roberts continues:
"Two publicly owned sites have had to he closed for reasons that were explained at the inquiry, including incidents of disorder."
He continues, perversely:
"In any event, the adequacy of public provision is not a good reason for refusing planning permission for private sites."
I could go on.
The inquiry result and the inspector's report have produced so much anger and distress in Cottenham and the surrounding areas, I cannot vouch that it will not cause further serious problems. There is a large number of other planning enforcement notices and appeals outstanding. I know that the Minister will probably tell me that this case does not set a precedent, but most of us are cynical enough to expect it to. The precedent it sets is horrendous. We could experience a doubling of the 33 approved pitches in this area.
The fact that the inspector approved it is beyond belief. In paragraph 33, Mr. Roberts says:
"I have concluded that the criteria of Policy H29 provide a useful checklist against which to assess the suitability of sites not allocated by the local plan."
In other words, he is supporting the policy of the district council. The council assessed the sites against that policy, and decided that they did not meet the criteria. That is why it served the enforcement notices. As I have intimated, the inspector upheld the appeal on several grounds, so families will now stay there. The Smithy Fen travellers site is now much larger, and will almost certainly get approval to become larger because the appeal is still outstanding.
I shall refer to one letter that I have received today, and I have received a large number. There has been some local publicity about today's debate, and this particular letter is from an individual who was at a meeting of the parish council. He says:
"I despair at Prescott's decision to disregard the wishes and undermine the powers of the district council and the parish council, notwithstanding Residents opposition. I grow weary of the daily erosion of life in this Country as I reflect (not through rose-tinted specs) on the daily changes that affect us all".
That is the heartfelt view of one of my constituents.
I conclude by saying that the whole purpose of planning guidance is to set a framework against which local planning authorities make their own judgments. The case of Smithy Fen and Cottenham fits across the board the planning guidance issued in 1994. The structure plan and the district plan also fit. The council has come up with a number of approved sites and has demonstrated that it is prepared to meet the needs of travellers.
318WH
In the case of my constituency, we were faced with a massive invasion by people who knew the law inside out and were prepared to flout it. They went to appeal and have got their way. Now, no one has any confidence that appeals will be rejected. No one has any confidence that anything that is said or done locally by parish or district councils will be upheld by the Government. I know that the Minister may claim that she cannot talk about one decision. However, the impact of the decision is catastrophic for local authorities trying to deal with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has endorsed—the huge numbers of additional planning applications for land already owned by travellers. The Government have to get to grips with that, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I want to reassure my constituents that the situation is not as bleak as it looks at present.
4.9 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on securing the debate—even though it has perhaps not taken place quite as early as he would have liked—and on raising the important issue of gypsies, travellers and the planning system, particularly in his constituency. He will know that there are thousands of gypsies and travellers in this country, many of whom have lived a nomadic lifestyle for generations. Like everyone else they have human rights, which must be respected, and like everyone else they have responsibilities to others, and to other communities. He will know the importance of ensuring that there is no unfair discrimination against gypsies and travellers. Certainly, that is a matter that the Commission for Racial Equality has been concerned about. Equally, he will be aware that settled communities, too, have rights that need to be respected.
Respect for those rights includes the obligation for gypsy and traveller communities and settlements to comply with the law, including planning law. It also includes the obligation for local authorities and the police to deal with concerns about fly-tipping, antisocial behaviour and the other problems that hon. Members have raised.
Mr. Gray: Of course, there must be no discrimination against gypsies—but does the Minister agree that there must be no discrimination against local people, either?
Yvette Cooper: Certainly; that was the point that I was making. Just as there should be no discrimination against gypsies and travellers, the settled community of towns and villages that have existed for many years, equally, has rights that should be respected.
Hon. Members will be aware that I cannot comment on the detail of specific planning cases, given the role of the Secretary of State in such cases. However, I shall talk briefly about the current planning system and related issues. Department of the Environment circular 1/94 set out planning policies concerning the provision of suitable locations for gypsy sites, whether private or provided by the local authority. In formulating development plans, local authorities are encouraged to discuss gypsies' accommodation needs with the gypsies themselves, with a view to identifying suitable locations

319WH
for gypsy sites in plans wherever possible. For many local authorities, especially in rural areas, the identification of specific sites is not easy. Where they have found it impossible to identify suitable locations, circular 1/94 says that they must define clear and realistic criteria as a basis for site provision.
Development plans must take account of local circumstances. Concern is increasingly expressed in Adjournment debates about gypsies establishing sites without first obtaining planning consent, often after choosing inappropriate locations in land-use terms, such as greenbelt land or open countryside, giving rise to enforcement action by local authorities.
Local authorities have a range of enforcement powers for dealing with breaches of planning control. First, they have the power to serve a planning contravention notice, when they require information. Secondly, there is the power to issue an enforcement notice, requiring steps to be taken. Thirdly, there is the power to serve a stop notice, with immediate effect. Fourthly, the authority can seek an injunction in the High Court or the county court to restrain any actual or expected breach of planning control. Finally, there are improved powers of entry to land for authorised officers of the local planning authority.
Powers exist under section 178 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to enable a local planning authority to enter and remove unauthorised development undertaken in breach of an enforcement notice.
Separate issues arise in relation to unauthorised encampments—where the land is not owned by the campers. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire raised some issues about cases of that kind, and the discussions earlier this week about the Anti-social Behaviour Bill and the important improvements in police powers to remove illegally camped gypsies and travellers to authorised sites are relevant here. However, as he confined most of his remarks to planning issues when gypsies and travellers own the sites, I shall say a little more about that, and explain what issues I think we should consider further in the next few months.
320WH
The hon. Gentleman is one of many people who have raised concerns about the way in which the current system works. Such concerns have been raised not only by MPs but by the Gypsy Council, local authorities and the CRE. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has set in train a serious programme of work to examine those concerns in some detail.
For example, a serious problem raised by many is that there is not enough site provision throughout the UK. A study carried out by the university of Birmingham suggested that an extra 1,000 to 2,000 residential sites might be needed over the next five to 10 years. Whether those would be local authority sites, or whether they would be appropriate sites for gypsies and travellers to buy where development would be acceptable, many people are concerned that there is simply not enough site provision. We are examining that issue in some detail. The Government have allocated £33 million over five years to improve the sites provided by local authorities, but we continue to examine the issue.
We are also concerned about the nature of the enforcement system. We are conducting a review of the planning enforcement regime, and are due to report our conclusions over the next few months. Many of the cases raised by hon. Members concerned gypsies and travellers who have settled where local authorities have not given planning permission. Those cases give rise to issues that are distinct from the broader planning enforcement regime. Statistics show that gypsy and traveller planning applications are more likely to be turned down in the first place, but more likely to be successful at the appeal stage. There are also links between enforcement and the level of site provision.
We are examining the speed of the planning enforcement system, where planning is inappropriate, and a range of other issues related to enforcement against inappropriate development. Over the next few months, as the work under way in the Department continues, I will be happy to discuss this matter further with hon. Members, based on the experience that they have gained in their constituencies. Many hon. Members have raised concerns, and we must ensure that we get the balance right in addressing this complex issue.

A38 and A50
4.17 pm
Mrs. Janet Dean: I welcome the opportunity for a debate on traffic noise on the A50 and A38 in my constituency. I was very pleased when, in July 1998, the Government announced their quieter roads programme. That was a good step forward, because for too long, roads were built with materials such as concrete, which, although hard-wearing, was noisy both for local people and for road users.
Naturally, we can all argue for earlier dates, but I understand the need for the assessments that have taken place over recent years, and I know that we must make the best use of resources, by fitting the programme in with maintenance programmes due to take place. However, the A50 and the A38 have both been unfortunate with the assessment process and the timing of the programme. I shall discuss the two roads separately.
The A38, which passes through—indeed, in places, over—Burton upon Trent is, as the Minister will know, a major cross-country route from the west to the east midlands. I first received complaints from constituents in Burton upon Trent and Branston about the noise from the road in late 1998. The northbound carriageway of the road was surface-dressed in August 1998, which appears to have exacerbated the noise problem. According to a response that I received from Lord Whitty when he was Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, the work was ordered from the contractor in the spring of 1998, prior to the publication in July of the Government's new noise policy, set out in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". That was the first instance of unfortunate timing.
In 1999, the new surface started to fail due to defective materials. Repairs were carried out at the contractor's expense, using the same materials. I raised my concerns with Ministers and the Highways Agency. I said that although the Government had announced their intention to introduce quieter roads, a noisier surface had been laid on a major trunk road. The difference was even more significant because in 1983, 1984 and 1987, porous asphalt had been used on a section of the A38 as a trial to evaluate the drainage performance of the material. One side effect of the porous asphalt was that noise levels were reduced. Although the northbound test surface was removed in 1996, there was incremental increase in noise between then and 1998, when my constituents complained to me.
Following an assessment of the scheme and the programme for road surfacing, I was advised by the Highways Agency in 2001 that the A38 Burton bypass was included in the programme for the 2003–04 financial year. I have received a further letter from the Highways Agency that says that work on the A38 between Branston junction and Clay Mills is scheduled to take place in the financial year 2004–05. I seek a reassurance that that work will be carried out in the next financial year, and not put back again.
I also ask for clarification on behalf of a Branston constituent, who tells me that he believes that the noise from which residents in the area of the village's main
322WH
street suffer comes from the road south of the Branston junction. Will the Minister tell me whether resurfacing of that section will also be carried out in the near future?
The A50 is another major east-west route, which runs to the north of Uttoxeter in my constituency. I have received complaints about the noise from the road from residents of both Uttoxeter and the rural area of Leigh, to the west of the town. Again, I have been in contact with Ministers and the Highways Agency about my constituents' complaints for some time. The A50 has been improved in stages over the years, resulting in a great increase in traffic along its whole length. The parts of the A50 that most affect my constituents are the concrete section between Blythe Bridge and the New road—A522—junction in Uttoxeter, and the length between that junction and the Ashbourne roadB503—junction, which is surfaced with hot-rolled asphalt.
I am concerned that in the current programme for resurfacing concrete roads, the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section will not be resurfaced until between 2007–08 and 2010–11. I have also been advised that the length between New road and Ashbourne road will be resurfaced in sections between 2004 and 2008. The Doveridge bypass, which is the section east of Uttoxeter, was opened after June 1988, so it is timetabled to have a quieter road surface applied between 2004–05 and 2006–07. Although I am pleased that the problems of residents of Doveridge in west Derbyshire are recognised, I do not believe that it is right that the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section should have to wait longer than the Doveridge bypass, simply because of when the roads were built.
The opening of the Doveridge bypass in February 1998, along with other major improvements along the A50, resulted in the traffic increasing by 51.3 per cent. between 1997 and 1998 along the whole route. The increase along the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section was even greater, at 57 per cent. The route total has risen from 19,075 vehicles for a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week average in 1997, to 43,132 in 2002. The Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section has risen from 15,657 to an average of 36,591.
As the traffic has more than doubled since the upgrading of the A50 was completed in 1998, the noise emanating from both the concrete section and the hot-rolled asphalt section in Uttoxeter has increased dramatically. The way in which schemes are assessed means that the length west of Uttoxeter may have to wait up to six years longer than the length east of Uttoxeter, yet the traffic and noise increase has been the same. That cannot be just or sensible.
I hope that the Minister will reassure me that the timetable for work on the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section will be reviewed to take into account the impact of the improvements on the whole route. This is an exceptional case, and I believe that that should be recognised in the programme of works. I hope that the Minister will also reassure me that a quieter surface will be applied to the length between New road and Ashbourne road early in the period 2004 to 2008.
As I said, I know that everyone hopes that schemes in their particular area will be put at the start of any programme. In the case of the A38 and the A50, however, the arguments for the early relief of the difficulties that my constituents face are strong.
4.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing the debate and on recognising the benefits of the Government's policy on quieter roads. I also thank her for her proportionate opening remarks about the Government's need to ensure that work in progress is a priority. Her contribution today, and her correspondence with the Highways Agency and my Department, show her to be an effective voice for her constituents in Burton. Long may she continue to be so.
My hon. Friend wanted to be sure that our approach was just and sensible, which I believe it is, but before I go into the details of the two roads in question—the A38 and the A50—it would be helpful to say a little about the background to the development of the Government's quieter roads programme.
The strategic road network helps to support a healthy economy by providing the backbone for the effective distribution of goods and services and the easy movement of people, but it is not without disadvantages. People who live close to major roads sometimes experience the effects of increased noise, and the expansion of the road network inevitably disturbs the local environment, as my hon. Friend described.
A balance that satisfies our economic and environmental needs must be struck. Indeed, much can be done to minimise any negative impact on the environment. I often say that the Highways Agency is the second largest planter of trees in this country—second only to the Forestry Commission—so we do take environmental matters very seriously.
The Government recognise that traffic noise is a concern for many people, and in the White Paper, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", which was published in July 1998, we gave a commitment that
"In future, whenever a road needs to be resurfaced, we shall ensure that the most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used for those areas where noise is a particular concern."
I am sure that that will be of comfort to my hon. Friend.
In March 1999, we announced sift criteria for identifying the most serious and pressing cases, and a ring-fenced budget of £5 million a year for dealing with the most serious cases in which practical, cost-effective noise mitigation measures could be found. The criteria are as follows. First, trunk roads must have been opened before June 1988, but priority attention is to be given to locations affected by roads that have remained unaltered since October 1969—the qualifying date for the first introduction of noise mitigation measures. Secondly, current—that is, 1998—noise levels immediately adjacent to the road must have been at least 80 dB. Thirdly, in the case of roads opened or altered after October 1969, noise levels must be at least 3 dB greater than predicted for the design when the road was being planned. The aim was to address people's disappointment that the noise levels mentioned during the planning process were different from those experienced when the road was eventually opened.
In November 1999, a list appeared in Hansard under cover of a letter from the chief executive of the Highways Agency, showing the most serious and pressing cases to be studied to ascertain the most practical and cost-effective solutions. That became
324WH
familiarly known as the "Hansard list". By the time of the Government's 10-year plan, published in July 2000, the Highways Agency had been set the target of installing quieter surfaces on more than 60 per cent. of the trunk road and motorway network, including all concrete stretches, by 2010–11. That will benefit approximately 3 million people living within about one third of a mile from such roads.
The Government's trunk road noise reduction policy over the period of the 10-year plan can be summarised as follows: a noise mitigation programme costing £5 million a year to address sites that meet the "Hansard list" criteria; resurfacing all concrete roads with quieter materials; and resurfacing black-top roads with quieter materials when normal maintenance is required.
About 5 per cent. of the trunk road network at some 70 different locations is constructed with a concrete surface. Clearly, given the scale of the problem, the work cannot be completed overnight. To ensure that cases are dealt with in order of priority, we have established criteria to be used to phase in the work over the 10 years. That will also ensure the effective use of resources and minimise disruption to road users.
In October 2001, the Government announced the criteria to be used by the Highways Agency to determine the priority for different parts of the network to be resurfaced by 2010–11. I shall set out those criteria. Where possible, the application of quieter surfaces will fit in with normal maintenance needs. Priority will be given to sites where treatment will benefit the greatest number of people. Works will be carried out in such a way as to minimise disruption to the general public and users of the trunk road and motorway network. Priority will be given to roads opened since June 1988 where noise levels have turned out to be significantly higher than was predicted when they were planned.
Following the announcement, the Highways Agency continued study work to identify schemes that satisfied the criteria. The fourth criterion was introduced because the extra noise arising from concrete surfaces remained the most significant factor causing excess nuisance from traffic once we had rectified the under-prediction attributable to underestimating traffic growth in assessments made before 1988. The agency also identified 17 roads with concrete surfaces that had been open since 1988, and undertook a programme of noise surveys to identify those that satisfied the fourth criterion. Following completion of that work, the Government announced in April 2003 a timetable for removing all concrete surfaces on the motorway and trunk road network by 2010–11. The report on the surveys of the 17 lengths of concrete road was placed in the Library.
In the first phase, between 2004–05 and 2006–07, more than 11,500 homes throughout the country will benefit from reduced traffic noise, and journeys on those roads will, of course, be quieter for motorists, too. Priority for the first phase of the work has been given to the schemes where resurfacing will benefit more than 100 properties per kilometre or, if the road was opened after June 1988, where the current noise level is 3 dB greater than predicted. That is equivalent to the noise increase expected from doubling the volume of traffic on the road. Of necessity, the arrangements are somewhat complex, but they are designed to ensure that the resurfacing work is carried out as equitably as possible.

325WH
My hon. Friend raised specific points about the A38 and A50 trunk roads, and I fully understand her concerns about the resurfacing of the A38. Because of pressure to undertake urgent maintenance elsewhere in the region, since 1998 we have had to carry out minor works to keep the surface of the A38 intact. My hon. Friend referred to that. The section involved is between Branston and Clay Mills, to the west of Burton on Trent, and is known as the Burton bypass.
That section of road does not have a concrete surface. Various forms of an experimental quiet surfacing material, now known generically as porous asphalt, were put on trial there between 1984 and 1994. The experimental sections, which were about 100 m long, were spread over a length of about 4 km along the southbound carriageway between the junctions at Branston and Clay Mills. The northbound carriageway was mainly constructed with conventional hot-rolled asphalt.
The original reason for the experiment was to test the effectiveness of such material at reducing spray, which was a problem on the road because of the relatively high number of heavy goods vehicles that used it. It was realised that the porous surface, originally designed for airport runways to stop aquaplaning, might be useful for roads, but might also deteriorate rather quickly. Because of wear and tear over the 10 years, most of the trial surfaces had to be replaced with hot-rolled asphalt, which generates considerably more tyre noise than the new porous asphalt.
The resurfacing undertaken on the Burton bypass in 1998 was necessary to restore its skid-resistance. The most cost-effective treatment selected was surface dressing, as the underlying carriageway construction was sound. It was inevitable that restoring the surface roughness would increase noise to some extent. However, surface dressing is recognised as a treatment with a relatively short life, and in due course, it would be necessary to undertake some major works on the carriageway and replace the whole surface layer.
I am pleased to say that, as part of the normal maintenance programme, this section of the A38 is included in a major resurfacing scheme between Branston and Clay Mills programmed to take place in 2004–05. That is subject to the availability of funding—and my hon. Friend knows that we have been generous in funding our roads. I can confirm that the work will go ahead in the time scale that she described. It will include the provision of the quieter road surface that she asked about, which is likely to reduce traffic noise by as much as 30 per cent. That will be welcome to her constituents, some of whom live close to the road, particularly in the northern section. I hope that that is a sign of good news on the horizon for my hon. Friend.
The announcement by the Secretary of State in April 2003 listed the concrete section of the A50 between Blythe Bridge and Uttoxeter among those scheduled for resurfacing in the period between 2007–08 and 2010–11, subject to the availability of funding. My hon. Friend expressed concern that the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section was treated differently from the Doveridge bypass, which was listed among those to be treated in the preceding three-year period. I assure my hon. Friend
326WH
that that was not the case. The resurfacing of the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section has been prioritised on a consistent basis with all other concrete sections, according to the criteria outlined earlier.
Doveridge bypass is scheduled for resurfacing before the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section. That is because the Doveridge bypass, which was opened in 1998, meets the criterion of having been opened after June 1988, and having a noise level 3 dB greater than predicted. The section from Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter, which opened in 1985, does not meet that criterion. Furthermore, resurfacing would not benefit more than 100 properties per kilometre.
Mrs. Dean: Does my hon. Friend accept that the increase in traffic has been greater, if anything, on the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section? I accept the way in which things were worked out using the criteria. However, I would suggest that the effect on the ground is that the section of road between Blythe Bridge and Uttoxeter has noisier concrete than the Doveridge section. I do not want to push Doveridge back at all, but we should look at the case again. When a road is made up of sections built at different times, as the Uttoxeter to Blythe Bridge section is, the increase in noise may be equivalent to the increase in noise when traffic more than doubles, as it has done on the Doveridge section.
Mr. Jamieson: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I undertake to examine the recent surveys to reassure her that the matter has been dealt with consistently. Although we try to be fair, those further back in the process always feel a little hard done by, which I accept because the stress and anxiety caused by noise make them impatient to get the work done.
The Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section was considered for noise mitigation measures under the criteria announced in March 1999 to identify the most serious and pressing cases that merited further detailed study, which was promised in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England". Because the A50 from Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter met the sift criteria, a detailed study was completed in April this year. The study revealed that the wide scatter of affected properties makes replacement of the concrete surface the most appropriate treatment to address the noise issues. Given the nature of the road, I think that my hon. Friend would agree that other mitigation measures would have a marginal effect on the properties; the road needs a different surface.
Mrs. Dean: Is it possible to examine pockets of properties along the Blythe Bridge to Uttoxeter section to see whether specific areas would benefit from planting? For example, Leigh's residents are affected by the noise from the A50.
Mr. Jamieson: I imagine that that work has already been done. I undertake to examine the survey to see whether a proportionate amount of money can be spent. Obviously, we do not want to spend money disproportionately, because that might push back the programme for resurfacing the whole road. If there are particular hot spots and we can deal with them economically, however, I will be happy to examine them. I think that my hon. Friend accepts that the

327WH
answer is getting the road resurfaced, and when that happens, many of the other measures will become otiose. It was decided that resurfacing would be achieved within the commitment in the 10-year plan for transport, and priority was assigned according to the criteria that I have described.
It is too early to provide a more specific indication of when resurfacing may take place within the time frame set out by the Secretary of State for Transport in his April statement. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the Highways Agency will keep her informed as its detailed in-year programme develops. Although mitigating noise from trunk roads and motorways is a complex subject, I hope that she agrees that the
328WH
Government are doing all they can to ensure that we have the fairest system that will benefit the greatest number of people over the next few years.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this matter, because noise from roads intrudes on people's lives. It can cause a great deal of upset and makes people angry. That is especially true when traffic grows, which has clearly happened in Burton; Burton's economy is thriving, which means more vehicles on the road. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets full and proper answers to the questions that she has raised.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Five o 'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Expenditure (Official Residences)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Solicitor-General 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. [134702]

  The Solicitor-General
  Nothing. None of the Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible have residential properties used by Ministers or officials.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on progress towards achieving ethnic diversity within the senior civil service. [139750]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are strongly committed to achieving ethnic diversity in the senior civil service and to ensuring that the civil service is fully representative of the community it serves.

  Latest data, for April 2003, show that ethnic minorities make up 2.8 per cent. at senior civil service level, up from 1.6 per cent. in 1998. Our target is for

  £ million

  Financial year unit established

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Budget 2003–04

  Prime Minister's Delivery Unit

  2001–02

  0

  0

  0.9

  3.1

  3.8

  Office of Public Services Reform

  2001–02

  0

  0

  2.0

  5.7

  4.2

  Office of the e-Envoy

  1999–2000

  38.5

  22.7

  25.5

  24.8

  17.5

  1 Subject to audit.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff are employed in the(a) Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, (b) Office of Public Services Reform and (c) Office of the e-Envoy; where these staff are located; and if he will make a statement. [139776]

  Mr. Alexander
  As at 3 November 2003, there were 28 staff working in the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, 40 working in the Office of Public Services Reform and 105 in the Office of the e-Envoy. These figures are for Cabinet Office employees and are rounded to full-time equivalents. All of these units are based in central London.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times the(a) Cabinet Office Strategy
  878W
  ethnic minorities to make up 3.2 per cent. of the senior civil service by 2004–05.

  Departmental Website
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent assessment he has made of the content and design of his Department's website. [139340]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office commissioned an external review of the content and design of its internet presence in February and March of 2003. We are now putting in place the recommendations from this review.

  Market Research
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much his Department spent on(a) opinion polling and (b) market research in the last financial year; and if he will make a statement. [139991]

  Mr. Alexander
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 402W.

  Government Bodies
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the(a) purpose, (b) annual budget since inception, (c) projected budget for the next two years and (d) current work programme of the (i) Prime Minister's Delivery Unit, (ii) Office of Public Services Reform and (iii) Office of the e-Envoy. [139775]

  Mr. Alexander
  The work of the units is explained in the Cabinet Office's Departmental Report for 2003, published in May 2003.

  Financial Information is shown in the following table.

  Budgets for the next two years will be decided on completion of the Cabinet Office planning round, which is currently under way.

  Board, (b) Business Regulation Team, (c) Regulatory Reform Strategy Team, (d) Public Sector Team, (e) Europe and Economics Team, (f) Reform Strategy Group and (g) Corporate Development Group have met since they were established; how much each meeting cost; what the (i) annual budget since inception has been, (ii) projected budget for the next two years is and (iii) current work programme of each body is; and if he will make a statement. [139777]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office Strategy Board has met regularly since its formation earlier this year. The secretariat for the Cabinet Office Strategy Board is an integral part of the Managing Director's private office. There is no separate budget line for this work.
  879W
  The terms of reference for the Cabinet Office Strategy Board are available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk).

  The Business Regulation Team, the Regulatory Reform Strategy team, the Public Sector Team and, the Europe and Economics Team are all functional work

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Business Regulation Team

  0

  0

  0.1

  0.3

  0.3

  Regulatory Reform Strategy

  0

  0

  0

  0.2

  0.4

  Public Sector Team

  0.1

  0.3

  0.6

  0.6

  0.7

  Europe and Economics Team

  0.6

  0.4

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  The work of the Regulatory Impact Unit is explained in the Cabinet Office's Departmental Report for 2003, published in May 2003.

  The Reform Strategy Group and Corporate Development Group are functional units of the Cabinet Office. Annual budgets are as follows:

  £ million

  2002–03

  2002–03

  Reform Strategy Group

  1.6

  1—

  Corporate Development Group

  17.1

  14.7

  1 The work of the Reform Strategy Group has been absorbed within other units.

  Budgets for the next two years will be decided on completion of the Cabinet Office planning round, which is currently under way.

  Official Properties
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [134685]

  Mr. Alexander
  Admiralty House contains residential accommodation for Ministers and the occupying Departments are responsible for relevant costs associated with each of the residential flats. No Cabinet Office Ministers are currently accommodated in Admiralty House. The Cabinet Office is responsible for costs associated with the common parts, as well as for maintaining the fabric of the entire building.

  The Cabinet Office's share of the maintenance costs of Admiralty House for 2002–03 was £2,295.

  From February 2002 to September 2002, a major electrical rewiring, asbestos removal and redecoration project was undertaken to the ground floor state rooms and two of the residential flats. The cost of this work (which was borne by the Cabinet Office) was £629,266.

  The Cabinet Office's share of the running costs of Admiralty House (i.e. excluding the appropriate share of the costs from the occupying Departments) for 2002–03 was £631,421.

  Information about the costs of official residences used by Ministers for previous financial years is already in the public domain.
  880W
  areas within the Cabinet Office's Regulatory Impact Unit, and therefore do not 'meet' in the way an ad-hoc Board or committee might do.

  The Resource Outturn for these teams since their inception is as follows:

  Two Cabinet Office officials occupy accommodation in residential properties in the grounds of the Emergency Planning College in Easingwold. One flat is occupied by an official working at the Emergency Planning College on detached duty. The other occupant pays a market rent for the property, which was established by a valuation conducted within the past 18 months by independent valuers appointed by the Office of Government Commerce. Records are not held separately of the maintenance, renovation and running costs associated with these properties in particular and these costs could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The council tax for 2002–03 associated with the property occupied by the individual on detached duty was approximately £175. For 1997–98, the council tax associated with properties occupied by college employees was approximately £190, for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 no college employees resided in college properties, for 2000–01 the approximate council tax was £50, and for 2001–02 the council tax was approximately £150.

  From 1997 to May 2002, some officials were accommodated in civil service college properties on the college's Sunningdale estate. The individual occupants of the properties were responsible for paying the rents that had been established by independent valuers. From June 1999 to March 2000, a number of general repairs were made, to some of the residential dwellings occupied by college staff, amounting to £20,827. In October 2000, £365 was spent on repairs. In January 2002, £3,160 was spent on repairs. There may have been other costs incurred under a maintenance contract let to cover the whole of the Sunningdale Park estate, however, it is not possible to disaggregate costs to a level of individual building. The individual occupants were responsible for their own council tax and running costs (such as utility bills).

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his 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 he will make a statement. [136844]
  881W
  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office does not record reported cases of work-related stress. However, in August 2002 it introduced a mechanism for recording sickness absence caused by work-related stress as distinct from non-work related stress.

  Since that date, the number of reported cases where work-related stress has been recorded as the reason for sickness absence has been less than five. To protect the privacy of individuals, more detailed information cannot be provided.

  No compensatory payments have been claimed or made.

  The Cabinet Office is aware of its legal responsibilities to reduce stress at work. It provides in-house guidance and training to its managers and individuals, has an in-house counselling service that can be accessed by all and has procedures in place for dealing with complaints, harassment and bullying.
  It also encourages, where possible, flexible working arrangements that allow for both work and home commitments to be accommodated.

  Information on the individual costs of these initiatives could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Marine Consents Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on regulating impact assessments which have been carried out into the work of the Marine Consents Unit. [138551]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's first Marine Stewardship Report announced a Review of Development in Marine and Coastal Waters. This included an examination of a range of marine controls, including those exercised by the Marine Consents and Environment Unit, from a regulatory perspective. A range of options for short-term and long-term reform are currently being considered. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the regulatory impacts of the proposed spatial planning body within the Marine Consents Unit. [138552]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's first Marine Stewardship Report contained a commitment to explore the role of spatial planning for the marine environment. This is being followed up in a number of workshops. There is currently no proposal for a spatial planning body within the Marine Consents Unit.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the review being conducted into the Marine Consents Unit. [138555]

  Mr. Morley
  No review is being conducted into the Marine Consents Unit. However, the Government are currently undertaking a Review of Development in 882W
  Marine and Coastal Waters to see how the complexity of the current regulatory control regime might be reduced. The review is being led by my noble Friend the Lord Rooker, Minister of State for Regeneration and Regional Development. The findings from the review will be announced in due course.

  Agriculture
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the consultation on measures to address the environmental impacts of agriculture through the use of economic instruments referred to in her speech to the Environmental Industries Commission Annual Conference on 25 June 2003. [139478]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government included a discussion of agriculture and economic instruments in an annex to the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, published in December 2002. The main route for progressing issues raised in the annex has been through work on diffuse water pollution. The aim is to publish a consultation paper on a broad range of policy options, including economic instruments, by the end of this financial year.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) strategy has been implemented and (b) funds have been committed to (i) identifying and (ii) eradicating bovine tuberculosis. [138031]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In 2002–03 we spent nearly £74 million on the bovine tuberculosis (TB) Five Point Plan, based on:Protecting human health;
  Cattle testing and controls;
  Development of a TB vaccine;
  Research into how TB is spread; and
  A badger culling trial

  We are keen to improve diagnosis of the disease in both cattle and badgers and have commissioned the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to carry out two research projects, at a total estimated cost of over £950,000.

  The current TB programme is under review and we expect to consult on proposals for a new TB strategy for Great Britain, and on short-term policy options for TB control, around the end of the year. In developing the strategy we will need to consider whether eradication of the disease is a realistic goal within the 10 year period over which the strategy will apply, and on the most appropriate ways of achieving it.

  Cement Kilns
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent analysis has been carried out by the Environment Agency to establish emission levels from the Rugby Cement Works, Rugby; what conclusions have been drawn in respect of the health implications for residents in the town; and if she will make a statement. [138577]
  883W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Environment Agency is the regulator for the cement works in Rugby and last conducted independent monitoring at the installation on 13 August 2002. I understand that further independent tests have been scheduled for the week beginning 10 November 2003.

  The Rugby Cement Works is regulated under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000. The Environment Agency recently issued a permit to the cement works in Rugby under those regulations.

  It is the Environment Agency's opinion that compliance with the very carefully designed PPC permit conditions is sufficient to protect human health and the environment. The rationale for the Environment Agency's decision to grant a PPC permit is set out in full detail in a lengthy decision document (Ref. BL7248) which has been placed on public registers maintained by the Environment Agency and the Rugby borough council. A copy of the agency's Decision Document can be obtained by telephoning 01684 850951.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the impact on emission levels from the burning of tyres in cement kilns used for co-incineration, with particular reference to(a) nitrogen dioxide, (b) sulphur dioxide and (c) particulate matter; and if she will make a statement. [138578]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  As the competent authority under the Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000, the Environment Agency is responsible for assessing the impact of emissions from cement kilns that burn tyres. The Environment Agency's assessment methodology shows that tyre burning trials have consistently demonstrated that emissions of the principal pollutant from cement kilns—oxides of nitrogen—are reduced when conventional fuels such as coal and pet coke are substituted by scrap tyres, in some cases significantly. Whilst there might be an increase or decrease in other, less environmentally significant, emissions, the use of scrap tyres has been repeatedly demonstrated to result in a net environmental benefit.

  Childhood Obesity
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with other Departments about implementing a strategy to tackle childhood obesity. [138786]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra has been working closely with the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Food Standards Agency in relation to cross-Government initiatives such as the Food and Health Action Plan, Food in Schools, the National School Fruit Scheme and the Five a Day Programme. These are aimed at educating and encouraging both children and the wider population to adopt a healthier diet and lifestyle, including tackling the growing problem of obesity.

  Cod Farms
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement about the future of cod farming; [138809]

  (2) how many cod farms have been proposed to be built in the UK; [138810]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the health aspects of eating farmed cod; [138811]

  (4) if she will make a statement about the effects of cod farming on natural fish stocks. [138812]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government's policy on aquaculture is to encourage the development of viable, competitive and sustainable enterprises (including cod farming) provided that this can be done within a framework which safeguards public health and also protects the health and welfare of farmed and wild stocks.

  At present there are six farming enterprises on growing cod on seven sites in Scotland. In general, the English coastline is unsuitable for marine cages, and the alternative (enclosed water re-circulation systems) is capital-intensive.

  While cod-farming on this relatively modest scale may well meet a niche market demand, and there is potentially a vast market for farmed cod, it is not clear that significant expansion in cod is economically viable, given the cost of inputs and the price obtainable for final output.

  The Food Standards Agency advises that there are health benefits to consumers in eating at least two portions of fish a week as part of a healthy diet, at least one of which should be oily. We have no reason to believe that farmed cod should not contribute to a healthy diet as does cod from the wild.

  Consumer Reward Card
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will commission a study of the potential effect of a consumer reward card scheme to influence people's behaviour and its impact on the environment; and what studies she has received of the NU card scheme in the Netherlands. [139183]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is aware of the scheme which is being tried out in the Netherlands, as the National Consumer Council and the New Economics Foundation have recently had discussions with stakeholders in this country about the scheme's potential. We have not received any studies as such, nor at this stage do we have any plans to commission one; but this is an interesting approach and we will keep in touch with developments.

  Contingency Planning
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on new measures in place to deal with disease breakdown following foot and mouth disease. [139473]
  885W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  A new EU directive on measures to control foot and mouth disease was adopted in Agriculture Council on 29 September 2003 and is due to be transposed into domestic legislation by 30 June 2004.

  Under the terms of this directive, the slaughter of infected animals and known "dangerous contacts" remains the principal tool in tackling an FMD outbreak. The main area of change in the new directive is the emphasis it places on emergency vaccination, which has now moved to the forefront of disease control strategies and has to be considered immediately the first case of FMD is confirmed.

  The policies and operational arrangements that would be implemented in an outbreak are captured in the Foot and Mouth Disease Contingency Plan which is reviewed, updated and laid before Parliament annually.

  Corporate Environmental Performance
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department undertook on the environmental reporting of FTSE 350 companies prior to the Prime Minister's challenge in October 2000 to produce more corporate environmental reports; when her Department will next report progress made by UK companies in voluntary reporting of environmental performance; and what information her Department collates on the response of UK companies to the Prime Minister's challenge. [139673]

  Mr. Morley
  Prior to the challenge in 2000, the Department drew on published sources to establish trends in environmental reporting by business. Last year the Department conducted its own survey of reporting by FTSE 350 companies and an account of this was placed in the Library of the House in July 2002. That exercise has not been repeated, but several surveys by other organisations are now publicly available. One recent survey indicates that over half of FTSE 250 companies now report publicly on their environmental performance.

  Country Land and Business Association
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the invitation from the Country Landowners Association to speak at their November conference. [135591]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: My Diary Secretary sent an interim response to the invitation, by e-mail, to Richard Jarman, Head of CLA Public Affairs, on 29 August 2003. After further contact by telephone, a final response was sent, again by e-mail, on 29 October 2003, confirming that I was, regrettably, unable to attend, but that Alun Michael would be delighted to speak at the CLA Conference in my stead.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to abolish the Countryside Agency; and if she will make a statement. [138958]
  886W
  Alun Michael
  There will be a continued need for the functions which the Countryside Agency performs. I refer my hon. friend to the written ministerial statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 11 November, in which she announced the intention to create an integrated agency incorporating some elements of work currently undertaken by the Countryside Agency, and to focus delivery on others in partnerships with regional development agencies, local government and the voluntary sector in order to provide the best services to rural communities.

  The Countryside Agency will continue with a new, well focused role which we will discuss with the Agency and others over the next few months.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the future of the Countryside Agency Headquarters in Cheltenham. [138913]

  Alun Michael
  No decisions have been taken yet on the future structure of the Countryside Agency beyond what the Secretary of State announced on 11 November. We will work closely with the Countryside Agency as we develop more detailed proposals, and intend to give more details in the spring.

  Dry Walls
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much Government assistance has been given for repairing dry walls in each of the last five years. [139975]

  Alun Michael
  Grants for repairing dry stone walls have been given under the Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme since 1987 and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme since 1991. On the latest information available, the total length of wall repaired under these schemes since those dates is approximately 1,100 kilometres, at a current cost of between £12 and £28 per metre.

  Egg Industry
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with(a) representatives of the UK's egg industry and (b) the European Union about possible changes in the EU intervention price of feed grain; and if she will make a statement. [138087]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The question of whether to change the cereals intervention price was considered as part of the CAP reform discussions earlier this year. As announced in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 26 June 2003,Official Report, column 1220–21, in the final compromise deal the Agriculture Council decided not to implement the 5 per cent. reduction proposed by the European Commission, although monthly increments will be reduced by 50 per cent. from the 2004–05 marketing year. I have had no specific discussions with the egg industry on this issue.

  Energy Consumption (Standby Units)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate
  887W

  she has made of the daily energy consumption resulting from the use of standby units on televisions; and if she will make a statement. [139192]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's Market Transformation Programme estimates that the 61.5 million televisions in the UK consume approximately 38 million KWh of electricity per day. Of this approximately 3.3 million Kwh (8.5 per cent.) per day is consumed by these televisions while they are in stand-by mode.

  The Government is aware of the potential for many types of appliance to consume significant amounts of energy while left in stand-by mode. It is therefore already working via the Market Transformation Programme (www.mtprog.com) to encourage manufacturers to reduce both the "on" and "stand-by" power consumption of household appliances, including televisions, through the adoption of design improvements, voluntary codes of conduct, and the establishment of best practice guidelines and targets. To date this approach has been fairly successful and we expect that the majority of new televisions sold in the UK should soon consume around 1 watt of power in stand-by mode rather than the 3–8 watts consumed by older models.

  In addition, the Government's recently announced commitment to purchase goods and services that meet higher environmental standards ("Quick Wins") requires any government department which purchases televisions to specify a stand-by power requirement of no more that 1 watt.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the dates of meetings of(a) the EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the directive on water intended for human consumption, (b) the EU Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for sheep and goats and (c) the EU Committee on the Directive on packaging and packaging waste during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda for each meeting; what representative of the Scottish Executive was present; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting, including the officials present; and if she will make a statement. [132714]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Directive on water intended for human consumption

  The Drinking Water Directive management committee met during the Danish presidency on 26 November 2002 and during the Greek presidency on 8 May 2003. Issues discussed included sampling and monitoring for radioactivity, lead, copper and nickel, and studies on drinking water.

  (b) The EU Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for sheep and goats

  The Management Committee of the common organisations of agricultural markets for sheep and goats met during the Danish presidency on 5 July 2002. It discussed the Implementation of the Council
  888W
  Regulation concerning the community scale for the classification of Ovine animals. The Committee did not meet during the Greek presidency.

  (c) The EU Committee on the Directive on packaging and packaging waste

  The EU Committee on the Directive on packaging and packaging waste met during the Danish presidency on 25 July 2002 and during the Greek presidency on 29 January 2003. Issues discussed included data reporting on recycling and recovery of packaging waste, development of the CEN standards on packaging, and notification of Belgium concerning Article 6(6) of Directive 94/62/EC.

  The devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Executive, are kept fully informed of the work of all Committees and their views are fully reflected at Committee meetings.

  Regarding any preparatory meetings, Exemption 2 to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the dates of meetings of(a) the EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Directive on protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources and (b) the EU Committee on the conservations of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (habitat) during the Danish and Greek Presidencies; what items were on each agenda for each meeting; what representative of the Scottish Executive was present; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting, including the officials present; and if she will make a statement. [132716]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Directive on protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;

  The EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Directive on protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources did not meet during the Danish Presidency. It met on one occasion during the Greek presidency on 27 March 2003. Issues discussed at the Committee included grassland fertilisation and nitrates, tracing nitrate origin, and updated monitoring guidelines for groundwater and surface waters.

  (b) The EU Committee on the conservations of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (habitat);

  The Habitats Committee (the Committee on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) met during the Danish Presidency on 20 November 2002 and during the Greek Presidency on 10 March 2003. Issues discussed included the Natura 2000 Network and conservation projects.

  The devolved administrations, including the Scottish Executive, are kept fully informed of the work of all Committees and their views are fully reflected at Committee meetings.

  Regarding any preparatory meetings, Exemption two to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies.

  Fallen Stock
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what provisions there will be for farmers to deliver their own casualty animals to the collection point under the new Fallen Stock Scheme. [138782]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There will be no need for farmers to deliver their own casualty animals to collection points under the Scheme. The subscription fee paid by farmers which join the Scheme covers collection and disposal of fallen stock from farm premises. If farmers nevertheless wish to use their own vehicles to transport carcases to approved collection centres their vehicles will need to comply with the Animal By-products Regulations 2003 and they will need to establish with the approved collection centre that they are prepared to accept carcases which are so delivered.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish details regarding the collection of carcases under the Fallen Stock Scheme. [138780]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Progress is being made drawing up the detailed requirements for collection of carcases and the other conditions of the Scheme. These will be made widely available shortly for collection and disposal operators who wish to provide services to the Scheme.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether hunts will be able to register as(a) collectors and (b) receivers of fallen stock. [138781]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Animal By-products Regulations 2003 require hunt kennels that collect and treat fallen stock carcases to be approved by Defra as collection centres and premises which only receive treated carcases for feeding to hounds are required to be approved as final users. Appropriately authorised hunt kennels will be eligible to register as collectors and/or disposal agents under the National Fallen Stock Scheme if they wish to do so.

  Farm Holdings
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance is provided by the Government to young farmers who wish to obtain their own farm holding. [137260]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government recognise the importance of encouraging new entrants into farming. The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food sets out how industry, Government and consumers must work together to secure profitable and international competitive farming and food industries which are attractive to those already engaged in them and to potential new entrants.

  This Department has commissioned research which will seek to identify the existence and nature of any artificial barriers to new entrants, and the potential means by which such barriers might be overcome. We are discussing with interested organisations how to take forward any measures which are found to be necessary.

  Farmers' Markets
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help was given to farmers' markets in England in 2001–02. [139041]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  During the financial year 2001–02, Defra provided the following help to farmers' markets in England:

  funding to help the National Association of Farmers' Markets (NAFM), the umbrella organisation for farmers' markets, re-launch farmers' markets following the foot and mouth outbreak;

  funding under the Agriculture Development Scheme to NAFM for the publication of information booklets to help producers develop their knowledge of sales and marketing, and to help NAFM develop its certification programme for accrediting farmers' markets; and

  funding under the Rural Enterprise Scheme for the Somerset Farmers' Market Company.

  In addition, the Countryside Agency, which we grant aid, provided start-up funding to NAFM.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proposals she will bring forward at(a) national and (b) European level to tackle cetacean by-catch; and if she will make a statement. [138088]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  At a national level, the UK has published a strategy for the reduction of small cetacean by-catch, which includes a number of recommendations for action. As part of this strategy, trials to reduce cetacean by-catch have been carried out in the offshore bass fishery. These trials have demonstrated that separator grids are a viable means of minimising dolphin by-catch in this fishery and the Scottish fishermen involved in this fishery have already indicated that they will continue to use the grid on a voluntary basis. I am determined to move forward from trialling the separator grid to deploying the gear in the fishery. However, given that the UK is not the main prosecutor of this fishery, it must be understood that whatever action we might consider by way of requiring the use of separator grids or other mitigation measures, or even closing the fisheries, would need to be implemented at the EU level in order to have significant effect.

  The importance of reducing cetacean by-catch has been raised by the UK at ministerial level with the Fisheries Commissioner on a number of occasions and bilaterally with France. In particular, the UK has pressed for the introduction of a observer programme across the EU to broaden the information available about which fisheries, and which vessels, are involved in the problem.

  The Commission published, on 24 July 2003, a draft Council regulation concerning the incidental by-catch of cetaceans in fisheries. Discussions on this proposal are at a very preliminary stage.

  Food Standards
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will assess the adequacy of charges available to prosecutors under food regulations. [137584]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of its action plan to implement the recommendations of the Waste Food Task Force, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) has undertaken to consider a number of legal issues with stakeholders. These issues include the offences available to enforcers when taking prosecutions for illegal diversion of unfit meat, the penalties available for such offences, the time limits for investigation of these offences and the issues involved with lack of a power of arrest for food safety offences. The FSA will be discussing these issues with stakeholders at a seminar on 26 November 2003 to discuss the lessons to be learned from the prosecutions in the Denby Poultry Products case.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to improve enforcement of food safety regulations at animal by-products processing premises arising from recent meat fraud cases. [137588]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Food safety regulations are the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. The State Veterinary Service (SVS) visits animal by-products premises for the purposes of administering the animal by-products legislation, which is enforced by local authorities and the Meat Hygiene Service. SVS instructions were amended in light of the fraud cases referred to, with the aim of preventing further such incidents. They improved audit procedures and highlighted the need to liaise more closely with enforcement agencies where there are possible breaches of food hygiene or other legislation. To improve communication and co-operation between the relevant bodies, Defra has also provided joint training on the new Animal By-Products Regulation for all the relevant enforcement bodies.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether estimates of yield for GM maize in the GM farm scale evaluation published by her Department will be based upon maize crops grown using the same herbicide regime as used on these farm scale evaluations. [137655]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has not published yield estimates for the GM maize grown in the farm-scale evaluations. The paper by Champion and others Crop management and agronomy of the farm-scale evaluations' published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on 16 October explains that crop yields were not routinely recorded. The GM and conventional maize crops in each field evaluation were assessed and compared at every stage of growth and results were only included in the analysis where these correlates of yield were comparable and consistent with the protocol requiring 'cost effective weed control'.
  892W
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the public relations companies employed by her Department to present the Government's viewpoint on GM(a) foods and (b) crops; and how much public funding has been allocated for this purpose. [139768]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department does not employ public relations companies to present our viewpoint on GM food and crops.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the(a) role and (b) responsibilities of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment in relation to GM (i) crops and (ii) trials. [139807]

  Mr. Morley
  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) is the statutory advisory committee established under Section 124 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. ACRE advise Government and the devolved administrations on all aspects of releases of GMOs into the environment, including the release of GM crops for the purposes of marketing or research. ACRE'S full terms of reference are included in their most recent annual report, which is available on the internet at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/acre/annrep9/index.htm.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the effects she estimates the adoption of genetically modified crops in the UK would have on the organic farming industry. [138808]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government recognises that the growing of GM crops could affect the economic position of organic and conventional farmers growing equivalent crops. This was highlighted in the Strategy Unit report entitled 'Field Work: weighing up the costs and benefits of GM crops', published last July. The issue is also being discussed amongst member states of the European union. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has been analysing the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and associated liability issues and was due to publish a report last month. When the report is published we will consider it very carefully, taking into account the possible effects on the organic sector.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has received about whether the planting of GM crops would lead to a change in the use of(a) pesticides and (b) chemical weed killers. [138813]

  Mr. Morley
  Almost all of the GM crops that have been grown under trial in the EU in recent years, or are under consideration for commercial growing, are associated with changes in the use of herbicides and/or insecticides. Each GM crop is assessed on its own merits and any application to release must be accompanied by a dossier that includes detailed information on any potential changes in pesticide use and the effects this would have on the environment. The GM crop farm-scale evaluations, conducted in the UK, made a detailed assessment of the impact of herbicide use associated with three types of GM crop. A copy of the results, which were published last month, is in the Library.
  893W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of EU labelling and traceability regulations in respect of GM(a) seeds, (b) animal food and (c) food for human consumption. [139015]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Food Standards Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have commissioned an independent study on the impact of the new GM regulations. This study and information obtained from stakeholders will form the basis of a Regulatory Impact Assessment on the regulations. This will be part of a consultation package, which will be issued at the end of December 2003 and will include the draft domestic implementing regulations and draft guidance to accompany the regulations.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment her Department has made of the application for the sale of GM sweetcorn Bt11; and what advice her Department will offer to forthcoming Council of Ministers meetings on the application. [139016]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA), as the competent authority under the EC Novel Foods Regulation, is advised by the independent Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP). The ACNFP assessed the original data submitted in support of the application for the sale of genetically modified sweetcorn Bt11 and the opinion of the Dutch competent authority. The European Commission's Scientific Committee (SCF) for food carried out a further assessment of these data and additional information submitted in support of the application and its opinion was also considered.

  Ministers have agreed that the FSA will advise the Council of Ministers that the United Kingdom should support this application based on the conclusion of the SCF, which stated that:
  "Bt11 sweet maize is as safe for human use as its conventional counterparts".

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with her counterparts in the National Assembly for Wales in respect of their decision to declare Wales a GM-free nation. [139017]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand from ministerial colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government that their policy is to adopt the most restrictive approach possible on GM crops within the confines of European Union and domestic law. They have made clear that this is not the same as declaring Wales GM-free. Ministers and officials in Defra and the Assembly Government keep in close touch on GM issues and hold regular meetings.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment has been made through(a) research commissioned by her Department, (b) farm scale trials and (c) other research of the potential for GM herbicide tolerant plants to create herbicide tolerant hybrid weeds; and what the results of that research were; [139018]
  894W
  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the (a) likelihood and (b) impact of hybridisation of GM oilseed rape. [139156]

  Mr. Morley
  There has been considerable research investigating hybridisation between GM and non-GM crops, including the crops studied in the Farm Scale Evaluations, and between GM crops and wild relatives. This includes studies commissioned by my Department (e.g. "Monitoring large scale releases of genetically modified crops, incorporating report on project EPG 1/5/30: monitoring releases of genetically modified crop plants" (December 2002)), studies carried out in parallel with the Farm Scale Evaluations (e.g. "Gene Flow Monitoring from the GM Crop FSE Sites: Monitoring Gene Flow from the GM Crop to Non-GM Equivalent Crops in the Vicinity. Part 1: Forage Maize" (October 2003)) and other research published in scientific journals (e.g. Wilkinson et al. (2003) Science online www.scienceexpress.org(9 October 2003)). The issues of gene flow and hybridisation between GM and non-GM crops are addressed in Chapter 7 of the GM Science Review published in July 2003 (http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/).

  The impact of hybridisation between herbicide tolerant GM crops and other crops or wild relatives is considered as part of the risk assessment carried out prior to any decision to authorise the release of herbicide-tolerant GM crops.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department has to monitor the impact of GM animal feed on animal health. [139152]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has no current plans to monitor the impact of GM animal feed on animal health.

  Under EU Directive 2001/18, no genetically modified organism may be used in animal feed in the EU unless and until EU member states have agreed collectively that it is safe to do. In making these decisions, each GM product is judged on its own merits according to evidence of risk to human health or the environment. If authorisation is granted, any subsequent marketing of the GM product in question will be subject to conditions of consent, including details of how the GM product must be monitored. These monitoring conditions may or may not include a requirement to monitor the impact of GM animal feed on animal health depending on the details of each specific case. No such condition has been thought necessary to date.

  In the UK, we are advised on GM product applications by a statutory expert body—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE). If a proposed GM product were intended for use in animal feed, ACRE would consult the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedstuffs (ACAF), which would provide advice on any risks to animal health. If the experts advised that a proposed GM product was safe but that its effects on animal health should be monitored, we would use our voice within Europe to call for this to be included in the monitoring plan.
  895W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role the GM Science Review Panel will play in advising her Department on future decisions in respect of applications to grow GM crops in the UK. [139153]

  Mr. Morley
  The GM Science Review Panel will not play a role in advising on future decisions on GM crop applications. The Government are advised on these matters by a statutory expert body, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

  The GM Science Review was commissioned specifically to undertake a comprehensive review of the science of genetic modification relevant to crops and food. The Government are taking its findings into account along with other elements of the GM public dialogue (the Strategy Unit study of costs and benefits and the debate "GM Nation?") in shaping its overall approach to GM crops and food. The GM Science Review Panel published their first report in July 2003 and will shortly conclude their work with the publication of a second supplementary report.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role her Department will have in implementing the surveillance scheme proposed in the Food Standards Agency's study on post-marketing monitoring. [139155]

  Mr. Morley
  I am aware that in July 2003 the Food Standards Agency published research by Imperial College looking into the feasibility of monitoring the buying and eating of novel foods, including GM foods. I understand that the Food Standards Agency has not yet decided whether or not to proceed with the recommendations.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 4 November 2003,Official Report, column 561W, what research has been conducted on unintended biochemical consequences of genetic modification in the GM crops that were tested in the farm scale evaluations. [139218]

  Mr. Morley
  Potential unintended biochemical consequences of specific genetic modifications are considered as part of the case-by-case risk assessment of all GM crops. This consideration is based on research studies of the composition of particular crops grown under a range of conditions. Data examining composition of the crops in the Farm Scale Evaluations will form an important part of the assessment of any applications to market the crops concerned.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set up a GM public debate on the findings of the farm-scale evaluations. [139582]

  Mr. Morley
  The government has already sponsored GM Nation?'—the public debate on GM issues—to explore the public's opinions on GM crops.

  The results of the farm-scale evaluations, published on 16 October, are in the public domain and are being discussed widely. The results relate to specific GM crops and have been passed to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) for statutory advice. ACRE will be holding open meetings on
  896W
  25 November in London and fourth December in Edinburgh to take evidence from stakeholders and the public. There are no plans to hold a further public debate specifically on the results of the Farm Scale Evaluations.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what research the choice of(a) dose, (b) timing, (c) formulation and (d) method of application of the herbicide used on GM maize in the farm scale evaluations was based. [139804]

  Mr. Morley
  Research and other information necessary to make these choices was determined by the company concerned. The specific use of the herbicide in the farm-scale evaluations was covered by an approval issued by the Pesticides Safety Directorate.

  Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the rural proofing of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's new regional housing policies. [137827]

  Alun Michael
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning on 11 November 2003,Official Report, column 259W. I shall also be meeting with my noble Friend Lord Rooker next month to discuss this issue.

  Livestock Industry
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what has been the average(a) disposal sale price and (b) market price for (i) commercial dairy cattle and (ii) pedigree dairy cattle in (A) England and (B) Wales for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [136409]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The average(a) disposal sale price of (i) commercial dairy cattle (ii) pedigree dairy cattle and the (b) market price of (ii) pedigree dairy cattle is not recorded by either Defra or the MLC and is therefore unavailable.

  The average (b) market price for (i) commercial dairy cattle for the last five years is available, as an aggregate of (A) England and (B) Wales due to the few Welsh markets from which data is available. Six years data of the yearly average market price for Friesian Holstein dairy cows sold at auction markets in England and Wales shows the trend of livestock prices prior to the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Average price of dairy cows sold at livestock auctions (England and Wales)

  Average price £ per head

  1998

  555

  1999

  489

  2000

  479

  2001

  616

  2002

  593

  2003

  744

  Notes:

  1. 2001: The yearly average price was calculated from data collected during January and February 2001, until foot and mouth forced the closure of the livestock auctions.
  897W
  2. 2002: The yearly average price was calculated from data collected from the auction markets which began to re-open from February 2002 onwards, the numbers steadily increased as more markets opened after the restrictions were lifted due to the end of foot and mouth.

  3. 2003: The yearly average price was calculated from data collected during the period January until October 2003.

  Milk Chocolate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact on consumption of milk chocolate in the EU of its re-designation as family milk chocolate. [139133]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Directive 2000/36/EC harmonising labelling and composition rules on cocoa and chocolate products only took effect on 3 August 2003. It is therefore too early to make an assessment on whether there has been any effect on the consumption of milk chocolate in the European Union.

  Ministerial Speeches
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the speeches made by each Minister in her Department since 1 January. [135468]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: Copies of most of keynote ministerial speeches can be found on the Defra website. Speeches made by Defra Ministers since January 2003 are as follows:

  Secretary of State: Margaret Beckett

  Oxford Farming Conference (7 January)

  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, USA (3 February)

  Guardian and Observer Business and Society Conference (6 February)

  Local Government Association Launch of the Rural Revival Report Conference (11 February)

  National Farmers Union Annual Conference (18 February)

  Launch of the Government's Annual Report 2002 (24 February)

  Royal Institute of International Affairs—UK Objectives for the Kiev Conference (27 February)

  Launch of the Supply Chain Partnership Forum Dinner (27 February)

  Food and Drink's Federation New President's Dinner (6 March)

  Industry Forum (Energy) (19 March)

  Agra Europe Outlook Conference (31 March)

  G8 Environment Ministers Meeting (26 April)

  Joint launch with the UNFCCC Secretariat on the IDR (8 May)

  Royal Society for the Green Alliance "The GM Debate: Precaution in Practice" Workshop (5 June)

  Vaillant Service Centre—Speech on the Energy White Paper (23 June)

  Environment Industries Commission Conference (Benefits to the UK of High Environmental Standards) (25 June)

  Green-Works (3 July)

  Fabian Society Waste event (9 July)

  Opening of the Plant Sciences Centre at Broomfield College— (24 September)

  Better Building Summit (21 October)

  REEEP Conference (23 October)

  898W
  PUS(L)—Lord Whitty

  Oxford farming conference (7 January)

  Regional Food Showcase (21 January)

  Address CLA Council Meeting (29 January)

  Agri-Economics Society Conference (30 January)

  Foodaware Meeting (30 January)

  100th school milk bar (31 January)

  Parliamentary Warm Homes Group Conference (5 February)

  Unilever Sustainable Agriculture in Practice Seminar
  (25 February)

  Entry Level Agri-Environment Scheme launch (27 February)

  National heart forum launch (12 March)

  International Food and Drink Exhibition (25 March)

  UK Gas Conference (25 March)

  Carbon Trust and BAA plc energy efficiency partnership launch (31 March)

  Launch of the Crop Protection Management Plans (3 April)

  CCAs event (7 April)

  Briefing MEPs and Assistants on CAP Reform (30 April)

  Young Farmers Annual Forum (3 May)

  Coal UK 2003 conference (12 May)

  Royal Institute of International Affairs conference on Food and Trade (19 May)

  UK BCSE National Conference (20 May)

  Building Research Establishment conference on sustainable development and off site construction (21 May)

  Pimlico District Heating Scheme (Community Energy Programme) (21 May)

  Go Wild At Kew Gardens (22 May)

  Johannesburg renewable energy conference, Brussels (4 June)

  Royal Cornwall Show (6 June)

  Launch of agricultural export promotion unit (10 June)

  Address General Assembly of Confederation of European Spirit Producers (16 June)

  Institute of Public Policy Research Energy Conference (17 June)

  Sustainable Energy Awards (18 June)

  British Water annual lunch (25 June)

  Kew Gardens SSSI launch (4 July)

  MLC barbecue (7 July)

  Queen Mary and Westfield Seminar (16 July)

  Launch Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative (26 August)

  5th Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment (10 Sept)

  Strategy on Sustainable Consumption and Production Launch, two speeches (25 September)

  Better building Summit (21 October)

  Renewable Power Conference (23 October)

  British Meat Processor's Association launch (28 October)

  David Black Awards (29 October)

  Noise abatement society's John Connell Awards (29 October)

  899W
  MoS (Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality)—Alun Michael

  National Association of Farms for Schools (15 January 2003)

  West Midlands Rural Affairs Forum (15 January 2003)

  CPRE—opening new office (23 January 2003)

  Making it Happen—Reality on the Ground Conference (29 January 2003)

  LGA Rural Housing Conference (4 March 2003)

  Food for thought: 1 day Conference (14 March 2003)

  Quality Parish Conference (18 March 2003)

  CHaRT RICS meeting (18 March 2003)

  Speak at RPA Inspectorate Conference (24 March 2003)

  Corporate Responsibility Group meeting (10 April 2003)

  Rural Business Support Conference (9 June 2003)

  Conference of the International Rural Network (26 June 2003)

  Living Sea Conference (23 July 2003)

  Living Lakes Conference (10 September 2003)

  ANPA Conference (2 October 2003)

  NALC Annual Conference (3 October 2003)

  Co-operatives and Social Enterprise Conference (4 October 2003)

  Society Local Council Clerks Conference (20 October 03)

  Civil Service/MP attachment scheme (21 October 2003)

  Connexions Event: Delivery of Connexions in rural areas (28 October 2003)

  MoS (Environment) (Michael Meacher)

  SW scoping study into impacts of climate change (22 January)

  Parliamentary Sustainable Waste Group (28 January)

  HCIMA—hospitable climates (28 January)

  Adam Smith Institute (29 January)

  Women's Environmental Network seminar on real nappies (10 February)

  Gene Futures conference (11 February)

  Fabian Society (11 February)

  Newcastle University Chaplaincy Lecture (14 February)

  LGA conference on waste (18 February)

  UNED-UK conference on sustainable development (19 February)

  Foundation for Science and Technology seminar on Arctic regions (25 February)

  Environment Agency Chairmen's National Conference (26 February)

  UKCIP/EPSRC conference on climate change (3 March)

  Packaging Federation conference (13 March)

  Wilton Park conference on the Arctic (17 March)

  Eve Balfour Lecture (Soil Association) (19 March)

  QMW energy seminar (20 March)

  ACCA awards (20 March)

  London First Sustainable Business Network launch (1 April)

  Organic Products seminar (7 April)

  UK Business and Environment Chief Executives seminar (9 April)

  Fabian Society Environmental Forum (8 May)

  NW Regional Assembly State of the Region conference (9 May)

  Euromoney emissions trading conference (12 May)

  All Party Group on Conservation and Wildlife (19 May)

  CIRIA climate change conference (4 June)

  Trucost/IRS conference (4 June)

  Parliamentary Sustainable Waste Group (4 June)

  Game Conservancy Trust conference (10 June)

  900W
  MoS (Environment and Agri-Environment)—Elliot Morley

  CHPA President's Reception (18 June)

  Address to National Glass Week Conference (19 June)

  Launch of the LGA/EA joint document.(23 June)

  ADA Annual demonstration event, Lincolnshire (3 July)

  New Bristol Zoo Waste Minimisation display (7 July)

  Government's environmental priorities to the All Party Parliamentary Environment Group (8 July)

  'Listening to Business' Breakfast, Stevenage (10 July)

  the All Party group on Sewers and Sewerage (10 July)

  UKCIP Launch on climate change (15 July)

  Speech on Energy and Environment at Informal Environment Council, Montecatini (20 July)

  Launch of the Greenwich Council new recycling facility (29 July)

  Opening of the Gowy Flood Defences (31 July)

  Launch of the Number Regional Waste Strategy, Doncaster (1 August)

  Regional Visit, Cumbria—Speech on Agri-Environment (14 August)

  Launch of Recycle for London (2 September)

  Opening the new Waste Resources Action Programme Building, Banbury (11 September)

  Speech to School Children about being responsible for the Environment during presentation of the Franco-British council Environmental Exchange(17 September)

  Thames Water Regulation seminar (22 September)

  British Water Seminar on UK-China Co-operation, Beijing (23 September)

  British Water Seminar UK-China Co-operation, Guangzhov (24 September)

  British Water Seminar UK-China Co-operation, Shanghai (26 September)

  Launch of the WCMC World Atlas of Seagrasses (15 October)

  Economist 14th Annual Water Industry conference (16 October)

  Institute of Chartered Accountants Corporate Social Responsibility Debate (21 October)

  Environment Agency Annual Conference Dinner (28 October)

  Speech to present Biffawards (30 October)

  Speech to present prizes to School children at the Shout About Waste event (3 November)

  ADA annual conference (5 November)

  Royal Institute International Affairs conference (5 November)

  WATER UK Source 2003 Conference (5 November)

  Launch of the Enhanced Capital Allowance Scheme for Water Technologies (6 November)

  Speech on Business and the Environment to local business groups in Burnley (6 November)

  Opening of the IWEX Water Exhibition (11 November)

  901W
  PUS(C)—Elliot Morley

  Launch of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (8 January)

  Opening of the Lower Tone Flood Defence scheme (14 January)

  Opening Water UK's 3rd Annual City Conference (15 January)

  Business Breakfast of the South Yorkshire Green Business Club (20 January)

  Launch of the RSPB Twite report (20 January)

  Coastal Futures Conference (23 January)

  North Sea Flood Conference—'1953 Floods and beyond' (30 January)

  Opening a Vulture rehabilitation Centre, part funded by the Darwin Initiative.(8 February)

  Tehri Institute, Delhi (7 February)

  Marsh Award for Bird Conservation, Indian High Commission (26 February)

  British Water UK—Poland Water Co-operation seminar (4 March)

  Launch of the Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration Rome (11 March)

  Address to the UK Association of Frozen Food Producers Annual Lunch (19 March)

  Deer Initiative Conference Buxton (28 March)

  National Sea Fish awards (2 April)

  UFAW Animal Welfare Conference (3 April)

  45th Ministerial conference on Protection of Forests in Europe (28 April)

  AINA reception (6 May)

  IEA's 4 Annual Conference, Water 2003 (4 June)

  National Water Efficiency Awards (5 June)

  Water Bill and the Sustainabie Management and use of Water, SERA dinner(10 June)

  PUS(C)—Ben Bradshaw

  All Party Group on Wildlife and Conservation (17 September)

  National Environment Campaigns
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment has been made of the impact of the Bag It and Bin It campaign on individual behaviour, with specific reference to the change in the number of items disposed of inappropriately. [139182]

  Mr. Morley
  Bag It and Bin It is a water industry campaign and it is for the water companies themselves to assess the impact of the campaign.

  Nuclear Waste Sites
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) sites in the United Kingdom on which intermediate level nuclear waste is stored and (b) volume stored on each site. [139507]

  Mr. Morley
  The following is a list of sites at which intermediate-level radioactive waste (ILW) is stored. The figures have been taken from the 2001 waste inventory published by Defra and Nirex in October 2002. The figures for each site are the volume of conditioned waste, in cubic metres, and, where appropriate, include the ILW estimated to arise from continued operation and decommissioning.
  902W

  Waste site

  ILW—volume, cubic metres, conditioned

  Aldermaston

  4,247.0

  Amersham

  488.0

  Berkeley

  2,364.0

  Bradwell

  4,591.0

  Calder Hall

  4,755.0

  Capenhurst

  2.0

  Cardiff

  423.0

  Chapelcross

  5,640.0

  Clyde

  1.0

  Culham

  383.0

  Devonport

  258.0

  Donnington and Stafford

  0.2

  Dounreay

  8,580.0

  Dungeness A

  4,197.0

  Dungeness B

  3,729.0

  Hartlepool

  4,114.0

  Harwell

  2,744.1

  Heysham 1

  4,307.0

  Heysham 2

  4,417.0

  Hinkley Point A

  6,015.0

  Hinkley Point B

  4,156.0

  Hunterston A

  5,428.0

  Hunterston B

  4,502.0

  Oldbury

  3,665.0

  Portsmouth

  9.0

  Rosyth

  86.0

  Rosyth and Devonport (submarines)

  1,928.0

  Sellafield

  131,547.0

  Sizewell A

  4,244.0

  Sizewell B

  595.0

  Torness

  4,224.0

  Trawsfynydd

  2,849.0

  Vulcan

  203.0

  Windscale

  4,209.0

  Winfrith

  1,312.0

  Wylfa

  6,810.0

  Total

  237,022.3

  Performance Monitoring
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was of(a) setting, (b) monitoring and (c) measuring the performance targets for her Department in 2002–03; and how many and what grades of civil servants monitor these targets. [137973]

  Alun Michael
  The monitoring of progress towards PSA targets is part of the mainstream work of the department and involves a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation. Progress towards achieving targets is also monitored by staff in HM Treasury.

  Pesticides
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will carry out the appraisal of the progress of the voluntary initiative on pesticides at the end of 2003, as recommended by the Environmental Audit Committee in its First Report of Session 2002–03. [139530]

  Alun Michael
  In its response to this Environmental Audit Committee report, the Government said that it would continue to make regular assessments of progress and would be looking for real steps forward during 2003. In particular, the Government said it would be important for the initiative to demonstrate growing farmer uptake and progress on outcomes, particularly in respect of the water catchment project.
  903W
  The Government's assessments of progress are published in the Budget and Pre-Budget Reports. The next such assessment will be in next month's Pre-Budget

  Pig Farming
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made with measures to support British pig farmers; and if she will make a statement. [137249]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This Government has done and will continue to do what it can to help the pig sector. Since December 2000 over £63 million of taxpayers money, comprising £21.8 million for ongoers and £15.6 million for outgoers under the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme and some £26 million in relation to Classical Swine Fever, has gone or will go direct to pig farmers as well as £200 million of indirect support in areas such as private storage aid schemes, export refunds, development grants and market promotion.

  We meet frequently with representatives of the pig industry to discuss the challenges they face and have pledged to continue to encourage all parts of the pigmeat supply chain to work together, with ourselves and with Sir Don Curry's Implementation Group, in order to build a sustainable future for all sections of the industry. The Department helped to sponsor the first World Pork Congress in June and assisted industry in getting the approval of the Pigmeat Management Committee to use a new method of carcase grading—Autofom—in Great Britain.

  In addition the Red Meat Industry Forum has made a successful start in providing information designed to help improve competitiveness for all the players in the red meat supply chain. In particular, this includes benchmarking for pig producers.

  We will also be publishing a 10 year Animal Health and Welfare Strategy next spring, after a comprehensive consultation process. The aim of the Strategy is to improve the health and welfare of animals kept by man, and protect public health from animal disease. One major initiative of the Strategy, will be the publication of dedicated sector based sub-strategies, based on a partnership approach between Government and industry. We have been working closely with the pig sector over the past 12 months to help develop such a sub-strategy, which I believe will be launched later this year.

  On illegal imports, we have made much progress in implementing our Action Plan in the past two years. Successes include the transfer of anti-smuggling responsibilities to HM Customs, new risk assessments are being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, looking at the risk of illegally imported meat. These assessments will be published next year. We are also raising awareness of the import rules among travellers, using a wide variety of methods to get our messages across.

  The Department has been active in persuading overseas authorities to accept UK exports again. Last year an Export Certification Users Group was set up for live pigs, their genetic material, meat and products. The Group meets regularly to identify priority export
  904W
  markets which remain closed and it also enables us to consider export certification for potential markets abroad.

  Furthermore we recently launched the Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative to procure food in a manner that promotes sustainable development. Its aim is to encourage public bodies to procure food in a manner that promotes sustainable development and to provide greater opportunities for small and local suppliers to compete for public sector business.

  The Government is also making rapid progress on setting up a National Fallen Stock Scheme to help reduce costs to farmers, including pig farmers, for disposing of their fallen stock. We are aware of the pig industry's concerns about biosecurity and will consult the industry on the scheme's biosecurity conditions before issuing. The Directors who will sit on the Board of the Company that will run the scheme have now been selected by industry interests and formally appointed and we hope that the scheme will be up and running early in the new year.

  Plankton
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what data her Department holds on plankton(a) density and type (b) around the British Isles; and whether areas of cold water plankton have been replaced by warm water types. [134010]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not hold data on plankton density and type, but does fund the international marine environmental charity 'Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science' (SAHFOS) which is based in Plymouth, UK. SAHFOS currently operates the Continuous Plankton Recorder survey, which has been in operation since 1931 and provides one of the longest and largest marine biological data sets in the world. More than 70 years of information on the density of over 450 plankton types is contained in the database. Plankton samples have been collected from all over the north Atlantic but predominantly from waters around the British Isles.

  Plankton are at the bottom of the marine food-web and because of this they are an essential food-source to virtually all marine life from fish to marine mammals and sea birds. The results of monitoring plankton communities can be used to monitor the state of the marine environment and have been employed to assess the ecological health of the waters around the British Isles.

  Recent research using data from the Continuous Plankton Recorder survey has shown significant changes to the North sea ecosystem. Cold-water species of plankton that are an important food-source for cod and salmon have been displaced northwards, particularly over the last decade, and appear to be being replaced by more southerly warmer-water species.

  Pollution Incidents
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 12 December 2002,Official Report, column 435W, on discharges into the environment, in

  905W
  respect of pollution incidents, if she will place in the Library an updated list of the documents provided in writing to the hon. Member for Lewes. [139185]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is currently updating the information provided to the hon. Member. This will take a little time, and I will write when it is available.

  Protected Geographical Indicators Scheme
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many products from the United Kingdom, broken down by region and nation, are being considered for registration under the Protected Geographical Indicators Scheme by the EU. [138214]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are two products, both Scottish, Arbroath Smokies and Scottish Farmed Salmon, which are currently being considered for registration as Protected Geographical Indications by the EU.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many regional foods are registered in each EU state; and how many of these in each state have registered within the last 12 months. [138215]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The numbers of regional foods registered as protected food names by all EU member states are set out in the following table.

  Member state

  Protected designations of origin (PDOs) and Protected geographical indications (PGIs)

  Traditional speciality guaranteed (TSGs)

  Total registered

  Italy

  132

  1

  133

  France

  132

  —

  132

  Portugal

  85

  —

  85

  Greece

  83

  —

  83

  Spain

  71

  3

  74

  Germany

  64

  —

  64

  United Kingdom

  33

  1

  34

  Austria

  12

  —

  12

  Belgium

  4

  5

  9

  Netherlands

  5

  —

  5

  Luxembourg

  4

  —

  4

  Ireland

  3

  —

  3

  Denmark

  3

  —

  3

  Sweden

  2

  1

  3

  Finland

  1

  2

  3

  The numbers of regional food products registered within the last 12 months are set out in the following table:

  Member state

  Number registered

  Italy

  10

  Greece

  4

  Portugal

  4

  Spain

  3

  United Kingdom

  2

  France

  1

  Finland

  1

  Rats
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate 906W
  the rat population (a) in England and (b) broken down by local authority area (i) in each year since 1997 and (ii) in each year to 2006. [139180]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The most recent estimate of the Norway rat population in England was a minimum of 5,240,000 individuals. This figure was established by a review that assessed the population and conservation status of all British mammals, published in 1995. The only recent objective national survey of rat presence is within the English House Condition Survey. The latest report available is for the 1996 survey which revealed that 0.23 per cent. of properties had rats indoors and 1.6 per cent. had rats present outside.

  With regard to local authorities, section 2(2) of the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 required every local authority to maintain records of activities undertaken to destroy rats and mice. However, this section was repealed in 1980 since when no information on rat presence within individual local authority areas has been collected by central Government.

  Sewage
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers water companies have to divert sewage into rivers; and if she will make a statement. [139187]

  Mr. Morley
  Water companies have duties under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to provide and maintain sewers to ensure that they are effectively drained, and the sewer contents are effectively dealt with by treatment works or otherwise.

  Consents to discharge sewage effluents, sometimes in emergencies, into controlled waters are subject to conditions and are issued by the Environment Agency under the Water Resources Act 1991 (WRA91).

  In certain situations water companies may have to make discharges other than in accordance with a consent. In these circumstances, the WRA91 provides two distinct defences to offences of polluting controlled waters under section 85 of the WRA91.

  Section 89(1) states that a person shall not be guilty of an offence of polluting controlled waters if the discharge is made in an emergency to avoid danger to life or health, if steps are taken to minimise the polluting effects of the discharge, and if details of the incident are provided to the Agency as soon as possible after it occurs.

  Section 87(2) states that a sewerage undertaker shall not be guilty of an offence if the undertaker could not reasonably be expected to prevent the discharge into the sewer or works, if a discharge into the sewer is caused by another person and if the undertaker was not bound to receive it, or if it was, the conditions of the discharge were not observed.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many recorded incidents there have been in each year since 1997 of water companies diverting sewage into rivers under section 89 of the Water Resources Act 1991; what the location was; and what the volume of sewage released was in each case; [139188]
  907W
  (2) if she will list the incidents under investigation by the Environment Agency relating to cases where water companies have diverted sewage into rivers; what the location was; which water company was involved; and what volume was released in each case; [139189]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the total cost in each of the last five years of cleaning up rivers as a result of incidents where water companies have diverted sewage into rivers. [139190]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sugar Costs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from food manufacturers about the process of applying for reimbursment of sugar costs from the Rural Payments Agency. [139132]

  Alun Michael
  None. The Rural Payments Agency maintains on-going dialogue with industry representatives through its Industry Forum and Experts Group. There is also frequent contact with individual companies in connection with the payment of claims. The RPA tells me that it is not aware of any particular representations having been made by the sector in question.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the local authorities which have not responded to the letter from the Environment Minister on timber procurement of 19 September 2002. [139176]

  Mr. Morley
  Written replies to the Environment Minister's letter dated 19 September 2002 about timber procurement, and the follow up letter dated 7 April 2003, have not been received from the following local authorities:Adur District Council, Allerdale District Council, Alnwick District Council, Ashfield District Council, Barking and Dagenham London Borough, Barnet London Borough, Barrow in Furness Borough Council, Bassetlaw District Council, Bedford Borough Council, Bexley London Borough, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council, Blyth Valley Borough Council, Bolsover District Council, Borough of Poole, Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Breckland District Council, Brent London Borough, Bridgnorth Distict Council, Bromsgrove District Council, Broxbourne Borough Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cannock Chase District Council, Caradon District Council, Carlisle City Council, Carrick District Council, Castle Morpeth Borough Council, Castle Point District Council, Cheltenham Borough Council, Cherwell District Council, Cheshire County Council, Chester City Council, Chorley Borough Council, Christchurch Borough Council, Corby Borough Council, Corporation of London, Craven District Council, Crawley Borough Council, Crewe & Nantwich Borough Council, Cumbria County Council, Dacorum Borough Council, Dartford Borough Council, Daventry District Council, Derbyshire Dales District Council, Derwentside District Council, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, Durham City Council, Ealing London Borough, Easington District Council, East Hampshire District Council. East Hertfordshire District Council, East Riding of Yorkshire Council, Eden District Council, Ellesmere
  908W
  Port and Neston Borough Council, Elmbridge Borough Council, Enfield London Borough, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council, Erewash Borough Council, Fenland District Council, Forest of Dean District Council, Fylde Borough Council, Gedling Borough Council, Gravesham Borough Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Hackney London Borough, Halton Borough Council, Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough, Harborough District Council, Haringey London Borough, Hartlepool Borough Council, Hastings Borough Council, Hertfordshire County Council, Hillingdon London Borough, Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, Hyndburn Borough Council, Isle of Wight Council, Isles of Scilly Council, Islington London Borough, Kennet District Council, Kettering Borough Council, King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, Kingston Upon Thames Royal Borough Council, Lambeth London Borough, Leeds City Council, Lewisham London Borough, Lichfield District Council, Lincoln City Council, Maidstone Borough Council, Mendip District Council, Merton London Borough, Mid Suffolk District Council, Mid Sussex District Council, Middlesbrough Borough Council, Milton Keynes Council, Newcastle City Council, North Dorset District Council, North Hertfordshire District Council, North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, North Warwickshire Borough Council, North West Leicestershire District Council, North Wiltshire District Council, Northamptonshire County Council, Nottingham City Council, Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, Oswestry District Council, Oxford City Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Pendle Borough Council, Penwith District Council, Peterborough City Council, Plymouth City Council, Preston District Council, Redditch Borough Council, Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, Restormel Borough Council, Richmond Upon Thames London Borough, Rochford District Council, Rother District Council, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, Runnymede Borough Council, Rushcliffe Borough Council, Rutland County Council, Ryedale District Council, Sevenoaks District Council, Shropshire County Council, Slough Borough Council, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, South Bedfordshire District Council, South Bucks District Council, South Cambridgeshire District Council, South Derbyshire District Council, South Holland District Council, South Kesteven District Council, South Shropshire District Council, South Tyneside Met. Borough Council, Southampton City Council, Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Southwark London Borough, St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council, Stafford Borough Council, Stevenage Borough Council, Stockton on Tees Borough Council, Stoke on Trent City Council, Sunderland City Metropolitan Borough Council, Surrey Heath Borough Council, Sutton London Borough, Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, Taunton Deane Borough Council, Teesdale District Council, Teignbridge District Council, Test Valley Borough Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council, Three Rivers District Council, Trafford Metro Borough Council, Tynedale District Council, Uttlesford District Council, Vale of White Horse District Council, Vale Royal Borough Council, Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council, Waltham Forest London Borough, Wansbeck District Council, Warrington Borough Council, Warwickshire County Council, Watford Borough Council, Waverley Borough Council, Wealden District Council, Welwyn Hatfield District Council, West Berkshire District Council, West Devon Borough Council, West Oxfordshire District Council, West Sussex County Council, West Wiltshire District Council, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council, Winchester City Council, Woking Borough Council, Worthing Borough Council, Wychavon District Council, Wyre Borough Council, York (City of) Council

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list, based on responses to the Environment Minister's letter on timber procurement from 19 September 2002, the local authorities which have timber procurement policies in place. [139177]
  909W
  Mr. Morley
  All the local authorities that responded to the Environment Minister's letters dated 19 September 2002 and 7 April 2003 described their various policies for purchasing timber. Some authorities were in the process of reviewing their policies and others reported plans to undertake reviews or were considering making such plans. The authorities that responded are listed as follows:Amber Valley Borough Council, Arun District Council, Ashford Borough Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council, Babergh District Council, Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, Basildon District Council, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council, Bedfordshire County Council, Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council, Birmingham Metropolitan City Council, Blaby District Council, Blackpool Borough Council, Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council, Boston Borough Council, Bournemouth Borough Council, Bradford City Council, Braintree District Council, Brentwood Borough Council, Brighton and Hove Council, Bristol City Council, Broadland District Council, Bromley London Borough, Broxtowe Borough Council, Buckinghamshire County Council, Burnley Borough Council, Bury Metropolitan Borough Council, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Cambridge City Council, Camden London Borough, Canterbury City Council, Charnwood Borough Council, Chelmsford Borough Council,
  Chesterfield Borough Council, Chester-le-Street District Council, Chichester District Council, Chiltern District Council, Colchester Borough Council, Congleton Borough Council, Copeland Borough Council, Cornwall County Council, Cotswold District Council, Coventry City Council, Croydon London Borough, Darlington Borough Council, Derby City Council, Derbyshire County Council, Devon County Council, Dorset County Council, Dover District Council, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, Durham County Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, East Devon District Council, East Dorset District Council, East Lindsey District Council, East Northamptonshire District Council, East Staffordshire Borough Council, East Sussex County Council, Eastbourne Borough Council, Eastleigh Borough Council, Epping Forest District Council, Essex County Council, Exeter City Council, Fareham Borough Council, Forest Heath District Council, Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council, Gloucester City Council. Gloucestershire County Council, Gosport Borough Council, Greenwich London Borough, Guildford Borough Council, Hambleton District Council, Hampshire County Council, Harlow District Council, Harrogate Borough Council, Harrow London Borough Council, Hart District Council, Havant Borough Council, Havering London Borough, Herefordshire Council, Hertsmere Borough Council, High Peak Borough Council, Horsham District Council, Hounslow London Borough, Huntingdon District Council, Ipswich Borough Council, Kensington and Chelsea Royal Borough, Kent County Council, Kerrier District Council, Kingston Upon Hull City Council, Kirklees Metropolitan Council, Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council, Lancashire County Council, Lancaster City Council, Leicester City Council, Leicestershire County Council, Lewes District Council, Lincolnshire County Council, Liverpool City Council, Luton Borough Council, Macclesfield Borough Council, Maldon District Council, Malvern Hills District Council, Manchester City Council, Mansfield District Council, Medway Towns Council, Melton Borough Council, Mid Bedfordshire District Council, Mid Devon District Council, Mole Valley District Council, New Forest District Council, Newark and Sherwood District Council, Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, Newham London Borough, Norfolk County Council, North Cornwall District Council, North Devon District Council, North East Derbyshire District Council, North East Lincolnshire Council, North Kesteven District Council, North Lincolnshire Council, North Norfolk District Council, North Shropshire District Council, North Somerset Council, North Yorkshire County Council, Northampton Borough Council, Northumberland County Council, Norwich City Council, Nottinghamshire County Council, Nuneaton and Bedworth
  910W
  Borough Council, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, Portsmouth City Council, Purbeck District Council, Reading Borough Council, Redbridge London Borough, Redcar and Cleveland Council, Ribble Valley Borough Council, Richmondshire District Council, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Rossendale Borough Council, Rugby Borough Council, Rushmoor Borough Council. Salford City Council, Salisbury District Council, Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council, Scarborough Borough Council, Sedgefield Borough District Council, Sedgemoor District Council, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council, Selby District Council, Sheffield City Council, Shepway District Council, Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, Somerset County Council, South Gloucestershire Council, South Hams District Council, South Lakeland District Council, South Norfolk District Council, South Northamptonshire Council, South Oxfordshire District Council, South Ribble District Council, South Somerset District Council, South Staffordshire District Council, Spelthorne Borough Council, St. Albans City and District Council, St. Edmundsbury Borough Council, Staffordshire County Council, Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, Stratford-on- Avon District Council, Stroud District Council, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Suffolk County Council, Surrey County Council, Swale Borough Council, Swindon Borough Council, Tamworth Borough Council, Tandridge District Council, Telford and Wrekin Council, Tendring District Council, Thanet District Council, Thurrock Borough Council, Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council, Torbay Council, Torridge District Council, Tower Hamlets London Borough, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, Wandsworth London Borough, Warwick District Council, Waveney District Council, Wear Valley District Council, Wellingborough Borough Council, West Dorset District Council, West Lancashire District Council, West Lindsey District Council, West Somerset District Council, Westminster City Council, Wiltshire County Council, Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council, Wirral Borough Metropolitan Council, Wokingham District Council, Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough, Worcester City Council, Worcestershire County Council, Wycombe District Council, Wyre Forest District Council,

  Transfrontier Shipment Notifications
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if a transfrontier shipment notification can be issued when a company does not have a licence to dispose of the shipment. [137925]

  Mr. Morley
  The notifier (the company submitting the transfrontier shipment notification) is required to submit the notification to the relevant competent authorities. The notifier is unlikely to be the company recovering, or disposing, of the wastes. However, the waste should be consigned to a suitably licensed facility.

  US Warships (Decommissioning)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has secured from the US authorities undertakings that the ships from the US Naval Reserve due to be stored at Hartlepool will(a) remain the responsibility of the US authorities and (b) be returned to the United States. [139206]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]: The legal responsibility of the ships will remain with the contractors: the US Marine Administration and Able UK. Able UK hold the Waste Management Licence for the site where the ships will be stored, pending a decision on their future.
  911W
  If dismantling cannot be completed consistent with international rules and Community Law, the law requires that the ships be returned to the US, unless the waste can be recovered in an alternative, environmentally sound manner.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what requirements the Environment Agency has put in place to prevent environmental damage arising from the storage at Hartlepool of ships from the US Naval Reserve. [139208]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]: On 12 November, the Environment Agency used its emergency powers under section 43(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to modify Able UK's existing waste management licence to include conditions which:

  Impose restrictions so that ships cannot be dismantled, decommissioned, cut or broken at the Able facility.

  Require the installation of floating booms across the dock entrance and around waste vessels that are berthed in the dock. The booms must be inspected daily, and should oil be identified within the boomed area, it must be removed within two hours.

  Require that no removal of bilge or ballast water from waste ships shall take place except in accordance with a method statement submitted to and approved in writing by the Agency.

  While waste ships are in the dock, sampling of the dock water and estuary water upstream and downstream of the dock must take place weekly. Results must be submitted to Agency within four weeks. In the event that any results exceed specified trigger levels, the Agency must be notified within 24 hours.

  In addition to these conditions imposed on Able UK, the Agency will carry out its own unannounced site inspections—initially at a weekly frequency. The Agency will carry out its own environmental monitoring, as well as auditing the monitoring carried out by Able UK.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on who will bear the cost of storage, including any inspection and basic safety measures necessary, of ships from the US Naval Reserve at Hartlepool. [139209]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]: It is the Waste Management Licence holder's responsibility to comply with the conditions of a Waste Management Licence at their expense. The modification to the conditions of Able UK's Waste Management Licence now requires them, in effect, not to undertake any dismantling of the ships or other works, save for pollution control measures.

  The Environment Agency will conduct such inspections as it considers necessary to ensure compliance with the conditions of the licence. The costs of these are recovered through subsistence charges.

  Any costs from the safety inspection would be borne by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what factors underlay her press statement of 7 November that immediate return of the ships sent for disposal to Able UK at Hartlepool would be impractical. [139211]
  912W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]: The immediate return of the ships is impractical primarily due to the prevailing weather conditions in the Atlantic over the winter. In the interests of safeguarding human health and the environment, it has been agreed that the ships should be stored temporarily at Hartlepool, pending a decision on their future.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her recent discussions with the US Transportation Secretary on the fleet of ships en route from the USA to Hartlepool. [139212]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department issued a statement on 15 November following discussions between US and UK authorities, the text of which is reproduced below."Following exploration of alternative options, the Government has agreed with the US authorities that the third and fourth US ships currently on their way to the UK, should continue their passage to Hartlepool, where they will be securely stored pending a decision on their future. As with the first two ships, the Environment Agency will place requirements on them to ensure the environment is fully protected and the ships remain ready for return to the United States.
  We explained last week that we were working closely with the United States authorities to examine the practicability of the return of the third and fourth ships to the United States. We have now reached a shared view that it would be imprudent for these ships to attempt a return crossing at this time of year; and that there is no other suitable storage site available. Hartlepool therefore best meets our objectives of safety and environmental protection.
  The US authorities accept that the four ships will have to return to the United States next Spring, unless environmentally suitable and legally acceptable methods for their disposal have by then been identified."

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reasons the Environment Agency's press statement of 6 October 2003 about the decommissioning of United States ships did not refer to the Agency's earlier advice that the ships should not sail from America. [137768]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's 6 October press release was issued in response to specific statements made by Friends of the Earth about its legal challenge to the Agency. It was also based on the Agency's understanding of the legal situation at that time.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been carried out of the(a) economic and (b) environmental impact of the arrival of the ships due to arrive from the United States for dismantling by Able UK. [138064]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows:
  913W
  on the licence, would cause likely significant effect on the SPA and Ramsar site, alone, or in combination with other plans or projects.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers Government Ministers have to prevent ships entering United Kingdom waters; and on what occasions they have used these powers. [138065]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Powers of intervention, including the power to direct a ship to leave UK waters, may only be exercised where a ship is already in UK waters. Such powers may be exercised only where it is considered necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of the ships or other ships; the safety of persons or property; or preventing or reducing significant pollution.

  Warm Front Scheme
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many grants made under the Warm Front scheme have been suspended this year to date; and if she will make a statement. [137085]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]: Warm Front is the Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector in England.

  No grants have been suspended under the Warm Front scheme. However a number of applications have been cancelled either by the applicant, or by the scheme managers in cases where proof of eligibility has not been provided.

  Waste Incineration
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research is being undertaken into the health effects of energy-from-waste incinerators. [138820]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government has commissioned a review of the environmental and health effects of waste management options including incineration. This appraisal is currently being peer reviewed by the Royal Society and is due to be published around the time of the Pre-Budget report 2003.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the distribution of proposed waste incineration. [138823]

  Mr. Morley
  At present just over 12 per cent. of England's municipal waste is recycled or composted, about 9 per cent. of municipal waste is incinerated and the rest is landfilled.

  There are 16 Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators in the whole of the UK (14 in England and Wales, two in Scotland) with a total capacity of about 2.7 million tonnes of municipal solid waste per year. There are many hundreds of other incinerators for sewage sludge, hazardous waste, clinical waste, production waste from factories etc.
  914W
  The Government has no plans for constructing any particular number of incinerators: the choice of waste treatment facilities is a matter for local authorities to take into consideration with the communities they serve; along with other factors such as their recycling targets and national waste policy.

  Waste Performance Reward Grant
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the practice in other EU countries in relation to excluding rubble and incineration bottom ash from recycling totals. [139455]

  Mr. Morley
  No detailed assessments have been made of the practice in other EU countries. In the UK and England, any wastes that are recycled are included in the relevant statistics for recycling.

  However, for the purposes of local authority Best Value Performance Standards in England, rubble and incineration bottom ash, among some other wastes, are excluded from the recycling figures. They are not included in the Standards because the Government want to encourage the recycling and composting of dry recyclables and compostable materials separated from mixed household wastes.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to receive the report of the review into the health and environmental effects of waste disposal. [139458]

  Mr. Morley
  The report on the review of the environmental and health effects of waste management options is due to be published around the time of the pre-budget report.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what capacity there is in the United Kingdom for the(a) treatment, (b) recovery and (c) recycling of (i) end of life vehicles and (ii) electrical and electronic equipment. [139460]

  Mr. Morley
  A recent study, undertaken by the Industry Council for Electronics Recycling (ICER), estimated the UK's current capacity to treat waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) to be between 130 and 180 facilities UK wide. At present, there are between 70 and 120 specialist treatment facilities that only treat and process electrical waste, mainly IT waste. There are also 19 fridge recyclers in the UK, and ICER suggest that these facilities may turn to treatment of other WEEE in the future. In addition to the specialist treatment facilities, there are around 40 plants UK wide that shred and granulate WEEE in preparation for recycling, and these types of plants treat most types of WEEE, alongside other waste streams, like end-of-life vehicles (ELVs).

  Similarly, it is estimated that there are presently around 950 businesses with waste management licences, and a further 1,750 registered exempt businesses, treating end-of-life vehicles. A recent study, carried out for the Department by TRL Ltd., calculated that approximately 77 per cent. of the weight of ELVs scrapped in 2000 was reused, recovered and recycled.
  915W
  However, it is not clear what the UK capacity will be for recycling WEEE, although we do know that much of the recycling industry has already taken the opportunity to recycle electronic and vehicle scrap now entering the waste stream.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures she has introduced on waste minimisation. [139461]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have committed over £40 million over the next three years (2003–06) to the Waste and Resources Action Programme's (WRAP) waste minimisation work. Its work tackles waste minimisation through four schemes:an expansion of home composting;
  promotion of re-usable nappies;
  a research and development programme, aimed at identifying and developing innovative approaches to waste minimisation; and
  work with major retailers to reduce the amount of waste entering the waste stream from supermarkets.

  In addition, WRAP will take forward an education and awareness programme. This will operate at both a national and local level to raise the public's awareness about waste issues, including waste minimisation.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the amount of commercial and industrial waste diverted to local authority managed civic amenity sites in the last year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [139462]

  Mr. Morley
  Section 51(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on waste disposal authorities to provide reasonably accessible places (civic amenity sites) for persons resident in their area to deposit their household waste. Section 51(3) of the 1990 Act enables waste disposal authorities to include in those sites arrangements for the deposit of other controlled waste (commercial and industrial waste) by other persons on such terms as to payment (if any) as the waste disposal authority determines.

  Defra does not hold information on the amount of commercial and industrial waste diverted to local authority managed civic amenity sites.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many local authority projects for waste minimisation are funded from the Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund. [139463]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2003–04, the National Waste Minimisation Fund received 34 funding bids for waste minimisation, including education. Of these, 11 received just over a total of £2 million.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Waste Performance Reward Grant. [139464]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government announced on 12 August 2003 that they would consult interested parties on the design of the waste performance reward grant in the autumn. Preparations for launching the consultation are well-advanced.

  Website
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the use of computer games on her departmental website. [139296]

  Alun Michael
  Our aim is that our website should include material that is suitable for its intended audience. On occasion, we have developed website content, typically aimed at a schools audience, that uses quizzes and similar content to stimulate users of the site as part of their learning process.

  Yoghurt Classification
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice has been given to yoghurt manufacturers to help them comply with EU Directives on yoghurt classification. [139045]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that there is no specific European Union legislation on the composition and labelling of yoghurt. However, the European Commission is considering the need for such legislation and the form it might take. The FSA is currently consulting interested parties on a draft document prepared by the Commission.

SCOTLAND

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997 by the Scottish Office, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [137731]

  Mrs. McGuire
  No consultancy or other work was carried out by Bechtel for the Scottish Office between 1997 and 30 June 1999. Responsibility for contracts after that date is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to his Department and its predecessor in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [138066]

  Mrs. McGuire
  No consultancy or other work was carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to the former Scottish Office between 1997 and 30 June 1999; or for agencies responsible to the Scotland Office since 1 July 1999.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil service jobs there were in
  917W
  Scotland in each year from 1974 to 1999, broken down by (a) local authority area, (b) Department and (c) agency. [135271]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Information on civil service numbers is contained in the Cabinet Office publications 'Civil Service Statistics', back copies of which are available from the Library of the House. Electronic copies from 1995 onwards can also be accessed from the web: www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/css.htm. Specific details relating to location of jobs by local authority area is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Performance Monitoring
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [137953]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has no public service agreements. Details of other performance targets are set out in Departmental Reports. 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. The monitoring of progress towards, and performance against, targets is undertaken by a variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the performance targets that(a) his Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet; and if he will specify for each target (i) who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievement against it. [137968]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has no public service agreements. Details of other performance targets are set in Departmental Reports. Monitoring progress toward departmental targets is undertaken by a variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

  Website
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent assessment he has made of the(a) content and (b) design of his Department's website. [139503]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office website is kept under regular review and content is added when required. It is currently being redesigned.

  TRANSPORT Licensed Cabs
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to remove local authority powers to restrict the number of licensed cabs in a local authority area; and if he will make a statement. [138956]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are currently considering the taxi and private hire vehicle market study report published on 11 November by the Office of Fair Trading which recommended that local authorities' power to control 918W
  taxi numbers (outside London) should be abolished. We are now consulting principal stakeholders and are committed to responding to the recommendations within 120 days of the report's publication.

  Traffic Control
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who has statutory authority to direct traffic on a public highway; and if he will make a statement. [139944]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The police have the prime statutory authority for directing traffic on public highways. Traffic wardens, as part of the Police Service, are empowered to direct traffic in certain circumstances. A limited number of authorised persons, including school crossing patrols, have power to stop vehicles for particular purposes. Vehicle and Operator Services Agency examiners, accredited under the Police Reform Act 2002, have powers to stop vehicles for the purpose of inspecting their roadworthiness.

  Air Transport White Paper
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the new Air Transport White Paper. [139356]

  Mr. McNulty
  The White Paper will be published before the end of the year.

  Silent Aeroplanes
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide funds to Cambridge University for research into silent aeroplanes. [140078]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI) launched its project to design a 'silent' aircraft on 10 November 2003. The project, centred around collaborative research teams at Cambridge University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has been established using Government funding.

  Ballast UK
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contracts Ballast UK has for the renewal of the rail network; and what the value is in each case. [132925]

  Mr. McNulty
  Decisions on letting contracts for work on the rail infrastructure are an operational matter for Network Rail. Network Rail advises that it has no contracts with Ballast UK.

  British Transport Police
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of violence on underground trains have been reported to British Transport Police in the last six years for which figures are available. [139381]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 18 November 2003]: The British Transport Police have provided the following information regarding criminal offences on London Underground trains that have been reported to the force.
  919W

  Offence category

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  April-October 2003

  Violence against the person

  261

  409

  337

  341

  405

  278

  Sexual offences

  183

  287

  279

  234

  208

  133

  Robbery

  224

  379

  376

  497

  259

  143

  Total

  668

  1,075

  992

  1,072

  872

  554

  Buses
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of bus lanes there are in England. [137683]

  Mr. McNulty
  Allocation of road space is a matter for local highway authorities. The Department does not maintain a central register of the length of bus lanes.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on re-regulation of buses. [139749]

  Mr. McNulty
  The current statutory framework for buses is set out in the Transport Act 2000. As with all other legislation, we keep the situation under review. Ministers have discussed these matters with a number of groups and individuals representing both local authorities and bus operators.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132100]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department has no call centre plans which specify a location outside the United Kingdom.

  Central Railway Project
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason he is unable to make an immediate decision on the Central Railway project. [138772]

  Mr. McNulty
  A decision cannot be made until all aspects of Central Railway's proposal have been fully examined.

  Climate Change
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has conducted on the effect of climate change on railway infrastructure; what assessment he has made of the likely impact of future climate change upon the transport sector; and if he will place in the Library copies of reports published from research funded by his Department on the effects of climate change on(a) railways, (b) roads, (c) aviation and (d) other transport. [139761]

  Mr. McNulty
  An assessment into the impact of climate change on transport policies was undertaken by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions in 2001 and is now available from the Defra website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/ climatechange/impacts/01.htm.
  920W
  The Rail Safety and Standards Board published their own research, entitled 'Safety Implications of Weather, Climate and Climate Change', in April 2003. This is available from their website, www.railwaysafety.org.uk.

  The Highways Agency completed a report entitled 'Climate change and the Highways Agency' in January 2001. The report covered both the influence the Agency had on climate change as well as the implications of climate change on the Agency's operations. A copy of all three reports will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Computer Games
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what contracts his Department has awarded to external computer game companies, broken down by(a) the company to which the contract was awarded and (b) the date and total cost of the contract; what the purpose of each contract was; and what has been delivered to date on each contract; [139587]

  (2) if he will list the computer games on (a) his Department's website and (b) other websites supported financially by his Department; what the cost to date was of (i) producing and (ii) promoting these; what each game seeks to achieve; and what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of each in meeting its aims. [139588]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our THINK! Road Safety web site—www.hedgehogs.gov.uk—which is designed to engage children has a games area:

  The contract for the games area was awarded to Draught Associates on 13 February 2001 and cost £13,125 ex vat. The purpose was to design and develop a series of interactive games as a fun and relevant vehicle for communicating important road safety messages to 7–11 year olds. The contract has finished and five interactive games were delivered. This included versions of the games for under 7s, and for 8–11s. The contract cost covered design, production, testing and research.

  The site and games were launched as part of the 'Be Safe Be Seen campaign' in October 2001 and the URL has been on advertisements, T-shirts, stickers, etc we have aimed at children since then. We do not incur expenditure promoting the games specifically as Be Safe, Be Seen is itself our promotional message.

  For the under 7s there are three games:
  'Double Up' is a simple matching pairs game where children must find a total of 18 pairs of road safety icons e.g: crash helmet, zebra crossing, lollipop lady, etc.
  'Simon' is a game where children have to remember a sequence of coloured cars as they drive past. It becomes increasingly difficult and there is a road safety message after each sequence
  'Look Out' is a game where children must scroll through a street scene and, when prompted, identify children being careless in various scenarios eg:
  playing with a ball near the road, cycling without a helmet, etc.

  921W
  For the 8–11 years old there are five games:
  Double Up' is similar as for the under 7s except it uses more advanced icons eg: road signs etc.
  Zebras'—in this game players navigate a zebra through a series of crossings. They must use crossings where the man is green to score points 'Simon' is similar to the under 7s game of the same name except the player follows a cyclist and identifies his arm signals.
  Walkies' is a similar concept to the game where you have to feed a metal loop along a wire without touching the two together. The player has to walk their pet dog along a road and use designated crossings etc to score points.
  Look out' is similar to the under 7s game of the same name but uses scenarios which are more relevant to older children.

  Qualitative research was carried out with groups from the target audience to test the games. The hedgehogs site is popular with children and has had 403,719 page impressions this year.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) received on alternative designs for the layout of aeroplane cabins to minimise the risk of deep vein thrombosis. [138979]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government has neither commissioned nor received any such studies. Following the House of Lords Report on air travel and health, the Government is co-funding research through the World Health Organisation into the incidence and possible causes of deep vein thrombosis amongst air travellers.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents of deep vein thrombosis in passengers on aeroplanes there were in each of the last 12 months. [139608]

  Mr. McNulty
  This data is not collated centrally. Such data would be difficult to obtain as any passenger developing thrombosis is usually likely to do so a number of days or weeks after the flight has taken place.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has issued to airline companies on informing passengers on(a) the risk of deep vein thrombosis and (b) drinking water during the flight to reduce the risk of DVT. [139694]

  Mr. McNulty
  In 2001 the Government issued advice on deep vein thrombosis and air travel. It identified groups of people with a higher risk of DVT and provided guidance on measures to reduce the risk, including a recommendation that passengers should drink plenty of water to avoid dehydration. All UK airlines operating long-haul flights have based the information they give to passengers on this advice.

  Website
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the content and design of his Department's website. [139371]

  Mr. McNulty
  The DfT web site, re-launched in July 2003, was developed to provide improved design, navigation and information retrieval. Following the launch of the site, we carried out an internal content review over the summer and commissioned a survey of 922W
  external users designed by NOP. Further changes to improve customer focus are planned as a result of these exercises.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints were received by(a) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, (b) his Department and (c) other bodies about the process by which licence applications are processed by the DVLA, broken down by the nature of each complaint, in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04 to date. [139728]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table provides information about formal complaints received directly by DVLA about the driving licence application process. Figures are not available on complaints received by other bodies.

  DVLA formal customer complaints

  Complaints category

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–041

  Driving licence applications

  Non-receipt of a driving licence

  57

  86

  52

  Other driving licence complaints

  367

  457

  278

  Drivers medical complaint

  129

  141

  214

  Documents lost at DVLA

  92

  120

  96

  processing time

  24

  32

  34

  Processing procedures

  189

  211

  156

  DVLA forms

  85

  96

  18

  Total

  943

  1,143

  848

  1 April to October

  Environmental Impact Assessments
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department has incorporated Directive 85/ 337/EEC on environmental impact assessment into its consideration of the future development of air transport in the UK. [138840]

  Mr. McNulty
  Directive 85/337/EEC makes it clear that environmental impact assessment is a matter for developers, as part of the procedure for seeking consent to any development. That said, we believe our strategic appraisal of airport options is consistent with the aims of the Directive.

  Environmentally Sustainable Aviation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce an environmentally sustainable aviation policy; and if he will make a statement. [138876]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Air Transport White Paper will be published before the end of the year and will address the issue of environmental sustainability in the context of aviation policy.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the EC-Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Joint Transport Committee met during the Danish and Greek presidencies. [132682]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is not centrally available.
  923W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the EU Advisory Committee on transport met during the Danish and Greek presidencies; and if he will make a statement. [132719]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is not centrally available.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the dates of meetings of(a) the EU Committee for the establishment of conditions for the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system, (b) the EU Committee on the System of Charging for the Use of Transport Infrastructure and (c) the EU Advisory Committee on unfair pricing in maritime transport during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; what representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if he will make a statement. [132723]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) During the period in question, there were four meetings of this Committee, on 3 July 2002, 30 September-1 October 2002, 4 February 2003, and 23–24 June 2003. The UK is represented on this Committee by the Strategic Rail Authority. The Committee is primarily responsible for assisting and overseeing the production, adoption and revision of Technical Standards of Interoperability. The purpose of these specifications is to technically harmonise the European railway supply market. The committee oversees the development of these TSIs for both the High Speed (96/48/EC) and the Conventional Interoperability (2001/16/EC) Directives. During the specified period, the Committee discussed principles for the drafting groups to adhere to in writing the TSIs and monitored the progress being made on the production of these TSIs. It also considered the cost-benefit analyses (including methodology) that accompany the TSIs and the co-ordination of notified bodies (organisations appointed in Europe to verify compliance with TSIs).

  (b) This Committee did not meet during the period in question.

  (c) UK involvement in this Committee is not the responsibility of the Department for Transport.

  Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information covering internal discussion and advice applies.

  Domestic freight transport by mode: Great Britain 1974–2002

  Goods moved (billion tonne kilometres)

  Goods moved (percentage share of total)

  Year

  Road

  Raill

  Water

  Pipeline

  All modes

  Road

  Rail

  Water

  Pipeline

  All modes

  1988

  130

  18

  59

  11

  219

  60

  8

  27

  5

  100

  1989

  138

  17

  58

  10

  223

  62

  8

  26

  4

  100

  1990

  136

  16

  56

  211

  219

  62

  7

  26

  5

  100

  1991

  130

  15

  58

  11

  214

  61

  7

  27

  5

  100

  1992

  127

  16

  55

  11

  208

  61

  7

  26

  5

  100

  1993

  135

  14

  51

  12

  211

  64

  7

  24

  5

  100

  1994

  144

  13

  52

  12

  221

  65

  6

  24

  5

  100

  1995

  150

  13

  53

  11

  227

  66

  6

  23

  5

  100

  1996

  154

  15

  55

  12

  236

  65

  6

  23

  5

  100

  1997

  157

  17

  48

  11

  233

  67

  7

  21

  5

  100

  1998

  160

  17

  57

  12

  245

  65

  7

  23

  5

  100

  1999

  157

  18

  59

  12

  246

  64

  7

  24

  5

  100

  2000

  158

  18

  67

  11

  255

  62

  7

  26

  4

  100

  2001

  157

  19

  59

  12

  247

  64

  8

  24

  5

  100

  2002

  157

  19

  67

  11

  254

  62

  7

  26

  4

  100

  924W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether(a) the EC-Bulgaria Joint Transport Committee, (b) the EEC-Slovenia Joint Transport Committee and (c) the EC-Romania Joint Transport Committee met during the Danish and Greek presidencies. [132728]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is not centrally available.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the dates and locations of meetings of(a) the EU Advisory Committee on the definition and use of compatible technical and operating standards and specifications for the procurement of air-traffic management equipment and systems, (b) the EU Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions in the shipping industry and (c) the EU Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions in air transport during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; what representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if he will make a statement. [132731]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) This Committee did not meet during the period in question.

  (b) and (c) UK involvement in these Committees is not the responsibility of the Department for Transport.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether(a) the EC-Czech Republic Joint Transport Committee, (b) the EC-Slovak Republic Joint Transport Committee, (c) the EC-Hungary Joint Transport Committee and (d) the EC-Poland Joint Transport Committee met during the Danish and Greek Presidencies; and if he will make a statement. [132761]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is not centrally available.

  Freight
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how much freight in(a) actual and (b) percentage terms was carried by (i) road, (ii) rail and (iii) water in each year from 1974 to date. [133111]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is as follows:
  925W

  Domestic freight transport by mode: Great Britain 1974–2002

  Goods moved (billion tonne kilometres)

  Goods moved (percentage share of total)

  Year

  Road

  Raill

  Water

  Pipeline

  All modes

  Road

  Rail

  Water

  Pipeline

  All modes

  1988

  130

  18

  59

  11

  219

  60

  8

  27

  5

  100

  1989

  138

  17

  58

  10

  223

  62

  8

  26

  4

  100

  1990

  136

  16

  56

  211

  219

  62

  7

  26

  5

  100

  1991

  130

  15

  58

  11

  214

  61

  7

  27

  5

  100

  1992

  127

  16

  55

  11

  208

  61

  7

  26

  5

  100

  1993

  135

  14

  51

  12

  211

  64

  7

  24

  5

  100

  1994

  144

  13

  52

  12

  221

  65

  6

  24

  5

  100

  1995

  150

  13

  53

  11

  227

  66

  6

  23

  5

  100

  1996

  154

  15

  55

  12

  236

  65

  6

  23

  5

  100

  1997

  157

  17

  48

  11

  233

  67

  7

  21

  5

  100

  1998

  160

  17

  57

  12

  245

  65

  7

  23

  5

  100

  1999

  157

  18

  59

  12

  246

  64

  7

  24

  5

  100

  2000

  158

  18

  67

  11

  255

  62

  7

  26

  4

  100

  2001

  157

  19

  59

  12

  247

  64

  8

  24

  5

  100

  2002

  157

  19

  67

  11

  254

  62

  7

  26

  4

  100

  Source:

  1 Road and water—DfT; Rail—Strategic Rail Authority; Pipeline—DTI

  From 1991 figures for rail are for financial years ie 1991/92 etc, and from 1998 are calculated on a new basis.

  2 The increase in 1990 is largely due to changes in coverage

  Heathrow Pollutants
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research he has commissioned on methods of maintaining levels of nitrogen dioxide around Heathrow Airport within EU limits;[138839]

  (2) whether a third runway at Heathrow Airport would remain an acceptable option in the forthcoming Aviation White Paper in the event that relevant pollutants could not be contained within EU limits; [138841]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the action plan to minimise emissions from Heathrow Airport which BAA plc was required to produce as a condition of the planning permission for the fifth terminal. [138842]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government has reviewed a wide range of evidence, including information contained within the BAA pic Air Quality Strategy and Action Plan, in considering the future development of Heathrow. The Government remains of the view that a new runway at Heathrow could not be considered unless it could be confident that levels of all relevant pollutants could be consistently contained within EU limits. Final decisions will be announced in the forthcoming air transport White Paper.

  Missile Incidents
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidents since 1997 have been caused by missiles thrown from bridges over(a) motorways and (b) trunk roads. [138882]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Police and Highways Agency procedures for recording details of incidents on motorways and trunk roads do not support identifying those caused by missiles being thrown from bridges.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures the Government is taking to reduce the number of incidents caused by missiles thrown from bridges over motorways and trunk roads. [138883]
  926W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Agency is tackling the problem of missiles thrown from bridges and trunk roads in several different ways.

  These include education initiatives, visits to schools by Police and local Road Safety officers, to make younger children more aware of the consequences of this type of activity. The Agency is also looking to support the Police in implementing additional enforcement measures, including increased CCTV coverage and warning notices on the approaches to problem sites. The Agency has also incorporated guidance on measures to prevent missile throwing within the latest version of its standard for the design of footbridges.

  NM Rothschild and Sons Ltd
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on services provided to his Department by NM Rothschilds since 1997. [139967]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department was formed in May 2002. No services have been provided to the Department by NM Rothschilds.

  Rail Industry
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to take back into full public ownership(a) rail operations, (b) full responsibility for track renewal and (c) London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [137898]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government aims to deliver a safer, more reliable and efficient rail system.

  What is essential is for the public and private sector working together to focus on delivering improvements. Major structural change can be disruptive and would detract effort from making improvements to the day to day management of the network.

  Network Rail have said they will continue to use contractors to carry out renewals, upgrading lines or installing a new signalling system—areas where there is

  927W
  a competitive supply market. This work is typically carried out on a project basis, making use of a specialist workforce and is well-suited to competitive tendering.
  Responsibility for London Underground (LUL) transferred from central Government to Transport for London, an agency of the London Mayor on 15 July 2003. It is now for London Underground, working with the infrastructure companies, to ensure the stable long-term funding that Government is providing is used to bring the Tube up to modern standards.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessments his Department has made of the potential of high-speed rail as an alternative to short-haul flights. [139354]

  Mr. McNulty
  Scope for the railways to provide an alternative to short-haul air services was among the many issues on which we invited views in our consultation on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom.

  We will set out our conclusions in the air transport White Paper, which we expect to publish next month.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place a list of the stations which have secure station accreditation in the Library. [139743]

  Mr. McNulty
  The list of the 163 stations currently accredited under the Secure Stations Scheme has been placed in the House Library today. Seventy three of these stations have been reaccredited.

  Approximately two thirds of all overground rail journeys, and approximately one half of all London Underground journeys now involve passengers starting or finishing their journey at a Secure Station.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new train carriages will be ready for use by December but cannot be used due to insufficient power supply. [133039]

  Mr. McNulty
  Over 2,000 new carriages are being introduced to replace all the slam-door trains—most of which are over 30 years old—across the three south-of-the-Thames franchises. Railtrack failed to plan for the associated upgrade of the power supply. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) now has a grip on the project and expects to complete it early in 2005. Meanwhile, many of the new carriages are already in service and none is in store because of power shortages. As deliveries continue, around a 100 out of over 2,000 new carriages may be stored by December, but the SRA is leading work on ways in which they might be introduced into service using existing power supplies.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made towards reducing the train journey time between London and Manchester; and if he will make a statement. [134556]

  Mr. McNulty
  Work is currently underway to modernise the West Coast Main Line which will substantially reduce the current journey time of two hours 41 minutes. The Strategic Rail Authority's West Coast Main Line Strategy, published in June 2003, projects a reduction in minimum journey times between London and Manchester of around 40 minutes by 2007.

  Reflective Clothing
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment has been made of the effect of wearing reflective clothing on the number of(a) child and (b) road casualties; [139589]

  (2) what support has been given to the Cats Eyes for Kids road safety campaign; and what assessment there has been of its impact on (a) the number of casualties and (b) promoting better individual behaviour related to road safety. [139590]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Nationwide's Cats' Eyes for Kids campaign promotes reflective clothing, and provides reflectors for children to wear. It is not possible to quantify exactly how much the wearing of such materials impacts on casualties. But together with other good practice, it undoubtedly makes our children more visible when walking in the dark and thus safer on the roads. The Nationwide initiative is an excellent example of how the private sector can help us to meet national casualty reduction targets.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths of and (b) injuries to (i) vehicle drivers, (ii) vehicle passengers and (iii) pedestrians occurred as a result of road accidents involving (A) converted-van or multi-purpose vehicle taxis and (B) purpose-built taxis in (1) the United Kingdom and (2) London in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [137682]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to the number of deaths and injuries to (i) vehicle drivers/ riders, (ii) vehicle passengers and (iii) pedestrians as a result of road accidents involving taxis (hackney carriages) in (1) Great Britain and (2) Greater London in each of the last five years. This information is shown in the following table. Information is not available on accidents involving converted van or multi-purpose vehicle taxis. Information for Northern Ireland is collected on a different basis and does not identify pedestrian injuries resulting from accidents involving taxis.

  All casualties from accidents involving taxis12 GB, Greater London: 1998–2002

  Casualties

  Severity

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Great Britain

  Drivers/riders

  Killed

  2

  3

  6

  4

  0

  Injured

  1,388

  1,314

  1,297

  1,297

  1,210

  Passengers

  Killed

  1

  3

  6

  4

  4

  Injured

  1,120

  995

  1,111

  961

  863

  Pedestrians

  Killed

  7

  6

  7

  4

  3

  Injured

  414

  377

  395

  404

  376

  Greater London

  Drivers/riders

  Killed

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  Injured

  576

  573

  531

  515

  476

  929W

  All causualties from accidents involving taxis12GB, Greater London: 1998–2002

  Casualties

  Severity

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Passengers

  Killed

  1

  1

  2

  0

  3

  Injured

  320

  269

  270

  277

  219

  Pedestrians

  Killed

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Injuews

  168

  174

  161

  188

  142

  1Body type taxi—definition used in the DVLS, DVLI administrative records.

  2 Includes casualties other than taxi occupants.

  Road Traffic Control
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on permitting civilians to direct vehicles on public highways; and if he will make a statement. [139945]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are limited circumstances in which civilians can direct vehicles on public highways. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today (ref. 139944). In developing its role as a network operator, as announced by the Secretary of State for Transport in his statement to the House on 20 June 2003, the need was identified for civilian traffic officers working on the trunk road network, around the clock to keep traffic flowing. This followed a review undertaken by the Agency, in partnership with the Association of Chief Police Officers, of both organisations roles and responsibilities for traffic management. This concluded that responsibility for a number of tasks associated with traffic management should transfer from the police to the Highways Agency. In order to develop its role the Highways Agency needs new, limited, traffic management powers and is preparing the necessary legislation.

  The Highways Agency continues to work in partnership with the police and has held discussions with representatives of primary stakeholders, including constabularies, road contractors, County Surveyors Society, AA and RAC.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the SPECS electronic signs on the M4 between junction 4 and junction 15 contain cameras which(a) read vehicle number plates, (b) compute vehicle speeds and (c) are used to issue speeding tickets; and if he will make a statement. [139948]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no camera equipment located on the M4 between junctions 4 and 15 that is capable of(a) reading vehicle number plates, (b) computing vehicle speeds in order to (c) issue speeding tickets.

  Sleeping Drivers
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents caused by drivers falling asleep while driving there were in each year since 1997. [138938]
  930W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not available. Research has estimated that tiredness is a principle factor in around 10 per cent. of car driver accidents and about 15–20 per cent. of all accidents on motorways and other similar roads.

  Speed Partnerships
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the future of speed partnerships. [138948]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At present 42 partnership areas are participating in the scheme. We plan to continue with the national roll out of this successful programme.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines there are for setting speed areas for speed partnerships. [138949]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Guidelines for the setting of speed limits are contained in Circular Roads 1/93.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of fine proceeds from mobile partnership speed vans was given to public authorities in the Avon and Somerset area in 2002–03. [139036]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Fines from speeding offences detected by mobile units are not separated for the purpose of Home Office statistics.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he has published on partnership speed camera vans in the Somerset and Avon area. [139038]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Vehicles associated with mobile camera units need to be in a livery that makes clear the vehicles contain the speed enforcement cameras.

  Transport Security
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps he is taking to minimise the security risk from terrorists using haulage vehicles to attack targets; [138357]

  (2) what security checks are carried out on (a) individuals and (b) organisations seeking permits to transport hazardous materials. [138363]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The UK's existing transport security regimes are kept under review to ensure they continue to manage the assessed risk, although for obvious reasons it is not appropriate to set out the detail of the particular security measures.

  Transport Staff
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed by(a) the Office of the Rail Regulator, (b) the Strategic Rail Authority, (c) Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, (d) sections relating to railway matters within the Health and Safety Executive and Health and Safety Commission and (e) the (i) Rail Delivery Directorate and (ii) Railways Restructuring Directorates, or their equivalent, within his Department in each year since 1997. [139727]
  931W
  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 3 February 2003,Official Report, column 46W. As at 1 April 2003, 83 staff were employed in my Department's Rail Directorate.

  Trunk Roads
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what weight restrictions are in place on trunk roads; [139078]

  (2) which trunk roads have weight restrictions placed on them. [139079]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Acting Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Stephen Hickey, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Stephen Hickey to Mrs. Jackie Lawrence, dated 19 November 2003:

  I have been asked by David Jamieson to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about weight restrictions on trunk roads.

  The trunk road network in England, which is the responsibility of the Highways Agency, has very few permanent and temporary weight restrictions below the 40 tonne requirement in place, following a programme of strengthening work that has been carried out in recent years. The locations where restrictions are currently in place are listed in Table 1.

  Weight restrictions below 40 tonnes

  Trunk road/structure

  Weight limit(tones)

  Temporary/permanent

  A282 Dartford Crossing (offside lane of east tunnel)

  3

  Permanent

  A282Dartford Crossing (offside lane of west tunnel)

  7.5

  Permanent

  M5 Junctions 27–28

  7.5

  Temporary

  M4 Junctions 16–18

  7.5

  Temporary

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the expected(a) cost and (b) completion date were of the renewal of the west coast main line when the contract was let; and what his latest estimates of (a) and (b) are. [137939]

  Mr. McNulty
  The West Coast Route Modernisation project was originally developed by Railtrack in the late 1990s, which claimed that it would be completed by 2005 at a cost of around £2.2 billion. A number of contracts were let with project managers and suppliers for its delivery. However, under Railtrack's management the projected costs eventually escalated to over £13 billion, and it became clear the committed outputs were undeliverable. The Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail have now established a robust framework for delivering the project, based on the SRA's June 2003 'West Coast Main Line Strategy', which indicated that the costs would be kept within a cap of £9.9 billion. Further work is under way to explore the scope for reducing the costs further. The outputs are currently on course to be delivered by 2007–08.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the West Coast Main Line connection between Crewe and Liverpool Lime Street will be fully modernised by 2005. [139285]
  932W
  Mr. McNulty
  The West Coast Main line Strategy, published by the SRA in June 2003, shows that the upgrading of the line between Crewe—Weaver Junction and Liverpool for higher maximum line speeds is projected to be completed by 2005.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average speed of trains on the West Coast Main Line between Crewe and Liverpool Lime Street will be after the line has been fully modernised. [139286]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under current timetable proposals for fastest Crewe-Liverpool journey times of some 34 minutes by the end of 2004, average journey speed would be around 60mph, depending on the number of intermediate stops. Timetabling proposals for later years are not yet developed.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect the estimated increase in the costs of modernising will have on the Government's plans for the West Coast Main Line. [139287]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority's 'West Coast Main Line Strategy', published in June 2003, established a robust framework for delivering the project. The Strategy indicated a project cost within a cap of £9.9 billion. Further work is under way to explore the scope for reducing costs. The project outputs are currently on course to be delivered fully by 2007–08.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated train journey time is for services between London and Liverpool using the West Coast Main Line after 2005. [139288]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority's 'West Coast Main Line Strategy', published in June 2003, gave an indicative best journey time of 2 hours 12 minutes in 2005 for London to Liverpool services.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) whether the whole of the West Coast Main Line will be fully modernised by 2008; [139289]

  (2) what the estimated journey time is for trains using the West Coast Main Line between London and Glasgow after 2008. [139290]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority's "West Coast Main Line Strategy", published in June 2003, envisages that the modernisation of the line will be complete by 2008 when the fastest journey time from London to Glasgow is projected to fall to some four hours 18 minutes.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Official Residences
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Leader of the House how much was spent on(a) maintenance, (b) renovation, (c) council tax and (d) running costs of residential properties used by Ministers and officials in his Department in each year since 1997. [134695]

  Mr. Hain
  No expenditure of this sort has been incurred in respect of officials. Nor has such expenditure, in respect of Ministers, been incurred since
  933W
  spring this year. The remaining information sought is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will list for each Bill with over 150 clauses considered in this session of Parliament, how much debate each clause received at(a) Committee Stage and (b) Report Stage. [138907]

  Mr. Hain
  Five Bills considered in this session of Parliament have over 150 clauses. How much time was spent debating each clause of these Bills is a matter of public record, obtainable from Hansard, but could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  September Sittings
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Leader of the House pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, columns 773W, on September sittings, whether he has tabulated the representations for and against the September sitting of the House. [139384]

  Mr. Hain
  No.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Leader of the House pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, columns 773–4W, on sitting hours, whether he has tabulated the representations for and against the present sitting hours of the House. [139383]

  Mr. Hain
  No.

PRIME MINISTER

  Gaia House
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Gaia house near Totnes. [139332]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise the issue of the(a) legality and (b) impartiality of the proposed military tribunals for the Guantanamo Bay detainees with President Bush when he visits the UK next week. [139471]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right, hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness (Mr. Kennedy) at Prime Minister's Questions today.

  Iraq
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of the sources of information used in the compilation of Government publications referring to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been interviewed since May of this year to verify the information they provided. [139602]
  934W
  The Prime Minister
  Many of the sources of information used in the compilation of the Government's publications were intelligence sources. It has been the practice of successive Government not to comment on intelligence matters.

  Kyoto/ICC
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise with the US President the decision to secede from(a) the Kyoto agreement and (b) the International Criminal Court. [139903]

  The Prime Minister
  I expect to cover a range of issues of common interest with President Bush. My regular discussions with him include international issues and climate change.

  Mark Henderson
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken towards securing the release of Mr. Mark Henderson, kidnapped by ELN, the national liberation army in Colombia, on 12 September 2003. [139873]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have been in regular touch with the Colombian Government about the kidnapping of Mark Henderson. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in conjunction with police experts in London and the British Embassy in Bogota, has been actively involved in this case from the outset.

  We are liasing with the Colombian authorities at the highest level and with the Catholic Church in Colombia which is leading the negotiations with the ELN, also known as the National Liberation Army. We are supporting their efforts to obtain the release of Mark Henderson and the other hostages, emphasizing that the safety of the hostages is of paramount importance. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in regular contact with the Henderson family.

  Ministerial Visits
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his Oral Answer to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire of 12 November 2003,Official Report, column. 284, what action he has taken to pass on the hon. Member's request to the Deputy Prime Minister to visit south Bedfordshire. [140071]

  The Prime Minister
  The Deputy Prime Minister has been made aware of the hon. Member's comments.

  Performance Monitoring
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [137950]

  The Prime Minister
  Performance targets for my Office form part of the Cabinet Office performance targets and were agreed as part of Spending Review 2002. The monitoring and measurement of Public Service Agreement targets forms part of performance management throughout the Office. Performance management is an integral part of the day to day
  935W
  running of my Office, and as such it is not possible to separate the specific costs out. The monitoring of progress towards, and performance against, the Public Service Agreement targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the performance targets that(a) his Office is required to meet; and if he will specify for each target (i) who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievement against it. [137966]

  The Prime Minister
  Key performance targets for my Office form part of the Cabinet Office performance targets and are agreed as part of the Spending Review and the latest set were published in Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003–06 (Cm 5571). We monitor progress towards the target along with HM Treasury and progress is reported regularly.

  State Visit (Protests)
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that peaceful protest against the visit of the President of the United States is facilitated. [139902]

  The Prime Minister
  The Metropolitan Police will facilitate peaceful protest during the visit of the President of the United States.

  Work-related Stress
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Prime Minister how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his office 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 he will make a statement. [136840]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) gave to him today.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC Governor Elections
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will put mechanisms in place for the election of a number of BBC governors by viewers and listeners. [139239]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Queen currently appoints the BBC Governors, on recommendation of the Prime Minister following advice from the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport. Candidates are identified through an open and transparent process that is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  There are no current plans to change the appointments mechanism, although the Commissioner regularly reviews her Code. However, the forthcoming review of the BBC's Royal Charter will provide an opportunity to examine all aspects of the Corporation's role and function, including the appointment of Governors.

  Childhood Obesity
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with sports and leisure representatives on the role of her Department in tackling obesity among children; and if she will make a statement. [139449]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has a key role to play in addressing child obesity. The cross-Departmental Activity Coordination Team, which is co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, is currently preparing a national physical activity strategy. The Team is consulting widely across the sports, leisure and fitness sectors. Representatives from these sectors will be attending a stakeholders' meeting facilitated by ACT and Sport England on 19 November. Measures for addressing obesity among children will be discussed at that meeting.

  Film Locations
  Dr0. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action her Department is taking to promote sites in(a) the North East and (b) England as film locations. [139398]

  Estelle Morris
  The UK Film Council, the Government's strategic adviser for film, has established a network of nine Regional Screen Agencies (receiving £7.5 million per year), to help create a sustainable film and moving image industry throughout England and to work together to promote England as a film location. Each Regional Screen Agency provides a locations service, to promote locations and offer practical assistance for television companies and filmmakers wishing to work in their region.

  Northern Film and Media (NFM) is the regional screen agency for the North East. NFM encourages both inward investment and indigenous production and promotes the use of locations, crews and facilities in the North East.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice has been given to local authorities on the administration of the new licensing laws for premises selling alcohol. [139059]

  Estelle Morris
  The Licensing Act 2003 provides that the Secretary of State must issue guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under the Act and she expects to present this to both Houses for approval shortly. In the meantime the Department is working with the Local Government Association and the Local Authorities Coordinating Office on Regulatory Services in advising licensing authorities on their forthcoming functions under the Act.

  Lottery Funds (Orkney and Shetland)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value was of applications for Lottery money made by groups in(a) Orkney and (b) Shetland in each of the past five years for which figures are available. [139489]
  937W
  Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total value was of Lottery grants made to groups from(a) Orkney and (b) Shetland in each of the past five years for which figures are available. [139490]

  Estelle Morris
  The total value of Lottery awards made to the constituency of Orkney and Shetland in the past five years has been:

  Calendar Year

  £

  1998

  1,690,757

  1999

  1,647,985

  2000

  1,346,536

  2001

  1,898,912

  2002

  8,247,946

  January 2003 to date

  2,989,411

  We are not able to disaggregate the Lottery funding that has gone to the islands individually without disproportionate cost.

  This information is derived from the Department's Awards Database and is based on information supplied by the distributing bodies.

  Olympic Games
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the Olympic facilities in London announced in November will be permanently available for sports use. [139754]

  Tessa Jowell
  In line with guidance from the International Olympic Committee (IOC), London 2012 Ltd are working with Sport England and local government to ensure that the sporting legacy of the Olympics will be sustainable. This work is ongoing and an initial assessment will be sent to the IOC on 15 January as a part of the candidature acceptance procedure.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps will be taken to improve hotel and tourist facilities outside London in the event of a successful Olympic bid for 2012. [135844]

  Tessa Jowell
  For tourism, as with other sectors, it is important to realise the full range of opportunities that hosting the Olympics would offer and ensure that the whole country is in a position to capture these benefits fully if the Bid is successful. We have already briefed the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) on the Bid and the opportunities the Games would create and Visit Britain is looking further at the potential tourism benefits with the tourism industry. London 2012 will also be taking forward further work on the regional benefits in discussion with the RDAs.

  Tourism Revenue
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the tourist revenue generated in 2002 from visits 938W
  to (a) the Palace of Westminster, (b) Buckingham Palace, (c) the London Eye and (d) the Tower of London; and if she will set out the methodology she uses to calculate such figures. [137680]

  Estelle Morris
  We have not made an estimate of the tourism revenue generated by visits to these places. However, this Department is responsible for the maintenance and presentation of the Tower of London through its contract with Historic Royal Palaces, which relies on revenue generated by the palaces. Buckingham Palace is one of the Occupied Royal Palaces: the Royal Household receives Grant-in-Aid to meet property and service costs. We have obtained the following figures from the bodies responsible concerning tourist revenues:The Tower of London: gross revenue in 2002 from admissions, retail and concessions was £23,319,000.
  Buckingham Palace: the State Rooms were open during August, September and part of October 2002. Gross total revenue from visitors was £5,491,000, comprising £2,993,000 for admissions, and £2,498,000 for shop sales.
  Palace of Westminster: House of Commons Officials have advised that, according to unaudited accounts, gross revenue from tickets and merchandise for tours of the Palace in 2002 was £605,000.
  The London Eye: is a commercial attraction and we do not have its revenue figures.

  Velodrome
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the proposed velodrome will be a permanent facility for cycling; and whether it will be built in the event of an unsuccessful bid for the 2012 Olympics. [139755]

  Tessa Jowell
  London 2012 Ltd, the company tasked with preparation of the Olympic bid, is in discussion with key stakeholders, including the British Cycling Federation, Lea Valley Regional Park Authority and Sport England, about possible non-Olympic use of the Velodrome, both before and after a 2012 London games. Those discussions encompass the question of whether the building of the velodrome is dependent on a successful London bid.

  Women's Sport
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the New Community Development Fund sports budget will be available to women and girls who do not participate in traditional mainstream sports. [139567]

  Tessa Jowell
  The £60 million Community Club Development Programme will run from 2003–04 to 2005–06, and is designed to effect improvements in facility provision at amateur sports clubs. In selecting the sports which will benefit, the Government considered participation rates and the abilities of governing bodies to deliver improvement quickly. As a result, the programme will be delivered by established sports with significant numbers of participants.
  939W
  Funding is being made available to governing bodies as follows:

  The Rugby Football Union, the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, and the Lawn Tennis Association have been allocated £9.4 million each. The following governing bodies have been allocated £20 million between them over these three years:

  the Badminton Association of England,

  England Basketball,

  the British Canoe Union,

  British Cycling,

  British Gymnastics,

  the English Hockey Federation,

  the British Judo Association,

  the All England Netball Association,

  the Amateur Rowing Association,

  the Rugby Football League,

  the Amateur Swimming Association, and

  the English Table Tennis Association.

  This funding is not targeted at the development of facilities for women and girls, or at any particular geographical or socio-economic group. It is for the governing bodies which have joined the programme to decide what proportions of funding should be made available for facilities specifically targeted at women's and girls' participation, against their national development plans.

  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps are being taken by her Department to encourage girls to participate in sport. [139569]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government is committed to ensuring that everyone is given the opportunity to participate in sport. Sport England Lottery funding to governing bodies is now provided only where those bodies have acceptable equity policies in place as parts of their development plans. In addition, Sport England provides £200,000 a year to the Women's Sports Foundation to support the involvement of women and girls in sport.

  World Heritage Status
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many United Kingdom sites have World Heritage Site status, broken down by government office of the region area; and what steps she is taking to gain recognition for other sites. [139396]

  Estelle Morris
  The UK has 25 World Heritage Sites of which 22 are located within the UK mainland. A break down of these sites by regional Government Office is in the table.

  In 1999, the Government produced a Tentative List of 25 sites that might be nominated for World Heritage Site status over the next 5–10 years. To date, seven sites on this List have been inscribed onto the World Heritage List and a number of other sites are preparing for nomination. Since 2002, only one nomination may be made each year.
  940W

  Government Office

  World Heritage Site

  North East

  Durham Cathedral and Castle

  Hadrian's Wall

  North West

  Hadrian's Wall

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Fountains Abbey, St. Mary's Church and Studley Royal Park

  Saltaire

  East Midlands

  Derwent Valley Mills

  West Midlands

  Ironbridge Gorge

  London

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Maritime Greenwich

  Palace of Westminster, St. Margaret's

  Church and Westminster Abbey

  The Tower of London

  South East

  Blenheim Palace and Park

  Canterbury Cathedral (with St. Augustine's Abbey and St. Martin's Church)

  South West

  City of Bath

  Dorset and East Devon Coast

  Stonehenge, Avebury and associated sites

  Other Administrations

  Northern Ireland

  Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast

  Scotland

  Edinburgh Old and new Towns

  New Lanark

  Hearth of Neolithic Orkney

  St. Kilda

  Wales

  Blaenavon Industrial Landscape

  Castle and Town Walls of Edward I in Gwynedd

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding is given by the Government to the Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit; and what conditions are attached to the use of the funding. [139388]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has committed a total of £9.2 million to support the Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit (NSU). This funding covers the period 1999 to 2006. To date £5.25 million has been disbursed.

  The purpose of this project is to provide professional legal, technical, policy and communications advice to the Palestinian authorities in preparation for, and during, permanent status negotiations with Israel. Following the collapse of formal negotiations the NSU has broadened its role by seeking to encourage the resumption of permanent status negotiations by contributing to a variety of diplomatic peace initiatives. The project supports those in the Palestinian Authority who are committed to peace.

  The project is managed on behalf of the Palestinian authorities by the Adam Smith Institute. There are no specific conditions attached, but it is subject to DFID's usual checks and balances to ensure funds are disbursed in accordance with the agreed objectives. In addition four other governments, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark provide complementary funding. We are currently establishing with these partners, and with the NSU, a framework for the overall management of the project.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of United Kingdom aid to Afghanistan since 2001 has been used to combat the production of opium. [138728]

  Hilary Benn
  Tackling opium production in Afghanistan requires action in many areas: to improve the ability of the government to enforce the law and implement a coherent counter-narcotics strategy and to improve the conditions for legal private sector economic growth to offer people involved in poppy cultivation the chance of a licit alternative livelihood.

  DFID's assistance to Afghanistan contributes to all of these areas. Since October 2001, DFID has disbursed £157 million of aid to Afghanistan. This has included humanitarian support which prevents people from sliding into the marginalised criminal economy, £35 million of financial assistance to the Afghan Government, and over £5 million in assistance to develop the capacity of the Afghan Government.

  DFID has already provided £2.5 million for specific sustainable livelihoods programmes and has projects being implemented worth nearly £10 million. DFID has recently doubled its budget for sustainable livelihoods programme to £20 million over three years. This represents over 10 per cent. of total DFID assistance over the next three years and over 20 per cent. of the budget for programmes excluding financial assistance.

  The Government have allocated £70 million over three years specifically to combat the production of opium in Afghanistan. This includes a £5.4 million contribution from DFID's £20 million livelihoods budget. In total, this represents some 30 per cent. of planned UK assistance to Afghanistan over the next three years.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff were employed in his Department on 31 December(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 2002; and how many are employed there now. [139543]

  Hilary Benn
  Staff numbers for DFID permanent and pensionable Home Civil Service (HCS) staff, for each year from 1997 to 2002 inclusive, published in our annual Departmental Reports from 1998, are set out as follows.

  Details of the available figures are contained in the following table:

  HCS staff in UK headquarters

  HCS staff overseas

  Total

  1997

  1,007

  170

  1,177

  1998

  1,200

  180

  1,380

  1999

  1,279

  195

  1,474

  2000

  1,292

  209

  1,501

  2001

  1,374

  224

  1,598

  2002

  1,433

  241

  1,674

  Total HCS staff numbers (headquarters and overseas) at 1 October 2003 was 1,744.
  942W
  We do not hold annual staff numbers for locally appointed staff in our Overseas offices (SAIC). However, we can say that the number of SAIC in post in March 2003 was 914.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff were employed in his Department when the 2002 spending review was completed; and how many he expects to be in post at the end of financial year 2005–06. [139544]

  Hilary Benn
  Details of DFID staffing figures for 2002 are taken from our published Departmental Report for 2003.

  The numbers of permanent and pensionable Home Civil Service (HCS) staff in post at that time, are as detailed in the following table:

  2000

  Number

  HCS staff in UK headquarters

  1,433

  HCS staff overseas

  241

  Total

  1,674

  By the end of the Financial Year 2005–06, we forecast that these numbers will have risen to 1,774.

  The number of locally appointed In-Country staff (SAIC) was 914 in March 2003. At this stage, we cannot say what future impact our reduced effort in middle income countries will have on these figures.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on his plans to provide aid to Ethiopia in response to predicted food shortages next year. [139346]

  Hilary Benn
  Since the beginning of 2002 we have provided over £50 million in humanitarian support to Ethiopia.

  The Ethiopian Government's Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Commission (DPPC) and UN agencies are currently undertaking crop assessments. Official estimates of food shortages for 2004 will therefore not be available until the DPPC/UN appeal, which should be issued on 10 December.

  We will then take these estimates into account, along with nutritional information and other indicators of the humanitarian crisis, when making our decisions about the provision of humanitarian assistance during 2004.

  Infant Mortality
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made against the target of reducing the number of child deaths under the fourth millennium development goal; and what assessment his Department has made of whether the target will be met. [138904]

  Hilary Benn
  Globally child mortality is declining, and between 1990 and 2000 the under-five mortality rate was reduced from 92 to 82 deaths per 1,000 live births. On
  943W
  current trends, however, the Millennium Development Goal target of reducing under-five mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015 will not be met.

  DFID works with international partners to monitor global trends in progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and their associated targets. Latest United Nations reports suggest considerable regional variation in the rates of progress being made towards the under-five mortality target. Latin America is expected to meet the target, but there has been much slower progress in South Asia, and virtually no progress in sub-Saharan Africa, which accounts for over half of all under-five deaths.

  DFID has put the achievement of the MDGs at the heart of its work, and is working with its partners to accelerate progress towards the MDG targets. The targets for both child and maternal mortality in Africa and Asia form part of DFID's Public Service Agreement. Supporting progress in sub- Saharan Africa is a particular priority for DFID.

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

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if he will list the mortality rates of children under five for(a) girls and (b) boys in Asia in each of the last 10 years; [139540]

  (2) what the mortality rates of children under five for (a) girls and (b) boys were in sub-Saharan Africa in each of the last 10 years. [139542]

  Hilary Benn
  Estimates for under-five mortality by region are published by the UN Statistics Division on the Millennium Development Goals database. This provides information for 1990 and 2000 but not for intervening years. A gender disaggregation is not available. Details are as follows:

  Under-five mortality rates (deaths per 1,000 live births)

  1990

  2000

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  176

  172

  Eastern Asia

  44

  36

  South-central Asia

  125

  95

  South-eastern Asia

  77

  51

  Western Asia

  70

  62

  These figures were published in the report of the Secretary-General on the MDGs to the UN General Assembly in September 2003 and can be accessed via: http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/mi/pdf/ a_58_323e.pdf.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on child mortality in developing countries in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [139622]

  Hilary Benn
  Globally, child mortality was significantly reduced in the late twentieth century. The number of child deaths fell from over 13 million in 1980 to an estimated 10.8million in 2000. The following table gives the United Nations estimates of under-five 944W
  mortality rates (the probability of a child dying before his or her fifth birthday expressed per 1,000 live births) over this period globally and in developing countries:

  Under-five mortality: the world

  Under-five mortality: developing regions

  (a) 1980

  117

  132

  (b) 1990

  92

  102

  (c) 2000

  82

  90

  While this decline in child deaths is encouraging, current progress towards the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target of reducing under-five mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015 is too slow and uneven across regions. A significant challenge remains, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

  DFID has put the achievement of the MDGs at the heart of its work, and is working with its partners to accelerate progress towards the MDG targets. The targets for both child and maternal mortality in Africa and Asia form part of DFID's Public Service Agreement.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps coalition forces in Iraq are taking to set up a humanitarian traffic lane on the Iraqi side of the Iraqi-Jordanian border. [138619]

  Hilary Benn
  We are not aware that coalition forces are planning the setting up of a humanitarian traffic lane on the Iraq side of the border with Jordan.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of Iraq's demand for domestically consumed fuels was met through imports in the last month. [138877]

  Hilary Benn
  It is estimated that, in October 2003, between one-quarter and one-third of the national supply of gasoline, diesel and kerosene was met by imports. Imports also provided almost two-thirds of the demand for LPG. Iraq is likely to depend on imports of these fuels until the early spring.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will identify the roles and responsibilities of(a) the 18 members of staff in his Department and (b) the seconded consultants working in Iraq. [138890]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Iraq Directorate within DFID consists of a range of programme management and professional advisory staff who cover development subjects relevant to the needs of the reconstruction effort, e.g. social development, health, economics and infrastructure.

  (b) Most of the seconded consultants are working for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad and Basrah in an advisory capacity in various sectors, including economics, education, refugees/returns and infrastructure and urban development. There are eight DFID-funded contractors working as project officers and facilities managers in various Governorate Team Offices throughout Iraq. There are also three DFID members of staff seconded to CPA whose job titles are Assistant to Chief of Operations, Press Officer and Senior Engineering Adviser.

  945W
  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assessment his Department has made of the need for environmental improvements in Iraq; [139008]

  (2) what support his Department is giving to the Minister for the Environment in Iraq. [139007]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is exploring options for support to the environment, including work with the Minister for the Environment, in the context of other priorities for our future assistance to Iraq. DFID and Defra officials are planning to undertake an assessment visit to Iraq shortly. DFID has meanwhile agreed to part-finance a survey to be carried out in Iraq by the Post-Conflict Assessment Unit of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what advisers have been appointed by Coalition members to support the work of the Minister for the Environment in Iraq. [139009]

  Hilary Benn
  Coalition members have provided a number of staff for the Coalition Provisional Authority with environmental expertise who work alongside the Iraqi Environment Ministry. These include the Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Health, which previously contained Iraq's Environmental Protection and Improvement Directorate, and the Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Water Resources. As part of the UK contribution to the reconstruction effort, we have agreed to fund half of UNEP's environmental field assessment, which is likely to commence in spring 2004, and will include work on institutional and capacity building focusing particularly on the Environment Ministry.

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources provided by(a) Her Majesty's Government and (b) NGOs are available in Iraq for mine clearance. [125702]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK has made the following resources available for mine/UXO clearance in Iraq in the current financial year.

  Organisation

  Purpose

  Amount (£)

  UNMAS

  Mine/UXO clearance

  4,000,000

  UNMAS

  Plastic explosive for disposal of mines/UXO

  357,378

  Mines Advisory Group (MAG)

  Preparedness

  80,883

  Mines Advisory Group (MAG)

  Integrated mine action

  781,639

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on life expectancy in developing countries in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [139641]

  Hilary Benn
  The figures for life expectancy in developing countries are as follows:

  Number

  1980

  60

  1990

  63

  2001

  64

  946W
  Life expectancy in developing countries is therefore improving steadily, but not dramatically. However, the HIV/AIDS epidemic is dramatically reducing life expectancy in the worst affected countries. By 2010, life expectancy in many African countries will fall to around 30 years of age, levels not seen since the end of the nineteenth century. The demographic impact outside Africa will be less severe but still significant.

  Maternal Health
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many mothers(a) died and (b) suffered injury or disability through childbirth in each developing country in the last year for which figures are available. [139532]

  Hilary Benn
  Maternal mortality is difficult to measure. As a result, WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA have developed an approach to estimating maternal mortality that generates estimates for countries with no data and corrects available data for underreporting and misclassification. They estimate that there were 527,000 maternal deaths in the year 2000 in developing countries, where 99.6 per cent. of all maternal deaths occur. The latest country estimates for the year 2000 have been placed in the Libraries of the House under the title "Maternal Mortality Estimates in 2000". The number of maternal deaths is listed in the fourth column.

  Measuring and classifying the numbers of women who suffer injury or disability as a result of pregnancy and childbirth is even more challenging. Estimates from WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA for 1995 suggest that 300 million women worldwide (including 25 per cent. of the developing world's adult women) suffer from ill health and disability as a result of complications of pregnancy. WHO is currently conducting a review of published and unpublished studies in an attempt to provide a comprehensive tabulation of available data on the prevalence and incidence of global maternal morbidity.

  DFID is also working with partners to develop and use improved ways of measuring the extent of maternal mortality.

  A copy of the report and latest estimates of maternal mortality developed by WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA is available at: http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/ publications/maternal_mortality_2000/maternal_ mortality_2000.pdf

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of births were assisted by skilled births assistants in sub-Saharan Africa in each of the last 10 years. [139619]

  Hilary Benn
  The proportion of women in Sub-Saharan Africa who gave birth with the assistance of a skilled health worker (the internationally agreed maternal mortality indicator) increased slightly from 40 per cent. in 1990 to 42 per cent. by 2000.

  Annual figures for sub-Saharan Africa as a whole are not available.

  More information and individual country data can be found by accessing UNICEF's statistical database at http://www.childinfo.org/index2.htm.

  Millennium Development Goals
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether his Department estimates that Tanzania will achieve the millennium development goals. [138905]

  Hilary Benn
  Recent reports indicate that Tanzania has the potential to meet the millennium development goals on poverty, HIV/AIDS, and environmental resources. Progress has been disappointing on the maternal and child health goals. There is insufficient data to indicate progress on access to safe water, but there are encouraging signs of progress. In the past two years, there has been significant progress towards the education target, with hugely increased numbers of children entering the first grade of Primary School. The supportive environment in Tanzania is improving.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list his estimated expenditure on pursuit of the millennium development goals in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03, (c) 2003–04, (d) 2004–05 and (e) 2005–06. [139620]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's aim is to eliminate poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. With the exception of funds voted to DFID to fulfil its legal commitments to provide pensions to former expatriate colonial civil and public servants, we use all of our resources for eliminating poverty in poorer countries and for preventing and reducing conflict. The information in the table updates the figures published in DFID's Annual Report 2003, where a further breakdown is available:

  DFID Resource Budget

  £million

  Eliminating poverty in poorer countries

  Overseas superannuation

  Total resource budget

  2001–02 outturn

  3,174

  59

  3,233

  2002–03 outturn

  3,614

  56

  3,671

  2003–04 plans

  3,756

  60

  3,816

  2004–05 plans

  3,780

  57

  3,837

  2005–06 plans

  4,533

  54

  4,587

  Poverty
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the countries in which some people live on $I per day or less. [139618]

  Hilary Benn
  A comprehensive list of such countries has not been published as for many there is insufficient information to make robust estimates. However most if not all low and middle income countries can be expected to have some people living on less than $1 a day. Where country estimates exist the details are set out in table 1.1 of the annual publication 'Statistics on International Development' a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Primary Education
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of children in each developing country receive no education. [139534]
  948W
  Hilary Benn
  The most recent Education For All Global Monitoring Report, published by UNESCO in November this year, estimated that 104 million children of primary school age were not enrolled in school in 2000, 96 per cent. in developing countries. Most of the out-of-school children are concentrated in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and south and west Asia.

  I have placed in the Library lists of the primary net enrolment ratio and the corresponding percentage of primary school-age children not enrolled in school in 2000. The list is called "Education Enrolment in Developing Countries, 2000", and has figures for each country where comparable data are available. The table shows that for developing countries as a whole, 17.9 per cent. of primary school-age children were not enrolled in school in 2000.

  The Education For All Global Monitoring Report 2003–04, containing these data, is available at: http:// www.efareport.unesco.org

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of primary age children enrolled in primary school in sub-Saharan Africa in each of the last 10 years. [139539]

  Hilary Benn
  Due to the difficulties of collecting reliable and comparable data consistently across the whole of sub-Saharan Africa there are not internationally agreed figures for primary school enrolment for each of the last 10 years. However the most recent Education For All Global Monitoring Report published by UNESCO in November this year has a comparison of the Net Enrolment Ratio (NER) for most countries in sub-Saharan Africa between 1990 and 2000.

  These figures show that in sub-Saharan Africa enrolment has improved but only slightly. In 1990, 55 per cent. of primary school age children were enrolled; in 2000 58 per cent. were enrolled. Within these figures there is wide variation by regions—from 89 per cent. in South Africa to 30 per cent. in Niger in the year 2000.

  The Education For All Global Monitoring Report 2003–04, containing these data, is available at http:// www.efareport.unesco.org

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the ratio of girls to boys enrolled in primary school in sub-Saharan Africa was in 2003–04; and what it is expected to be in 2005–06. [139613]

  Hilary Benn
  Due to the difficulties of collecting reliable and comparable data consistently across the whole of sub-Saharan Africa the most recent internationally agreed figures for gender parity are for 2000. These are in the most recent Education For All Global Monitoring Report published by UNESCO in November this year.

  In 2000, there were 88 girls to every 100 boys in primary school classrooms in sub-Saharan Africa. This figure is the number of children of any age enrolled in primary school (the gross enrolment ratio).
  949W
  There is no predicted ratio of boys to girls for 2005–06. However the Global Monitoring report estimates that of 128 countries for which data are available, 35 countries are not likely to meet the 2005 goal of gender parity in primary education. 19 of these are in sub-Saharan Africa.

  The Education For All Global Monitoring Report 2003–04, containing this data, is available at http:// www.efareport.unesco.org.

  Sanitation/Water
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of families in each developing country are without access to water supplies or basic sanitation. [139533]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on the percentage of the population without access to an improved water supply and improved sanitation is set out in the 2003 World Development Indicators Book, published by the World Bank. I have placed a table called "Improved Water and Sanitation" in the Libraries of the Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Moylinn Medical Centre (Security)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will take to respond to attacks on medical staff at the out-of-hours GP cooperative based at Moylinn, Craigavon; and what plans he has to relocate the co-operative. [138972]

  Angela Smith
  The Southern Health and Social Services Board (SHSSB) and the Association of Southern Areas Doctors On Call (ASADOC), which runs the Moylinn Medical Centre, are collaborating to improve security at the centre. Fencing around the centre has already been improved and both CCTV and alarm systems have been installed. Meetings have also been held with the local police with a view to improving security and local representatives have been asked to do all they can to minimise attacks in the future.

  The SHSSB and ASADOC are currently considering several options to relocate the centre and final decisions are expected in the near future.

  British-Irish Interparliamentary Conference
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the(a) matters discussed and (b) decisions taken at the 27th British-Irish Interparliamentary conference; and if he will place in the Library the report on Sellafield discussed at the conference. [134410]

  Mr. Spellar
  The British-Irish Interparliamentary Body (BIIPB) held its 27th Plenary session between 19–21 October this year. As an Interparliamentary Body, the BIIPB is independent of Government and, as such, it would not be appropriate for me to offer a statement on the matters discussed nor on the decisions taken. The minutes and a full verbatim account of the 950W
  open sessions will, I understand, be posted on the body's website in due course. A copy of the report on Sellafield has been placed in the Library.

  Carpets International
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the use of the land occupied by Carpets International (UK) Ltd. in Donaghadee, should it be unsuccessful in attracting a buyer. [132463]

  Angela Smith
  In considering the current use of this site, the need to provide an appropriate level of employment opportunity in Donaghadee, and the lack of readily available alternatives, the Department of the Environment proposed that the land should be retained for industrial use. This is reflected in the recently published Draft Ards and Down Area Plan 2015.

  Coagulometers
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 20 October 2003,Official Report, column 420W, on anti-coagulants, what effect the results of the home use trial of coagulometers by Roche Ltd. will have on current practice. [139262]

  Angela Smith
  Further work is being undertaken nationally to assess the effectiveness of self-testing and to develop clinical guidelines on the appropriate selection of patients suitable to undertake self-management. The Department will not be issuing guidance about the further development of self-monitoring until this work has been completed.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent(a) meetings and (b) discussions he has had with (i) Unionist politicians and (ii) others on decommissioning of arms held by Loyalist terrorists; and if he will make a statement. [137344]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have talked about the issue of decommissioning by paramilitary organisations at a large number of meetings and discussions regarding the political process in Northern Ireland over recent weeks. Individual meetings and discussions are confidential, but we have consistently made clear our view that all paramilitary groups should engage with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning with a view to putting arms beyond use in a manner which is conducive to creating public confidence.

  Devolved Government
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland on the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. [134844]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the remarks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made on this subject at Northern Ireland oral questions in the House on 29 October.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been awarded since 1 November 2002 in Northern Ireland in costs as the result of employment tribunals; and what the average sum awarded was. [138982]

  Jane Kennedy
  The equivalents of Employment Tribunals in Northern Ireland are the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal. Costs may be awarded against any party if a tribunal decides that the party has acted scandalously, frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably.

  The information requested is not readily available and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. Costs are awarded infrequently by the tribunals and they have normally been in the range £50 to £500.

  Equality Commission
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions the Equality Commission has had with the Northern Ireland Office on the legality of the exclusion of Irish nationals from reserved posts. [132213]

  Mr. Pearson
  There has been contact at official level between the Northern Ireland Office and the Equality Commission concerning the progress of the Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill, which was introduced on 28 January 2003.

  EU Fisheries Council
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will ensure that the Minister of State with responsibility for Agriculture and Rural Development will be present throughout the negotiations at the EU Fisheries Council meeting. [137526]

  Mr. Pearson
  I propose to attend the whole of the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council Meeting, although I should much prefer Northern Ireland's interests to be represented by a locally elected Minister.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what lines of communication will be provided between the Minister of State for Agriculture and Rural Development and representatives of the Northern Ireland fishing industry during the negotiations at the EU Fisheries Council. [137527]

  Mr. Pearson
  If a locally elected Minister cannot represent Northern Ireland at the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council, my senior officials and I will make every effort to keep local fishing industry representatives informed of developments throughout the proceedings.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to encourage trainee general practitioners to develop special interests. [138987]
  952W
  Angela Smith
  My Department has received a proposal to extend the GP Vocational Training programme by one year, to enable trainee GPs to develop special interests. The practicalities and funding implications of this proposal are currently being considered.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to encourage trainee general practitioners in Northern Ireland to develop an interest in the area of family planning. [138988]

  Angela Smith
  My Department has received a proposal to extend the GP Vocational Training programme by one year, to enable trainee GPs to develop special interests, including family planning. The practicalities and funding implications of this proposal are currently being considered.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage experienced senior house officers in hospitals in the Province to remain in Northern Ireland to complete their GP registrar year. [138990]

  Angela Smith
  Vocational Training for General Practice consists of three years, made up of two years in approved Senior House Officer posts in hospitals followed by one year in a GP Registrar post.

  The Department currently funds 40 GP Registrar posts per year, all of which, from this year, will be allocated to doctors participating in a three year integrated training programme. This means that there will be no new GP Registrar posts available for other Senior House Officers who are not in the three-year scheme and no arrangements are in place for such posts.

  At present there is no shortage of GPs in Northern Ireland and the numbers in training meet current demands. However, the number of GP Registrar posts available will be kept under review as part of the Department's workforce planning process.

  Loyalist Terrorists
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of Loyalist terrorists' capacity to carry out(a) targeting, (b) intimidation and (c) racketeering activities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [134963]

  Jane Kennedy
  This information is only available from intelligence sources and it would be inappropriate for the Government to comment. We now call on all paramilitary organisations to bring a complete and permanent end to paramilitary activity in all its forms.

  North/South Ministerial Council
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the North/South Ministerial Council has met as indicated in the 1998 Belfast Agreement(a) in Plenary format, (b) in specific sectoral formats, represented by the individual Ministers and (c) to consider cross-sectoral matters. [132091]
  953W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The North/South Ministerial Council, since its establishment in 1999, has met four times in Plenary format, once in Institutional format to consider cross-sectoral matters and 60 times in specific sectoral format.

  A breakdown of specific sectoral meetings is provided as follows:

  Specific sectoral area

  Number of meetings

  Agriculture

  7

  Education

  4

  Environment

  6

  Aquaculture and Marine

  8

  Health and Food Safety

  5

  Language

  4

  Special EU Programmes

  7

  Tourism

  5

  Trade and Business Development

  7

  Transport

  2

  Inland Waterways

  5

  Total

  60

  Prisons
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the breakdown is of prison custody visitors by(a) perceived community origin and (b) sex. [138706]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are currently a total of 50 Board of Visitors/Visiting Committee members in post. The breakdowns are as follows:

  Breakdown

  Perceived community origin

  Protestant

  29

  Roman Catholic

  15

  Not known

  6

  Sex

  Male

  26

  Female

  24

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost of the prison custody visitors scheme was in 2002; and what proportion of this comprises(a) remuneration, (b) travel and (c) other expenses incurred by the visitors. [138707]

  Jane Kennedy
  The total expenditure for the Board of Visitors/Visiting Committee in Northern Ireland for the financial year 2002–03 was £51,751.00. Of this, £39,000 was for travel and subsistence. Members are volunteers and do not receive remuneration.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what administrative support is available to teams of prison custody visitors. [138708]

  Jane Kennedy
  Each Board/Committee is supported by a part-time Clerk at local level. There is also a small team at Prison Service Headquarters who provide administrative support for all three boards.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the procedural mechanisms are for addressing(a) general matters of prison
  954W
  administration and (b) expressions of concern about individual prisoners; and what mechanisms are available to monitor (i) responses and (ii) implementation. [138709]

  Jane Kennedy
  Concerns regarding both general matters of prison administration and concerns regarding individual prisoners can be raised with staff informally, or formally with the Governor at the monthly meeting. If possible, the Governor responds at the meeting, or the query is recorded and the response provided at the next monthly meeting, or before then if urgent. All queries are formally recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

  If members are not satisfied with the response they receive, or the action taken by the Governor, they can raise the matter with Prison Service Headquarters or ultimately the Secretary of State.

  The Boards submit an annual report to the Secretary of State each year. In the interests of openness and transparency, this report is now made available to the general public.

  Salmon
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact on wild salmon stocks of salmon fish farms in Northern Ireland. [135445]

  Angela Smith
  The occurrence of escaped farmed salmon in Northern Ireland's commercial salmon catches is examined annually. The largest occurrence was in 2001, when 9.1 per cent. of the commercial catch was farmed fish. The 10-year average, excluding the year 2001, is 1.4 per cent.

  Occurrences of escaped farmed salmon in freshwater are also monitored at the trap on the River Bush, where the 10-year average of farmed salmon as a total of trapped fish is 0.7 per cent.

  The only detailed information available on the genetic impact of farmed salmon on wild salmon stocks has been undertaken in two surveys of the Glenarm River in 1990–91 and in 1997. The surveys showed that the genetic status of the wild population was significantly changed indicating that cross breeding with farmed salmon had taken place.

  Further scientific studies have commenced on the River Bush catchment on the potential consequences of genetic change in the wild population caused by interbreeding with farmed salmon in terms of long-term productivity. No results are yet available and such studies are likely to be case specific.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the number of salmon spawning in each river in the Foyle system has reached the numbers recommended by P. F. Elson and A. L. W. Tuomi in their report of 1975, the Foyle Fisheries, New Basis for Rational Management. [136068]

  Mr. Pearson
  The target numbers of salmon spawning in each river in the Foyle System recommended by Elson and Tuomi in their 1975 report have been met. A comparison of these numbers together with the number of salmon passing through the relevant fish counters in the years 2000–02 is set out in the following table.
  955W

  Foyle rivers

  Number of salmon passing through fish counter (year)

  River System

  Elson and Tuomi spawning targets

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Faughan and tributaries upstream of fish counter

  590

  2,551

  1,518

  4,228

  Roe and tributaries upstream of fish counter

  1,222

  1,433

  3,459

  5,459

  Mourne and tributaries upstream of fish counter

  4,276

  4,690

  6,250

  12,991

  Social Housing
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many units of social housing

  Housing Executive vacant properties

  District council

  31 March 1999

  31 March 2000

  31 March 2001

  31 March 2002

  31 March 2003

  Belfast

  1,872

  2,000

  2,179

  1,835

  2,146

  North Down

  104

  108

  151

  207

  162

  Ards

  94

  78

  121

  156

  153

  Castlereagh

  198

  228

  286

  350

  323

  Lisburn

  223

  290

  322

  249

  354

  Down

  108

  163

  59

  61

  73

  Banbridge

  74

  46

  63

  54

  61

  Newry and Mourne

  74

  109

  109

  137

  167

  Armagh

  90

  98

  113

  124

  121

  Craigavon

  485

  580

  523

  496

  472

  Dungannon

  69

  80

  118

  136

  159

  Fermanagh

  21

  22

  19

  43

  38

  Ballymena

  275

  366

  329

  270

  262

  Antrim

  107

  187

  193

  147

  184

  Newtownabbey

  306

  343

  240

  277

  340

  Carrick

  138

  235

  279

  304

  225

  Lame

  117

  168

  255

  341

  227

  Moyle

  10

  19

  15

  13

  17

  Ballymoney

  59

  44

  31

  36

  29

  Coleraine

  122

  202

  240

  203

  270

  Derry

  129

  191

  211

  205

  176

  Limavady

  24

  15

  20

  16

  29

  Magherafelt

  6

  24

  30

  31

  29

  Strabane

  13

  21

  25

  40

  35

  Omagh

  60

  121

  86

  146

  159

  Cookstown

  40

  32

  46

  55

  57

  Total

  4,818

  5,770

  6,063

  5,932

  6,268

  Strategic Investment Body
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress to date of the Strategic Investment Body (SIB) in improving the profile and performance of the capital expenditure programme across the Northern Ireland Civil Service; and what assessment he has made of whether the departments are working effectively with the SIB on(a) an individual and (b) a collaborative basis. [133009]

  Mr. Pearson
  Since its inception in April 2003, the SIB has made considerable progress in improving the profile and performance of Northern Ireland's capital expenditure programme. By April 2004, SIB expects to have two to three times the value of PPP projects out to market than had been signed in the previous eleven years in Northern Ireland. An early priority project, a new Invest NI Headquarters, is expected to be signed by June 2004, following a fast procurement period at the 956W
  properties were vacant in each of the last five years in each local government area. [139708]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table details the number of vacant Northern Ireland Housing Executive properties by District Council Area over the five-year period 1998–99 to 2002–03.

  Statistics for housing association vacant properties are not held in the form requested. However, the total number of vacant housing association properties over the same five-year period was:

  31 March 1999: 917

  31 March 2000: 1,157

  31 March 2001: 1,002

  31 March 2002: 1,076

  31 March 2003: 1,208

  top end of HM Treasury performance averages. With the assistance of SIB, the Department of Finance and Personnel has created a new and strong incentive scheme designed to encourage departments to be more active in managing their asset bases. In its first six months of operation, therefore, the SIB has already developed effective working relationships with a number of departments and I am sure that its impact will continue to grow as we work to improve Northern Ireland's infrastructure.

  University Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what Government capital expenditure on buildings used for teaching and research, not including expenditure on science and business parks and incubators, was for each year since 1992 on each of the campuses of(a) the University of Ulster and (b) Queen's University Belfast. [133007]
  957W
  Jane Kennedy
  Bearing in mind the range of sources for government or government-derived funding not all of which are within Northern Ireland, it would not be possible to provide an answer without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Urology Consultants
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many urology consultants are employed by the Northern Ireland Health Service; and what the average waiting time to see a urology consultant is in each health trust. [137665]

  Angela Smith
  The number of urology consultants employed by Health and Social Services Trusts are given in the following table.

  Table 1: Number of urology consultants employed by Health and Social Services Trusts, as at 6 November 2003

  HSS1 Trust

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  2

  1.91

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  0

  0.00

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  6

  4.82

  Causeway HSS Trust

  30

  0.00

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  0

  0.00

  craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  2

  2.00

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  41

  n\a

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  0

  0.00

  Green Park Healthcare Hss Trust

  0

  0.00

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  0

  0.00

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  1

  1.00

  Table 2: Percentage of patients waiting for a first out-patient appointment with a urology consultant in Northern Ireland, at 30 June 2003

  Time waiting(Months)(Percentage)

  Provider Trust

  0–2

  3–11

  12–17

  18–23

  24+

  Total

  The Royal Group of Hospital HSS Trust

  50.0

  50.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  92

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  40.2

  56.0

  3.1

  0.6

  0.1

  1,264

  Ulster Community and Hospitals HSS Trust

  91.7

  8.3

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  144

  Down and Lisburn HSS Trust

  16.4

  14.2

  33.2

  31.0

  5.2

  232

  Mater Infirmorum HSS Trust

  30.9

  63.5

  3.6

  1.4

  0.6

  644

  Causeway HSS Trust

  18.0

  30.9

  17.8

  10.5

  22.8

  916

  Craigavon Area Hospital HSS Trust

  17.1

  31.6

  16.6

  10.2

  24.6

  1,182

  Altnagelvin Area Hospital HSS Trust

  25.3

  53.0

  15.2

  5.6

  0.9

  1,091

  Northern Ireland

  28.1

  43.9

  11.9

  6.6

  9.5

  5,565

  Source:

  CH3
  958W

  Table 1: Number of urology consultants employed by Health and Social Services Trusts, as at 6 November 2003

  HSS1Trust

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  0

  0.00

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  0

  0.00

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  50

  0.00

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  0

  0.00

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  0

  0.00

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  2

  1.40

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  63

  n/a

  Total

  17

  n/a

  1 Health and Social Services.

  2 Whole-time Equivalent.

  3 Causeway HSS Trust has a urology service level agreement with Belfast City Hospital—the consultant who works in Causeway HSS Trust is employed by Belfast City Hospital Trust.

  4 Within Down Lisburn HSS Trust the consultant within General Surgery performs operations within Urology—the whole-time equivalent cannot be defined as it varies.

  5 There are no consultants employed in the area of urology by Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust—0.45 WTE is provided to the Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust by Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust.

  6 United Hospitals Group HSS Trust—There are three general surgery consultants who provide some sessional commitment in the area of urology—any activity is recorded under general surgery and not urology.

  Note:

  Information on waiting lists and waiting times is collected on the basis of time bands. It is not possible to derive an average from this information.

  Source:

  Human Resource Management System

DEFENCE

  First World War (Passchendaele)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on repatriating remains of soldiers fallen in the First World War near the trenches found at the site of the new Passchendaele motorway near Ypres. [138779]

  Mr. Caplin
  I am not aware of any representations.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when last questioned, how many(a) RAF, (b) Army and (c) Navy personnel said that overstretch was causing problems in their working; what question was asked; how many responded to each option; what percentage of those asked to respond this represents; and if he will make a statement. [137517]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 13 November 2003]: All three Services conduct continuous attitude surveys (CASs) of serving personnel to ascertain attitudes towards a range of Service conditions.

  In the Naval Service CAS there are currently no questions specifically mentioning or using the term 'overstretch'.

  The last survey of Army serving personnel was sent out in December 2002 and the RAF CASs results in July 2003.

  I intend to write to the hon. Member shortly with the results and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of increased rates of childhood obesity on the ability of the armed forces to recruit sufficient numbers of young people in the past 10 years. [139124]

  Mr. Caplin
  In Financial Year 2002–03, the total armed forces intake from civilian life exceeded the recruiting target. Consequently, the apparent increase in the rates of childhood obesity in recent years has had no marked impact to date on the armed forces ability to recruit sufficient numbers of capable young people.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what statistical information analysis of recruitment patterns for each of HM Armed Forces is based. [137503]

  Mr. Caplin
  Armed Forces personnel data are compiled from pay and personnel records held by the Armed Forces Pay Administration Agency (AFPAA). These records are supplemented from other sources to improve the quality of the data on, for example, the ethnic origin of new recruits.
  960W
  Information on potential recruits is compiled from data collected during the application process. This is held on each Service's Training Administration and Financial Management System (TAFMIS). Records are updated with more information at each stage of the recruitment process, from enquiry through to selection.

  Asbestos-related Diseases
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-servicemen and women have presented with asbestos-related diseases (ARDs); how many more the Government forecasts will present with ARDs; and if he will make a statement. [117370]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution will be made by the UK to the multi-national rapid reaction force to the Democratic Republic of Congo. [116411]

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

  Defence Agencies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the location of each of the defence agencies headquarters; how many staff each employs; what the annual expenditure of each was in the last year for which figures are available; and how much was spent in Wales; [137307]

  (2) what the expenditure was of each defence agency (a) in total and (b) in Scotland in the last available year; and how many staff were employed by each agency (i) in total and (ii) in Wales in that year. [137309]

  Mr. Caplin
  The location of defence agency headquarters, the total number of staff employed by each agency as at 1 April 2003 and agency net operating costs for financial year 2002–03 are available in a supplementary document to the Ministry of Defence's Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03. This is available at www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/pdr2002_2003/agencies03.pdf.

  Figures for civilian personnel employed by Defence agencies in Wales are provided in the table below. Information on agency expenditure in Wales and Scotland, and the number of Service personnel employed by agencies in Wales, is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The number of staff employed in Wales (full-time equivalent figures for industrial and non-industrial, permanent staff, excluding Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and those on career breaks, long term sick leave, secondments etc), by executive agencies as at 1 April 2003:

  961W

  Civilian Staff employed as at 1 April 2003

  Army Personnel Centre

  —

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency

  140

  British Forces Post Office

  10

  Defence Communication Services Agency

  10

  Defence Dental Agency

  —

  Defence Estates

  20

  Defence Housing Executive

  10

  Defence Procurement Agency

  —

  Defence Storage and Distribution Agency

  190

  Ministry of Defence Police

  —

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  10

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  140

  Veterans Agency

  10

  Trading Funds

  ABRO

  20

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency

  2,770

  Defence Science and Technology

  —

  Laboratory

  Meteorological Office

  40

  Those agencies and Trading Funds that are not referred to do not have staff employed in Wales. Data have been rounded to the nearest 10 to preserve confidentiality and those with fewer than five staff are recorded as —.

  Defence Dental Agency
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the unpublished 1997–98 annual report and accounts for the Defence Dental Agency. [139691]

  Mr. Caplin
  The 1997–98 annual report and accounts was never published as a stand-alone document, in fact, it was included in the 1999 annual report and accounts, which covered the period from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1999. The reason that there was this two-year report was that HM Treasury had withdrawn the Defence Dental Agency's Accounts Direction for 1997–98.

  A copy of the 1997–99 annual report and accounts was placed in the Library but I am arranging for a further copy to be provided.

  Defence Personnel (Scotland)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence-related jobs there are in each constituency in Scotland. [136188]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom Defence Statistics 2003 contains the numbers of service and Ministry of Defence civilian personnel in Scotland at 1 July 2000. Tri-Service Publication 10, produced by the Defence Analytical Services Agency, contains data on service personnel by local authority region. Both publications are available in the Library of the House.

  The exact number of defence related jobs in each constituency in Scotland, including those related to defence expenditure by MOD on goods and services and defence export contracts in Scotland, is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 October 2003,962W
  Official Report, columns 373–74W, on departmental staff, what function previously performed in the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff Commitments (P&P) area was transferred to the private sector; what the procedure was (a) leading up to the decision for the transfer to be undertaken and (b) from the time of the decision for the transfer to be undertaken to the handover to the private sector; what companies participated in the process; what commitments in relation to job maintenance in Scotland were (i) sought and (ii) given as part of the transfer; and if he will make a statement. [138569]

  Mr. Caplin
  Personnel, Pay and Pensions Administration (PPPA) functions within the Army Personnel Centre, Kentigern House, Glasgow were transferred to Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under a partnering arrangement with the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA).

  PPPA functions for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have been undertaken by EDS since 1998, the negotiations for which included an agreement that the same functions would subsequently be provided for the Army. As such, no other commercial companies participated in the process of the Army transfer. The contract with EDS was awarded following a competitive selection in which a number of companies took part.

  Ministry of Defence personnel transferred to EDS under the terms of the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment)(TUPE) Regulations 1981, and formal consultation with the MOD Trade Unions took place. Personnel affected continue to carry out the functions transferred at Kentigern House, Glasgow.

  Maintenance Projects
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many equipment(a) maintenance,(b) repair and (c) refit projects were (i) planned for and (ii) undertaken in each month of the current year in each of the branches of the armed forces in (A) England, (B) Wales, (C) Northern Ireland and (D) each of the bases in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [136236]

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

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent at each of the military bases in Scotland in each month in 2003 on equipment(a) maintenance, (b) repair and (c) refit; what percentage this represents of each base's maintenance and repair budget; and if he will make a statement. [136237]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Ex-service Personnel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions he will make for the welfare of ex-service personnel after the Gulf conflict. [111873]

  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  963W

  Global Security
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the potential overlap between European future research programmes on global security and UK national defence programmes; and if he will make a statement. [120505]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Illicit Arms Purchases
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the proportion of(a) injuries and (b) fatalities caused to United Kingdom forces from illicitly purchased arms in the last five years. [131122]

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

  Iraq
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the Territorial Army strength has been mobilised for deployment in Iraq since the beginning of the conflict. [139806]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 17 November 2003, approximately 17 per cent. of the Territorial Army have been mobilised for deployment in Iraq since the beginning of the conflict.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions there have been with the US Government regarding the use of(a) anti-personnel mines and (b) cluster munitions in a possible conflict with Iraq. [102354]

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

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the components were of British manufacture in the two vehicles found in Iraq and suspected of being involved in the production of weapons of mass destruction; which companies produced them; and if he will make a statement. [131485]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 October 2003]: I am withholding details of components and companies under Exemption 1 b and 1 c of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relate to international relations and information received in confidence from foreign Governments.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans the UK has, in conjunction with the international community, to limit Iraqi civilian casualties in the event of the use of(a) chemical and (b) biological weapons in the event of war. [97483]

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

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those categories of weapons held by UK forces which will not be permitted for use in the event of a war involving UK forces and Iraq. [99285]

  Mr. Ingram
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  964W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial resources are available to the UK armed forces for the administration of the British sector of Iraq. [124361]

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

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of experimental weapons by the US forces in the war in Iraq. [125085]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the US Department of Defence.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what experimental weapons systems were tested in the war in Iraq. [125087]

  Mr. Hoon
  United Kingdom Armed Forces did not specifically test any experimental weapons during military operations in Iraq. However, a number of weapons systems were used by UK Armed Forces for the first time including:

  Storm Shadow—an air launched conventionally armed precision stand off weapon.

  Maverick—an air launched anti armour precision guided weapon.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether UK personnel in Iraq have received special training on the protection and rights of women and girls in armed conflict situations in line with the commitments in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325; and what discussions he has had with his US counterpart about their implementation of these commitments. [112159]

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

  KPMG
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts his Department has awarded to KPMG since 1997. [113681]

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

  Letter of Intent Framework
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the working groups set up under the Letter of Intent framework to report; and if he will make a statement. [117500]

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

  Low Flying
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the latest advice to RAF pilots undertaking low-flying training in the Gloucester and Severn Valley area. [136013]

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

  Market Research
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each item of market and opinion research commissioned since May 1997 by(a) his Department and (b) agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible; what the purpose of each item was; and whether the results were published. [137010]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the previous answer given on 28 April 2003.Official Report, columns 57–58W by my hon. friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr Moonie).

  The central corporate communications division carries out public opinion research relating to the Ministry of Defence as a whole and the main findings of the most recent research were included in the MOD's Annual Report, HC1125–Page 38; a copy of the Report is available in the Library of the House.

  Married Couples' Rights
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rights only married couples have in(a) housing on military bases, (b) pensions and other employment-related benefits, (c) notification when a spouse has died or has been injured in military action, (d) war pensions and other benefits and (e) war graves. [132414]

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

  Medical Discharges
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical discharges there were from each of the three services in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [139272]

  Mr. Caplin
  The numbers of medical discharges from the armed forces (both trained and untrained United Kingdom regular personnel) between 1997 and 2002 are as follows:

  Medical discharges in the armed forces: 1997–2002

  Year

  Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Total

  1997

  354

  1,067

  223

  1,644

  1998

  448

  1,060

  155

  1,663

  1999

  456

  1,100

  189

  1,745

  2000

  484

  1,024

  201

  1,709

  2001

  413

  1,004

  195

  1,612

  20021

  391

  1,008

  145

  1,544

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

  Medical discharges in the services reflect the different fitness levels required by each service, and the employment policy of each service. Because of these factors medical discharges should not be taken as absolute indicators of the health status of service personnel. Similarly, because of the different requirements of the three services, inter-service comparisons may not be valid.

  Ministerial Visits
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) foreign and (b) UK visits
  966W
  he has made since 1 April; what the cost was to public funds of each trip; who he met; and what gifts he has received. [126984]

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

  MOD Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the work on surge capacity referred to in the consultative document issued in response to the Ministry of Defence Police Quinquennial Review First Stage Report will be completed; and what the reasons are for the delay in completing the work. [139363]

  Mr. Caplin
  Work on surge capacity has been completed. Recommendations to deliver an increase in capability have been made and the additional funding needed for this enhanced capability is being considered as one of the bids in the Department's current planning and resource allocation round. The outcome of this will not be known before the end of the year.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost is in 2003–04 to his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible of the increase in the national minimum wage from £4.20 per hour to £4.50 per hour. [110447]

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

  Naval Ships
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of(a) oil, (b oily ballast water, (c) asbestos, (d) polychlorinated biphenyl, (e) biohazards, (f) ozone-depleting substances, (g) mercury, (h) cadmium and (i) chromium and lead-based paints are present on Her Majesty's ships (i) Fearless, (ii) Intrepid, (iii) Brave, (iv) Boxer, (v) Rame Head and (vi) RFA Sir Geraint; and if he will make a statement. [139161]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information is not held in the format requested for all of the vessels. However, the following substances have been identified on Intrepid in preparation for her sale:

  (a) Residual diesel fuel in pipes and systems—estimated 4,000 litres. Residual mineral oil in sumps and pipework—estimated 2,000 litres;

  (b) Oily ballast water—all tanks cleaned and flushed with water;

  (c) Asbestos—up to an estimated 40 tons;

  (d) Polychlorinated biphenyl/triphenyl (PCB/PCT)—trace; no liquid PCB;

  (e) Biohazards—none identified;

  (f) Ozone-depleting substances—all main refrigerant gases removed; balance to be removed before disposal;

  (g) Mercury—none known;

  (h) Cadmium—minimal (plating on fastenings);

  (i) Chromium and lead-based paints—not known.

  967W
  HMS Fearless is the sister-ship to HMS Intrepid and she is similar in every respect.

  HMS Boxer and HMS Brave have been designated as target ships for a Cincfleet High Seas Firing and have already been stripped of much of their equipment. As part of the preparatory planning work for the firing, an Environmental Impact Assessment is being undertaken to provide the necessary environmental assurances. These rigorous preparatory steps will ensure that we are able to comply with the international conventions that regulate protection of the marine environment, and we will be required to demonstrate before the exercise takes place that those materials subject to regulation have been removed from the ships.

  Ramehead and RFA Sir Geraint remain in operational service. Ramehead is used as a static training vessel. Sir Geraint is held in a reduced readiness state, has been defuelled and there is no oily ballast water on board. Both vessels have been the subject of extensive asbestos surveys and some asbestos has been removed in accordance with Health & Safety Executive directives. The surveys indicate the type of asbestos and where it is fitted, but not the quantities. Three years ago, the outer bottom of Ramehead was pressure-blasted back to bare metal and re-coated using commercial paint products. Similar products have been used throughout the life of Sir Geraint.

  Prior to the disposal of Sir Geraint and Ramehead, as part of the preparations for sale, further surveys will be undertaken to identify any remaining hazardous materials and a waste statement will be produced.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) Royal Navy ships and (b) Royal Fleet Auxiliaries have been sold for scrapping overseas in each year since 1997; in which countries they were scrapped; and what toxic materials were present on these vessels. [139162]

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

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-service personnel have been awarded pensions within the last year as a result of health problems resulting from their service on(a) Christmas Island and (b) other nuclear test sites. [138235]

  Mr. Caplin
  From the information held within the Veterans Agency, it is only possible to distinguish two groups. The first is for service on Christmas/Maiden Island (South Pacific). The second is for other nuclear site tests.

  Pensions are awarded if disablement is assessed at 20 per cent. or more; if less than 20 per cent. a single gratuity payment is awarded. Over the last year (April—March 2003) there were no cases awarded for 20 per cent. and above for Christmas Island/Maiden Island and two cases were awarded for less than 20 per cent. Over the same period for the second category, five cases were awarded 20 per cent. and above and none were awarded for under 20 per cent.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what sections of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty the collaborative work between AWE and weapons laboratories in the United States is being undertaken. [119075]

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

  Operation Telic
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether morphine, and antidotes to provide post attack therapy against nerve agents, were available to all front line personnel serving on Operation Telic. [126095]

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

  Overseas Deployments
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are deployed in(a) East Timor, (b) the Democratic Republic of the Congo and (c) Kuwait. [132270]

  Mr. Ingram
  The UK currently has no service personnel deployed in East Timor. Five service personnel are deployed in the Democratic Republic of Congo and around 260 personnel are deployed in Kuwait.

  Performance Monitoring
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [137972]

  Mr. Caplin
  Performance targets for the department were agreed as part of Spending Review 2002. The monitoring and measurement of PSA targets forms part of departmental performance management. Performance management is an integral part of the day to day running of the Department, and covers a wide range of data for internal management purposes in addition to that required for PSA monitoring. Monitoring and measuring performance is therefore undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation, and it is not possible to separate out discrete costs. The Department's top level performance management system, including reports against PSA targets, is co-ordinated by a dedicated section of five civilian and military personnel within the Directorate of Performance and Analysis in the Ministry of Defence Head Office.

  Personal Injuries Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Amendment Scheme. [107782]

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

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent upgrading and building accommodation for the junior ranks of the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force in each of the last three years; what is to be provided in the forward programme; and if he will make a statement. [136520]

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

  Social Conduct Code
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance has been issued by the Director General of Service Personnel Policy based on the reviewed Code of Social Conduct; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [112621]

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

  Submarines
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many SSNs would be capable of continuous deployment in cycles based on an SSN fleet of(a) four, (b) five and (c) six such boats. [139595]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of Royal Navy attack submarines required to maintain a continuous deployment depends on the nature of the deployment and the operational circumstances pertaining at the time. In the future, the new Astute class will bring improved capability and increased availability for Royal Navy SSN deployments.

  Surplus Arms Stores (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effects on the security of British soldiers deployed overseas of measures to reduce surplus arms stores in developing countries. [131129]

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

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what remit relating to sustainable development is required by his Department's(a) executive agencies, (b) advisory non-departmental bodies, (c) executive non-departmental bodies, (d) tribunals, (e) public corporations and (f) other bodies. [116673]

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

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which United Kingdom commitments arising from the World Summit on Sustainable Development(a) have been incorporated into the Department's existing delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements and
  970W
  (b) will be incorporated in its delivery plan for Service Delivery Agreements in advance of the 2004 Spending Review. [113881]

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

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army soldiers are(a) in the Gulf and (b) overseas; and how many are preparing for deployment in the Gulf. [138952]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 13 November 2003, 1,780 members of the Territorial Army (TA) are currently serving in the Gulf, with a further 295 serving elsewhere overseas. 580 members of the TA are currently preparing to deploy to the Gulf, although many of these individuals will not arrive in theatre until after the Christmas period.

  Training Establishments
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate has been made by principal personnel officers of the resources needed to bring medical facilities at training establishments up to required minimum standards; and how many and what percentage of establishments fall below those standards. [112628]

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

  Transport Aircraft
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many transport aircraft, and of what type, are used by the armed forces. [98294]

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

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his expenditure plans are for transport aircraft in the next five years. [98295]

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

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding programmes are operated by his Department to support voluntary organisations working with young people; and what the level of support has been over the last three years. [116490]

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

  Vulcan Sky Trust
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support has been given to the Vulcan Sky Trust. [138836]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Bank Accounts (Post Offices)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of basic bank accounts available are accessible at post offices; and of those, what proportion offer balance inquiries services at post offices. [140095]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Alstom Transport UK
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how often and on what dates during the last year she has met Mr. Paul Barron, Vice President of Alstom Transport UK, to discuss the future of the Alstom factory at Crashwood Heath in Birmingham; and what the outcome of these discussions was. [139301]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 November 2003]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met Paul Barron on 6 May 2003 to discuss Alstom's general restructuring plans and their impact on the company's operations in the UK, including Washwood Heath. Details of discussions between Ministers and company representatives must, for commercial reasons, remain confidential under Exemption 13—Third Party's Commercial confidences, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, but Mr. Barron stressed the need for the company to undertake global restructuring in order to address mounting debts and ensure a viable future. The Secretary of State has had discussions with Mr. Barron on a number of other occasions and these were detailed in her letter to you of 1 September 2003.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the number of experiments on animals has increased since 1997; what the average number of animals used has been in each year since 1997; and what plans she has to reduce the number of animals used in experimentation. [136143]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to my hon Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies in the UK provide animals for use in experimentation; whether they receive Government assistance; and what regulations control to whom they supply. [136145]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  The breeding and supply of animals for use in experimental or other scientific procedures in the United Kingdom is regulated under section 7 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. There are currently five commercial establishments licensed under the 1986 Act primarily concerned with the breeding and supply of
  972W
  animals for use in experimentation. In addition to these, 140 establishments designated under the 1986 Act also breed animals for use in experiments.

  Breeding and supplying establishments are only licensed if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they provide appropriate standards of care and accommodation as set out in the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals in Designated Breeding and Supplying Establishments presented to Parliament in 1995 under section 21 of the 1986 Act. A supplement to the code of practice dealing with the housing and care of ferrets and gerbils was published separately in 2001.

  None of the licensed breeding and supplying establishments, nor any other establishments licensed under the provisions of the 1986 Act, receive financial assistance from the Home Office nor, as far as available records show, from any other Government Department.

  The 1986 Act does not regulate the sale of animals. However, unless specifically exempted by the Secretary of State, species listed in Schedule 2 of the Act, including mice, rats, cats, dogs and primates, may only be obtained from designated breeding and supplying establishments for use in programmes of work licensed under the 1986 Act.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers she has to enforce the conditions contained in end-user control certificates; and what action she can take in case of breach of those conditions. [138618]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government refuses export licences where there is a clear risk that the goods will be used in contravention of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  The Government has no legal power to enforce conditions contained in end-user certificates. We would, however, take any misuse of equipment into account when assessing future export licence applications for the end-users in question. In addition, the Government has the power to revoke licences for exports to purchasers of concern, which would prevent any outstanding arms exports to that purchaser from leaving the United Kingdom. It could also cancel any open licences for exports to that destination country, obliging exporters to apply for individual licences for each export, or refuse to accept any assurances given by a country about the end-use of an export.

  We may liase with the Government in the country concerned, encouraging them to control or sanction the purchasers in question. If the end-user were a Government, we would have a wide range of foreign policy tools at our disposal.

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to her Department in each year since 1997,
  973W
  stating in each case (a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if she will make a statement. [138063]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 November 2003]: I have asked each of the Chief Executives of my Department to reply.

  Letter from Claire Clancy to Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 November 2003:

  I am responding to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on behalf of Companies House, which is an Executive Agency of the DTI.

  I can confirm from our records that Companies House has not contracted any work to Bechtel since 1999. Our records for 1997–1998 have been archived, and to check this period would incur a disproportionate cost. Due to the nature of Bechtel's work, however, I am confident they were not contracted by Companies House to carry out any work during this period.

  Letter from Martin Wyn Griffith to Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 November 2003:

  I am replying on behalf of the Small Business Service (SBS), to the above question addressed to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It concerns contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel, in each year since 1977.

  SBS only commenced operations as an Agency of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) on 1 April 2000. Since that date, SBS has not engaged the services of Bechtel.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 November 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to you directly on behalf of The Insolvency Service in of respect to your question (2002/4638) asking for a list of contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to the Office in each year since 1997, stating in ease case (a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract.

  I can confirm that The Insolvency Service has had no dealings with Bechtel during this time.

  Letter from lain MacGregor to Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 November 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question asking her if she will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to her Department in each year since 1997, stating in each case (a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if she will make a statement.

  Bechtel has not carried out any contracts for consultancy or other work for National Weights and Measures Laboratory.

  Letter from Kevin Woodrow to Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 November 2003:

  In the absence of Alison Brimelow, Chief Executive, I am replying to this parliamentary question, tabled on 7 November 2003, about contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for each year since 1997.

  The Patent Office has had no contracts for consultancy or other work with Bechtel during this period.

  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 November 2003:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to list contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to her Department in each year since 1997. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS), which is an Agency of the DTI.
  974W
  I can confirm that the ETS has had no contracts with Bechtel over the period in question.

  Letter from David Smith to Malcolm Bruce, dated 19 November 2003:

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question about contracts with Bechtel.

  The Agency has no record of contracting with Bechtel since 1997.

  Broadband
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government is taking to ensure that broadband is available throughout the Glasgow, Pollok constituency at the earliest possible date. [139407]

  Mr. Timms
  BT has recently informed the Department that ADSL has been enabled to all exchanges throughout the Glasgow, Pollok constituency. They are currently reviewing areas where not everybody will be able to receive an ADSL service, as they may live too far from the exchange and these will be published on their website shortly. BT announced on 17 November 2003 that they have set trigger levels for 2,300 more exchanges, (http://www.bt.com/broadband/). Broadband services are increasingly being made available via a range of alternative technologies across Scotland, for example, cable, one-way and two-way broadband satellite, fixed wireless and local wireless networks. The Scottish Executive is committed to extension of broadband to every area in Scotland. They offer a Broadband Business Incentive grant to encourage broadband take-up and information is available from Scottish Enterprise's website: http://www.scottish-enterprise.com/sedotcom_home/services-to-business/broadband.htm

  Climate Change
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the contribution of the Carbon Trust to progress on meeting climate change targets.[134948]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Carbon Trust was launched in 2001 as part of the Climate Change Programme. A formal review of the Climate Change Programme is planned for 2004 that will include an assessment of the contribution of the Carbon Trust towards climate change targets.

  The Carbon Trust has undertaken an impact assessment of their programmes as part of their annual review which is available via their website www.thecarbontrust.co.uk.

  Coal Miners' Compensation
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to ensure that all eligible compensation claims for those suffering from coal-related diseases are submitted before March 2004. [140046]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Following Lord Justice Turner's agreement to a cut-off date of 31 March 2003 for submitting respiratory disease claims under the Claims Handling Agreement, the Department implemented a
  975W
  comprehensive communication plan to ensure that the date was communicated as widely and expeditiously as possible.

  We have written to all widows who receive pensions under the Mineworkers Pension Scheme.

  Under the plan we have carried out two comprehensive newspaper advertising campaigns and will carry out a further two such campaigns before the cut-off date. The Department's advert has also been carried in a number of coal industry publications and the Department's own "Compensation for Miners" newsletter.

  The budget for this is £100,583.

  References to the cut-off date are also carried on both of the Department's websites—www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth and www.coalclaims.com.

  Coal Mining
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future of the coal mining industry in the UK. [1400471]

  Mr. Timms
  The coal mining industry continues to make an important contribution to the economy, supplying around 50 per cent. of the country's total coal needs and some 60 per cent. of its coal-fired electricity generation feedstock. The Government are working to secure a future for viable deep and opencast mines. In June 2003, they launched Coal Investment Aid, which has a budget of up to £60 million for allocation of over the next three years to provide up to 30 per cent. support for eligible mining investment projects. An announcement about awards in response to first period applications for Coal Investment Aid is expected soon.

  Electricity
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average balance between supply and demand of electricity was at(a) peak and (b) off-peak times last winter; what she estimates the balance is likely to be in (i) five years time and (ii) 10 years time; and what her forecasts are of (A) demand and (B) the projected investment plans of the industry over those periods. [138875]

  Mr. Timms
  According to figures published in the DTI Digest of UK Energy Statistics, the maximum simultaneous electricity load met during the winter of 2002–03 was 61,717 MW. This represented 87.6 per cent. of the generating capacity owned by major power producers in the UK, although this figure would fall to 85.2 per cent. if the interconnector with France were included. Average load across the whole winter period (October to March) was approximately 49,000 M W.

  Provisional estimates arising from work to update the DTI energy projections in Energy Paper 68 indicate that electricity demand is likely to grow by around 1.25 per cent. per annum over the next decade. On this basis, demand in five years time would be around 6 per cent. above current levels and demand in 10 years around 13 per cent. above current levels.
  976W
  Future investment by the industry, and hence the future balance between supply and demand, is a commercial matter for electricity market participants. The UK market provides strong financial incentives for electricity suppliers to contract for sufficient power to meet their customers' needs and for generators to deliver the power they have contracted to provide.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much electricity generating capacity was available in the United Kingdom in each year since 1997, listing the contribution made by(a) coal, (b) gas, (c) nuclear power, (d) oil, (e) imports and (f) others; and what projections she has made of available generating capacity from each of these in the United Kingdom in each year to 2020. [139816]

  Mr. Timms
  Figures for the electricity generating capacity available in the United Kingdom in each year since 1997 are published in Table 5.7, Plant Capacity, of the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2002–03. Copies of this publication are available in the Library of the House.

  The latest full published projections of available generating capacity in the United Kingdom up to 2020 are published in Annex G, ESI Capacity, of Energy Projections for the UK, Energy Paper 68. This publication is also available in the Library of the House. Work to update these projections is currently underway for completion around March 2004. The latest projections, representing work in progress, are available on the DTI web site (www.dti.gov.uk/energy/sepn/projections.pdf).

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment she has made of the benefits of transmitting energy underground. [134127]

  Mr. Timms
  None. It is recognised that compared with overhead lines, there are potential benefits of underground transmission. However, benefits must always be weighed against cost, which at 400,000 volts in particular, is significantly higher per kilometre than an overhead line.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much spare generating capacity there is in the United Kingdom; and how much spare capacity her Department deems to be a sufficient safety net to safeguard electricity supplies for winter 2003–04. [139814]

  Mr. Timms
  The October 2003 Update to the National Grid Company (NGC) Seven Year Statement projects a plant margin of 19.3 per cent. for England and Wales for the winter 2003–04. By way of comparison, the projected plant margin for the winter of 2002–03 in NGC's October 2002 Update was 17.4 per cent. NGC project that peak demand under average cold spell (ACS) conditions this winter would be 55,900 MW and that the registered capacity of generating stations, including interconnectors with France and Scotland, would be 66,697 MW. The figures do not include additional reserves that NGC has recently contracted for and nor do they allow for any further return of mothballed plant.
  977W
  The electricity market provides electricity suppliers and generators with strong financial incentives to deliver the power they have contracted to provide. It is not the Government's role to specify how market participants should meet their contracted obligations.

  The Department of Trade and Industry, together with Ofgem, monitors the security of gas and electricity supplies through the Joint Energy Security of Supply Working Group (JESS). The latest report from JESS was published on the Department's web site (www. dti.gov.uk/energy/jess/jessreport3.pdf) on 12 November and copies will be placed in the library of the House when available.

  Employment Rights
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will make an announcement regarding section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 in relation to employment rights for clergy. [139856]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government hopes to publish a response to the DTI Review of Employment Status in relation to statutory employment rights around the turn of the year.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to announce the results of her Department's consultation on employment rights for atypical workers, with special reference to clergy. [139939]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government hope to publish a response to the DTI Review of Employment Status in relation to statutory employment rights around the turn of the year.

  Estate Agents
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims against estate agents have been taken to the civil courts: how many have been upheld; and how much financial compensation has been awarded in each year since 1997. [139671]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the dates of meetings of the(a) EU Committee for the implementation of the multiannual community programme to stimulate the establishment of the information society in Europe and (b) EU Advisory Committee on the development and reconversion of regions during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; which representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if she will make a statement. [132762]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:
  978W
  (a) There were no meetings of this Committee during the Danish and Greek presidencies. The programme was discussed at the Information Society working group during co-decision negotiations with the European Parliament.

  (b) The Committee for the Development and Conversion of Regions (CDCR) is chaired by DG REGIO the Directorate General for the Regions, and meets 10 times a year. All of its activities are a matter of record and are available on DG REGIO's "circa" website: http://forum.europa.eu.int

  The Committee discusses matters relating to the implementation of structural funds in the EU. Much of its work during the Danish presidency was concentrated on the simplification, clarification, coordination and flexibility of the structural policies. During the Greek presidency, the CDCR discussed a wide range of issues, including the Commission's revised indicative guidelines on the structural funds and their coordination with the Cohesion Fund.

  The CDCR has met four times since the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham on 13 May 2003, Official Report, columns 169–70W. Its structure and remit are unchanged.

  There was no representative from the Scottish Executive at these meetings. The UK is represented by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry who represent all of the UK.

  With regard to preparatory meetings, under "Exemption 2: internal discussion and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", the Government do not release details of such meetings.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the dates of meetings of the(a) EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the sector of protective equipment and systems for use in explosive atmospheres and (b) EU Committee on implementation of the multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; which representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if she will make a statement. [132763]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) I believe that the hon. Member is referring to the Standing Committee set up in Article 6 of Council Directive 94/9/EC Of 23 March 1994 on the approximation of laws of the member states concerning Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres (the "ATEX" Directive).

  The meeting scheduled for 11 December, during the Danish presidency was postponed until 6 and 7 February 2003, during the Greek Presidency. Agenda items for the February meeting were categorised under; questions of scope; questions of conformity assessment; questions of transition (1.7.2003); questions on the ATEX guidelines;

  979W
  reports from CEN standardisation committees; cooperation between EU notified bodies; progress in candidate countries concerning the implementation of the ATEX Directive, and, report from DG Enterprise concerning the ATEX "Workplace" Directive 1999/ 192/EC.

  The next meeting of the Standing Committee is scheduled for 4 December 2003. The UK is represented by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) who represent all of the UK.

  (b) The Enterprise Programme Management Committee met in Brussels on 17 October 2002 and on 13 March 2003. The main business of the former meeting was to discuss and approve multi-annual programme (MAP) activity for 2003, amendments to approved MAP activity for 2002 and proposals to take forward particular projects. The main purpose of the latter meeting was to consider the report on MAP implementation during 2002, amendments to the approved 2002 and 2003 activities and an evaluation of the 2001–05 MAP.

  UK officials consult widely and ensure that the views of the devolved administrations, including the Scottish Executive are fully reflected at committee meetings.

  With regard to preparatory meetings, under Exemption2: Internal discussion and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the Government does not release details of such meetings.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the dates of meetings of the(a) EU Committee for the implementation of the multiannual community action plan on promoting the safe use of the internet and (b) EU committee for management of generalised preferences during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; which representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if she will make a statement. [132764]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Common Commercial Policy is not devolved to the Scottish Executive. The GSP is part of the EU's Common Commercial Policy on which the Community have competence.

  The Committee met on 7 November 2002 and agenda items included the Implementation of Article 12 of Regulation No. 2501/2001, with respect to graduation, the request of Ukraine for the special incentive arrangements for the protection of labour rights, Information on other requests for the special incentive arrangements and information on judgment concerning case T?113/00 (DuPont Teijin Films Luxembourg SA; Mitsubishi Polyester Film GmbH; Toray Plastics Europe SA v. Commission).

  On 29 November 2002 and 13 December 2002, the Committee discussed the implementation of Article 12 of Regulation No. 2501/2001, with respect to graduation.
  980W
  On 25 March 2003, items discussed included a request according to Articles 26 to 28 of the Regulation No. 2501/2001 concerning Belarus, request of Sri Lanka for the special incentive arrangements for the protection of labour rights (for exchange of views), information on other requests for the special incentive arrangements and information on India's complaint in WTO.

  The GSP Working Party met on 6 November 2002 and on 5 March 2003 to discuss the SPG Regulation, on 27 February 2003 to discuss the application of a generalised tariff preference schemes from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004.

  (b) The IAPPC (Safer Internet Action Plan Committee) met on 28 October 2002 and 16 May 2003. The October 2002 agenda included: progress on the implementation of projects selected in 2002, report on activities of hotlines co-funded by the Action Plan, procedure for selecting contractor for final evaluation of programme, update on recent events (Racism Workshop, Police and hotlines workshop, extension of IAPCODE contract, discussions with candidate countries), proposal for a two-year extension of the programme, discussion paper on eSafe Work Programme 2003–04 and recent developments from member states. The May 2003 agenda included: the adoption of the Council Decision for the extension of the Work Programme to year 2003–04, a final evaluation of the programme, the criteria and content of the call for proposals, rules of procedure and national events, progress and particular issues related to illegal and/or harmful content on the internet. The Commission also organised a consultation day for committee members and the public on 12 September 2003 on the forthcoming programme (2005–08).

  UK officials consult widely and ensure that the views of the Devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Executive, are fully reflected at Committee meetings.

  With regard to preparatory meetings, under "Exemption 2: internal discussion and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", the Government do not release details of such meetings.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the dates of meetings of the(a) EU Committee for the harmonisation of national legislation relating to recreational craft, (b) EU Standing Committee on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to machinery and (c) EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the sector of cosmetics during the Danish and Greek Presidencies; what items were on each agenda; which representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if she will make a statement. [132765]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) I believe that the hon. Member is referring to the Standing Committee set up under Article 6 of Directive 94/25/EC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of member states relating to recreational craft. The last meeting was held on 27 January 2003 in Brussels. The items on the Agenda

  981W
  included a discussion concerning the updated rules of procedure of the Standing Committee; an update on the guide to the application of the Directive; a review of the Recreational Craft Sectoral Group's recommendation for use sheets; an exchange of views on administrative co-operation between member states and a discussion. There was no representative of the Scottish Executive at this meeting; the UK is represented by two officials from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) who represent all of the UK.

  (b) The Standing Committee set up under Article 6.2 of Directive 98/37/EC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to machinery has met twice during the period of the Danish and Greek Presidencies.

  On 28 March, the agenda items discussed were: co-ordination of notified bodies; progress on standardisation; electric hoists on lift car tops; safety belts on industrial trucks; standards on portable handheld machines; tipping equipment for fitting to road lorries; and mobile transport platforms.

  On October 23 and 24, the agenda items discussed were: mobile transport platforms; press brakes; annex ZA of harmonised standards, co-ordination of notified bodies; duration of type examination certificates; recommendations for use; progress on standardization; machines that use gas as fuel; Pr EN 13683 (garden equipment); Karting; prototypes; translation issues; EN 14122–4 (fixed ladders); climbing frames; automatic dough dividers; steam boilers; agricultural spray equipment; and, visibility from vehicles.

  There was no representative from the Scottish Executive at these meetings. The UK is represented by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry who represent all of the UK. They are supported by a technical expert from the Health and Safety Executive

  (c) The Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress (CATP) of Directive 76/768 on Cosmetic Products met twice during the Danish Presidency (on 22 July and 30 September 2002) and twice during the Greek Presidency (on 4 February and 29 April 2003). Under the Danish Presidency, discussions took place on the draft 27th and 28th Amendments to the Cosmetic Directive and these amendments were also adopted in this period. During the Greek Presidency, the 29th and 30th Amendments to the Cosmetics Directive were considered and adopted. The amendments all involved technical amendments (relating to substances allowed/ restricted for use in cosmetics) to the annexes that form part of the Cosmetics Directive.

  There was no representative from the Scottish Executive at these meetings. The UK is represented by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry who represent all of the UK. When technical amendments to the Cosmetics Directive are proposed, which usually relate to toxicological issues, the views of Department of Health and chemical advisers are sought.

  With regard to preparatory meetings, under "Exemption 2: internal discussion and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", the Government do not release details of such meetings.
  982W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the dates of meetings of the(a) EU Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions, (b) EU Advisory Committee on concentrations between undertakings and (c) EU Committee for implementation of the action programme to tackle discrimination during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; which representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if she will make a statement. [132766]

  Ms Hewitt
  Competition is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act.

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

  The Committee met in October, November and December 2002 and in March and May 2003, and discussed a number of anti-trust cases including those involving video games, auction houses, reinforcing steel bars, speciality graphites, beef and veal, food flavour enhancers, network sharing agreements for mobile phones and high-speed internet services.

  (b) The Advisory Committee on concentrations between undertakings meets to discuss all cases subject to detailed examination under the EC Merger Regulation and the Office of Fair Trading represents the United Kingdom with Ministers playing no role.

  The Committee also meets to discuss draft Commission guidance associated with EC Merger Regulation and broader policy issues raised by the European merger regime. The Committee met three times in July 2002; twice in October 2002; once in November 2002, December 2002 and March 2003; twice in April 2003; and once in June 2003.

  (c) In the relevant period there has been one meeting of the Committee for the Community Action programme to combat discrimination, on 6 December 2002. Among the items discussed were the draft Work Programme 2003, the Presentation of 2003 disability specific initiatives (European Year of People with Disabilities), Part financing the Platform of European Social NGOs- Awareness raising measures, the Results of Eurobarometer survey on the perceptions of discrimination, and the Evaluation of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

  When appropriate UK officials consult widely and ensure that the views of the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Executive are fully reflected at Committee meetings.

  With regard to preparatory meetings, under Exemption2: Internal discussion and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the Government do not release details of such meetings.
  983W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the dates of meetings of the(a) EU Accounting Directives Contact Committee, (b) EU Advisory Committee on opening up public contracts and (c) EU Committee on the directives on names and labelling of textile products during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; which representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if she will make a statement. [132767]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The last three meetings of the EU Accounting Directives Contact Committee took place on 12–13 December 2001,14 October 2002 and 27 March 2003. The Contact Committee discussed the Accounting Directives, including the Modernisation of the Accounting Directives, the Fair Value Directive and the interaction of national law and the European Regulation on International Accounting Standards.

  (b) During the Danish presidency there was a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Public Procurement in Brussels on 9 December 2002.

  The (substantive) items on the agenda were: the adoption of new rules of procedure, recent case law, public private partnerships, local public services, statistics and the related subject of indicators, forthcoming negotiations on coverage under the WTO GPA review and the establishment of a Working Group on e-procurement.

  During the Greek presidency there were two meetings of the Advisory Committee on Public Procurement in Brussels on 11 March and 18 June 2003.

  On 11 March the (substantive) agenda items were: public private partnerships, exchange of views on the review of the remedies directives, recent case law, presentation of and discussion of SOLVIT and the Public Procurement Network (PPN), qualification of construction firms, statistics and indicators, WTO procurement developments, the Community Procurement Vocabulary (CPV) and standard forms.

  On 18 June the (substantive) agenda items were: information on the Internal Market Strategy, discussion on the replies to a questionnaire on the review of the remedies directives, progress on the legislative package, information on the PPN, presentation and discussion of an ongoing Commission study on SME access to public procurement contracts, public procurement in the field of defence, WTO procurement developments, proposal for a CPV amending regulation, standard forms and statistics.

  (c) No meeting of the EU Committee on Directives relating to Textile Names and labelling took place during the Danish and Greek presidencies.

  There was no representative from the Scottish Executive at these meetings. The UK is represented by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry who represent all of the UK.
  984W
  With regard to preparatory meetings, under "Exemption 2: Internal discussion and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", the Government do not release details of such meetings.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the(a) EU Committee for the harmonisation of credit insurance provisions for transactions with medium and long-term cover, (b) EU Advisory Committee on standardisation in the field of information technology, (c) EU Committee on general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services and (d) the EU Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions in the transport industry met during the Danish and Greek presidencies; and if she will make a statement. [132768]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) There were no meetings of the EU Committee for the harmonisation of credit insurance provisions for transactions with medium and long terms cover in 2002–03, during the period corresponding to the Danish and Greek presidencies of the council.

  This Committee would only be involved in the case of an unresolved disagreement as to the status of a debtor.

  There were no such disagreements in 2002–03 so the committee was not convened.

  (b) I believe that the hon. Member is referring to the Senior Officials Group on Information Technology Standardisation, which has not met since 1999.

  (c) The EU Committee on general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (Licensing Committee) did not meet during the period in question. Its work was taken over in October 2002 by the Communications Committee (COCOM), which met seven times during the period in question. Agenda items included progress towards implementation of the new regulatory package; measures to encourage new market entrants, to promote the deployment of broadband and to discourage unsolicited commercial e-mail; adoption of common technical standards; the appointment of a registry to run the new "EU" top level domain internet address.

  (d) The Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions in the transport industry is the body through which the European Commission carries out its duty to consult member states on decisions and amendments to EC competition law in the field of transport which it proposes to adopt. The Committee met once in Brussels in the period in question: in September 2002, it discussed a revision to the Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement on liner shipping conferences.

  When appropriate UK officials consult widely and ensure that the views of the devolved administrations, including the Scottish Parliament are fully reflected at Committee meetings.

  With regard to preparatory meetings, under "Exemption 2: Internal discussion and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", the Government does not release details of such meetings.
  985W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the(a) EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the sector of electric materials used in an explosive atmosphere, (b) EU Committee on the directives on names and labelling of textile products, (c) EU Committee for the adaptation to technical progress of directives on the removal of technical barriers to trade in the sector of measuring instruments and methods of metrological control, (d) EU Advisory Committee on telecommunications procurement and (e) EU Committee on the implementation of open network provision met during the Danish and Greek presidencies; and if she will make a statement. [132770]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) I believe that the hon. Member is referring to Committees set up under "Old Approach" Directives 79/196/EEC, and 82/130/EEC.Adaptation to technical progress could only be made to these directives by amending directives incorporating updated harmonised standards. Directives 94/26/EC and 97/53/EC amended Directive 79/196/EEC and Directive 98/9/EC amended Directive 82/130 EEC.

  All these Directives were repealed on 30 June 2003 and superseded by "New Approach" Directive, 94/9/EC on the approximation of laws of the member states concerning Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres, (ATEX). This Directive is concerned with a wider range of ignition risks arising from electrical and mechanical equipment and dusts. It is my belief that there have been no meetings in respect of adapting to technical progress directives, since 1998.

  (b) No meeting of the EU Committee on Directives relating to Textile Names and labelling took place during the Danish and Greek presidencies.

  (c) No such EU Committee is currently active (which was also the position during both the Danish and Greek presidencies).

  (d) This Committee did not meet under the Danish or Greek presidencies.

  (e) The EU Committee on the implementation of open network provision (ONP) met once during the period in question, on 10 July 2002. Its work was taken over in October 2002 by the Communications Committee (COCOM), which met seven times during the period in question. Agenda items included progress towards implementation of the new regulatory package; measures to encourage new market entrants, to promote the deployment of broadband and to discourage unsolicited commercial e-mail; adoption of common technical standards; the appointment of a registry to run the new ".eu" top level domain Internet address.

  UK officials consult widely and ensure that the views of the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Executive are fully reflected at Committee meetings.

  With regard to preparatory meetings, under "Exemption 2: Internal discussion and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", the Government do not release details of such meetings
  986W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the dates of meetings of(a) the EU Committee on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on promotion of innovation and participation of SMEs and (b) the EU Coordination Group to promote uniformity of application of the general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas (first general system) during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; which representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if she will make a statement. [132797]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) With the advent of the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6), which was launched in December 2002, the committee system was restructured to reflect the format of the new programme. Innovation issues are now considered by the Research and Innovation committee and SME issues are covered by the horizontal committees on structuring the European Research Area and integrating and strengthening the European Research Area.

  The FP5 Innovation & SMEs committee met on two occasions during the Danish Presidency, on 10 July and 17 October 2002.

  During these meetings, the opinion of the committee was sought on the first batch of innovation projects accepted for funding and on the second batch of proposals for supporting the setting up and development of innovative firms. There was also discussion on a range of other issues including:

  tender for the CORDIS database contract and the future of the service;

  the results of an analysis of Technology Transfer and Validation projects under Framework Programmes four;

  the Innovation Trend chart;

  2001 Innovation and SME Monitoring report; and

  the contracts for two Innovation Relay Centres.

  The FP6 Research and Innovation Committee met on three occasions during the Danish Presidency: on 29 October, 19 November and 4 December 2002.

  During these meetings, there was discussion on:

  introduction to the Work Programmes of the Specific Programme 'Structuring the European Research Area';

  common criteria for evaluating proposals and common rules of procedure for the sub-programme committees; and

  the draft Work Programme for the Research and Innovation sub-programme.

  There were no meetings of this committee under the Greek Presidency. Each member state is permitted to send no more than one delegate to the committee. However, UK officials consult widely to ensure that the views of the Devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Executive, are fully reflected at committee meetings.

  The horizontal committees on structuring the European Research Area and integrating and strengthening the European Research Area met on three

  987W
  occasions during the Greek Presidency: on 4 March, 21 May and 9 July 2003. These covered the following SME issues:

  information on the first call for collective research proposals;

  information on SME participation in first calls of thematic priorities;

  information on the results of the first deadline for co-operative research; and

  information and discussion on the planning of co-operative research calls in 2004.

  The European Commission's meetings of the SME and Innovation Programme Committee were attended by DTI officials. The agendas and minutes of these meetings are circulated to the Devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Executive, and any views expressed by them are reflected at committee meetings.

  With regard to preparatory meetings, under Exemption2: internal discussion and advice, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, the Government do not release details of such meetings.

  (b) This Committee falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the dates of meetings of(a) the EU Telematics between Administrations Committee (TAC), (b) the EU Advisory Committee on State Aid for the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty to certain categories of horizontal State Aid (exemption) and (c) the EU Advisory Committee on State Aid on the arrangements for applying Article 93 of the EC Treaty (procedure) during the Danish and Greek presidencies; what items were on each agenda; what representative of the Scottish Executive was present on each occasion; what preparatory meetings were held for each meeting; which officials were present at each preparatory meeting; and if she will make a statement. [132822]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) There were three TAC meetings under the Danish presidency. Agenda items included included discussion on the IDA 2002 Work Programme; the future of IDA and eEurope; and IDA II mid-term evaluation, and the IDA Work Programmes for 2002 and 2003.

  There were five TAC meetings under the Greek presidency. Agenda items included the strategy for implementing the portal of the EU administration, the IDA Work Programme and eEurope, the 2003 IDA Work Programme, a Communication on Interoperability and Global Implementation Plans and Preparatory Reports for a number of projects.

  (b) The EU Advisory Committee on State Aid for the application of Article 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty to certain categories of horizontal State Aid (exemption) met once during the Danish and Greek presidencies. The meeting was held on 24 July 2002 and the sole item on the agenda was discussion of Commission proposals for a Block Exemption for State aid for employment.
  988W
  The EU Advisory Committee on State Aid on the arrangements for applying Article 93 of the EC Treaty (procedure) met twice during the Danish and Greek presidencies. The meetings were held on 17 December 2002 when the sole item on the agenda was discussion of informal Commission proposals on reform of State aid procedures and on 18 December 2002 when the sole item on the agenda was discussion of Commission proposals on Services of General Economic Interest.

  The Department consults widely on the topics for discussion at these meetings and the views of the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Executive are fully reflected at Committee meetings.

  With regard to preparatory meetings, under "Exemption 2: Internal advice and discussion, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", the Government do not release details of such meetings.

  Export Controls
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will discuss with(a) the Foreign Secretary, (b) the Secretary of State for International Development, (c) the Secretary of State for Defence and (d) the European Commission the allegations made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme in the (i) debate on Export Controls on 6 November and (ii) debate on the Export Control Bill on 8 November 2001 in relation to arms supplies to Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if she will take steps to investigate the allegations. [138668]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Investigations into alleged breaches of arms embargoes and Sanctions regimes is a matter for HM Customs and Excise.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) pursuant to the answer of 28 April 2003,Official Report, columns 104–05W, on the Export Control Act 2002, what (a) controls and (b) sanctions would apply under (A) orders made under the Export Control Act 2002 coming into force on 1 May 2004 and (B) European Union measures to an individual with United Kingdom residence rights and business interests but joint Zimbabwean and Dutch nationality who supplied arms or military supplies to Zimbabwe through (i) United Kingdom incorporated companies and (ii) Zimbabwe incorporated companies, which are associated with or controlled by her; [138696]

  (2) in what circumstances an individual dealing in arms who has United Kingdom residence rights but who does not hold a United Kingdom passport would be subject to the controls and sanctions of the orders due to come into force on 1 May 2004 under the Export Control Act 2002; [138697]

  (3) in what circumstances United Kingdom companies (a) controlled by and (b) associated with an individual with United Kingdom residence rights but joint Zimbabwean and Dutch nationality which are dealing in arms to Zimbabwe would be subject to restrictions and sanctions contained in the orders coming into force on 1st May 2004 under the Export Control Act 2002; [138698]
  989W
  (4) in what circumstances an individual dealing in arms to Zimbabwe who has United Kingdom residence rights but holds joint Zimbabwean and Dutch nationality would be subject to the controls contained in the orders which will come into force on 1 May 2004 under the Export Control Act 2002; [138699]

  (5) whether the Export Control Act 2002 and the orders due to come into force on 1 May 2004 will apply to the activities of UK-based arms dealers who have UK residence rights but are not UK passport holders and who supply arms to Zimbabwe through companies incorporated and based overseas. [138700]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Trade in Goods (Control) Order prohibits trade in specified military equipment between countries outside the UK unless the Secretary of State grants a licence. In the case of long-range missiles, specially designed components and equipment used in torture, the controls will apply to any trading activities done in the UK and also to the activities of UK persons anywhere in the world. For trade in any other equipment on the UK Military List to non-embargoed destinations, the controls will apply where any part of the trading activity takes place in the UK. The maximum penalty under this Order, for trading without a licence, is a fine for any amount or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both.

  A "UK person" is defined as a UK national, a Scottish Partnership, or a body incorporated under the law of any part of the UK. Controls on trade from a country outside the UK to an embargoed destination will be introduced by a separate Order to be made under Section 4 of the Export Control Act 2002. Trade activities carried out in the UK or by a UK person anywhere in the world are prohibited without a licence. The relevant embargoed destinations will be those subject to non-binding United Nations Sanctions, and European Union, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and UK national, embargoes. The maximum penalty under these Orders, for promoting the supply or delivery of any relevant goods to the embargoed destination without a licence, will be a fine for any amount or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or both.

  Zimbabwe is subject to both EU and national embargoes. On 18 February 2002 the Council of the European Union agreed a range of targeted sanctions against Zimbabwe (Council Common Position 2002/145/CFSP), including an embargo on the sale or supply of arms by nationals of member states and from the territory of member states, a ban on the supply of training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of arms, and a ban on the sale or supply of certain equipment which might be used for internal repression. The European Council subsequently adopted Council Regulation (EC) 310/ 2002 implementing certain measures of the Common Position, including the ban on the sale or supply of equipment for internal repression and technical assistance related to arms.

  The Zimbabwe (Sale, Supply, Export and Shipment of Equipment) (Penalties and Licences) Regulation 2002 (SI 2002/868) gives effect to EU Regulation 310/2002. The maximum penalty under the UK Regulation, for promoting the sale, supply or shipment of equipment
  990W
  which might be used for internal repression or the provision of relevant technical assistance to Zimbabwe without a licence, is a fine, imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. Presently, under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the maximum penalty for the export of controlled goods from the UK to Zimbabwe without a valid export licence is a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or both. This is to be increased to 10 years imprisonment from 1 May 2004 under the Trade in Good (Control) Order.

  A licence would be required under the new trade controls by a UK person anywhere in the world or any person acting in the UK who negotiated or arranged a contract with an overseas partner which he or she knew or had reason to believe would result in the movement of controlled goods from an overseas country to an embargoed destination. This would include trade to a third country where he or she knew or had reason to suppose that the goods were ultimately destined for an embargoed destination. The controls would apply to trading activity done from the UK regardless of whether it was undertaken through UK or foreign registered companies.

  Fair Trade
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action her Department is taking to promote fair trade accreditation at UK universities. [138387]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on 18 November 2003,Official Report, columns 544–45W.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to prevent misuse of fireworks. [117395]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I apologise for the delay in replying.

  The Police and Criminal Justice Act 2001 introduced fixed penalty notices for disorder–letting-off of fireworks in a public place is one of the offences covered by the scheme. In addition the Department for Trade and Industry introduced a voluntary agreement with the firework industry from January 2003 preventing the supply of airbombs. The Government also supported the Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), which received royal assent on the 18 September and which will allow more effective controls on fireworks.

  Insolvency
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) company insolvencies and (b) individual insolvencies there were in each quarter since 1997. [139815]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The figures requested are supplied in the following table.
  991W
  Figures on individual and company insolvencies are available from the DTI's quarterly insolvency press release. This can also be found on the website at www.dti.gov.uk/sd/insolv

  Year/quarter

  Company insolvencies1

  Individual insolvencies1

  1997

  Q1

  3,017

  6,021

  Q2

  3,183

  6,421

  Q3

  3,196

  6,093

  Q4

  3,214

  5,906

  1998

  Q1

  3,123

  5,746

  Q2

  3,291

  5,776

  Q3

  3,373

  6,306

  Q4

  3,416

  6,721

  1999

  Q1

  3,741

  6,785

  Q2

  3,653

  7,042

  Q3

  3,428

  7,503

  Q4

  3,458

  7,476

  2000

  Q1

  3,522

  7,612

  Q2

  3.431

  7,440

  Q3

  3,775

  7,200

  Q4

  3,589

  7,276

  2001

  Q1

  3,825

  7,473

  Q2

  3,765

  7,591

  Q3

  3,692

  7,324

  Q4

  3,690

  7,387

  2002

  Q1

  4,014

  7,244

  Q2

  4,130

  7,596

  Q3

  3,882

  7,779

  Q4

  4,280

  7,967

  2003

  Q1

  3,672

  8,146

  Q22

  3,825

  8,738

  Q33

  3,398

  9,094

  1Seasonally adjusted

  1Revised

  1Provisional

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much revenue has been generated from fees charged by the Insolvency Service in respect of(a) company winding-up petitions, (b) creditors' petitions and (c) debtor's petitions in each year since 1997. [139819]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Due to the nature of the current Insolvency Fees structure it is not possible to disaggregate the amount of fees recovered between(a) company winding-up petitions, (b) creditors' petitions and (c) debtor's petitions.

  Total fees recovered for each year since 1997 for Insolvency fee earning activities were:

  Amount (£000)

  1997–98

  35,155

  1998–99

  37,892

  1999–2000

  38,197

  2000–01

  41,777

  2001–02

  44,859

  2002–03

  52,589

  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many inquiries about the Manufacturing Advisory Service have been made by firms in(a) York unitary authority and (b)Yorkshire; [135939]

  (2) how many firms in (a) York unitary authority and (b) Yorkshire have taken up services offered by the Manufacturing Advisory Service; [135940]

  (3) how many training events have been held by the Manufacturing Advisory Service in Yorkshire. [135941]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Manufacturing Advisory Service (Yorkshire and Humber) has, since its launch in May 2002 to 17 November 2003, dealt with(a) 110 inquiries from firms in the York unitary authority area; and, (b) 2,563 inquiries from firms in Yorkshire and The Humber.

  In total, services offered by Manufacturing Advisory Service (Yorkshire and Humber) have been taken up by (a) 23 firms from the York unitary authority area; and (b) 547 firms in Yorkshire and The Humber.

  The Manufacturing Advisory Service (Yorkshire and Humber) has held 16 training events.

  Overall, the Manufacturing Advisory Service (Yorkshire and Humber) has so far delivered a total added value of 4.5 £million to firms in the region.

  Market Research
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much her Department spent on(a) opinion polling and (b) market research in the last financial year; and if she will make a statement. [139983]

  Ms Hewitt
  The department does not centrally collect the information sought at the required level of detail and to provide it would entail disproportionate cost.

  Statistical surveys to businesses and local authorities conducted by the Department and its agencies are monitored centrally to facilitate control of compliance costs to business and departmental expenditure on survey activity. It is not possible, however, to determine with any degree of accuracy which surveys fall into the categories of market and opinion research, or which contain an element of these. The answer would incur disproportionate cost because of the need to ask all Directorates in DTI to attempt to provide details of each survey and piece of research commissioned.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of third generation mobile telephone masts that will be required in Surrey.[136281]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the number of new masts that will be needed to fulfil the obligations of the 3G licensees, whether in total or by area. The number of masts required in an area will be affected by the level of consumer demand for 3G services, by commercial decisions related to the design of the networks, by the physical topography and by the requirements of planning authorities.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will issue guidance to mobile phone companies urging them to cancel mobile phone SIM cards when customers cancel contracts. [138609]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for the mobile phone operating companies and should involve no liability for customers.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding(a) fraud and (b) market abuse in the prepaid mobile telephone card market; and what action she is taking. [140019]

  Mr. Timms
  No representations have been received regarding either fraud or market abuse in the pre-paid mobile phone card market.

  There are no plans to take any action with regard to the pre-paid mobile telephone card market.

  NTL Complaints
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints Oftel received about NTL in the last 12 months; what action Oftel has taken in response to complaints; and when she next plans to meet the Chief Executive of NTL. [139805]

  Mr. Timms
  Between 1 November 2002 and 17 November 2003 Oftel received 5,202 complaints about NTL. In line with Oftel's policy of allowing telecommunications companies the opportunity to resolve complaints in the first instance, about 80 per cent. of the complaints were devolved to NTL to resolve. The remainder were handled by Oftel. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no immediate plans to meet the Chief Executive of NTL.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on the control of the UK's oil and gas industries of the draft European Constitution; and if she will make a statement. [139420]

  Mr. Timms
  My Department has made an assessment of the potential impact of the draft Constitution on the Department's powers to regulate recovery of hydrocarbons from the UK Continental Shelf. This assessment notes that Article III-157 of the draft EU Constitutional Treaty would give the EU competence in energy matters, including natural resources, with voting by qualified majority. Also that Article III-130(2)(c) provides for unanimity on "measures significantly affecting a Member State's choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply". Under the Treaty establishing the European Community, there is already Union activity in energy matters and we believe there is a strong case for making the legal base for policy in this area more transparent. However, the UK Government would not agree to any proposal that was inconsistent with UK energy interests.

  Post Office Closures
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many urban post offices in Scotland have been(a) proposed and (b) approved for closure since the inception of the Network Reinvention Scheme. [139024]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]: I understand that since March 2000 the company has recorded details of post office closures, including those under the urban reinvention programme, which commenced in late 2002, on the basis of Government Region and country. It does not record details of proposals on this basis. In Scotland, there have been 28 closures under the urban reinvention programme to the end of September 2003, the latest quarter for which figures are currently available.

  Post Offices (Benefit Payments)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the volume of transactions across post office counters was(a) in total, (b) for child benefit payments, (c) for pensions payments, (d) for Veterans Agency pensions and (e) for Jobcentre Plus in the last year for which figures are available. [139672]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Printer Cartridges
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library copies of correspondence between her Department and the European Commission concerning the status of printer cartridges within the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive. [139197]

  Mr. Timms
  There has been no written correspondence on this subject between the Government and the Commission.

  Radio Frequency Identifier Devices
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with retailers about the use of radio frequency identifier devices. [140030]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not met with retailers specifically to discuss the use of radio frequency identification (REID) devices.

  DTI supports wider and innovative use of REID as a business technology that can bring significant productivity improvements, reduce the opportunity for crime and enhance customer service. Demonstrator projects have been funded under the Basic Technologies and Next Wave programmes investigating REID applications in retail, supply chain, construction and transport sectors.

  DTI also seeks to identify and spread best practice, and better inform consideration of. REID technologies by working with the Auto-Identification Manufacturers trade association (AIM UK) and sector specific fora such

  995W
  as the British Retail Consortium, the Buildings Research Establishment and the Institute of Logistics and Transport.

  Red Tape
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures she is taking to reduce the administrative burden on small businesses. [139901]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I can confirm today that the small company audit exemption threshold will be raised to the EU maximum of £5.6 million. This will mean 69,000 companies will be added to the 822,000 already able to make their own decision about whether to have their accounts audited. This is expected to save companies at least £94 million a year.

  The recent OECD review of EU countries shows the UK has almost the lowest administration cost and few regulations for entrepreneurs than any other EU country.

  We are seeking further improvements through Regulatory Impact Assessments, 'Think Small First' and 'Small business Europe', which promotes better regulation.

  Royal Mail Group
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list foreign acquisitions by the Royal Mail Group since May 1997; what the cost of the acquisition was in each case; what their contribution to the Royal Mail Group's profit and loss account was in the most recent period for which figures are available; which acquisitions have since been divested from Royal Mail; and what the net contribution to the Royal Mail Group was in such cases. [139854]

  Mr. Timms
  Royal Mail's overseas investments are the responsibility of the Royal Mail Board. I have therefore asked the Deputy Chairman to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Small Business Council
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) cost and (b) remit of the Small Business Council was in 2002–03; what use has been made of the council by businesses in Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland; and if she will make a statement. [139570]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The cost of the Service in 2002–03 in millions was £349 million, which includes programme budgets.

  Information about the use of the service in the Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency is not collected separately. In the Middlesbrough area the Tees Valley Business Link has helped 465 businesses to start up and has provided advice and guidance to 1,151 businesses during 2002–03. Further information is available from Tees Valley Business Link.

  The remit of the Small Business Service is to help build an enterprise society in which small firms of all kinds thrive and achieve their potential, with an increase in the number of people considering going into business, an improvement in the overall productivity of small firms, and more enterprise in disadvantaged communities.
  996W
  The SBS Annual Report (HC 807) placed in the Libraries of the House on 14 July 2003 gives an overview of national progress, costs and impact.

  Small Loans Guarantee Fund
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) applications have been received and (b) awards have been granted by the Small Loans Guarantee Fund in the last six years for which figures are available within (i) the Scottish Borders, (ii) Scotland and (iii) the UK. [139484]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Since 1997, 29,205 UK businesses have received loan guarantees through this scheme.

  The total number of loans guaranteed for the Scottish Borders, Scotland and the UK over the last six years are shown in the following table.

  Borders

  Scotland

  UK

  2003–04

  (April to September)

  4

  401

  2,866

  Guaranteed

  2002–03

  Guaranteed

  10

  558

  3,916

  2001–02

  Guaranteed

  16

  698

  4,269

  2000–01

  Guaranteed

  19

  621

  4,312

  1999–2000

  Guaranteed

  23

  526

  4,279

  1998–99

  Guaranteed

  16

  408

  4,482

  1997–98

  Guaranteed

  16

  440

  5,081

  Total

  104

  3,652

  29,205

  There is no figure for the number of loan applications made to banks and other lenders.

  Training
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with(a) the Department for Education and Skills, (b) the Learning Skills Council, (c) voluntary sector training providers and (d) other interested parties regarding training and re-training in manufacturing and industry; and if she will make a statement. [139426]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, works closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, meeting regularly to discuss areas of joint interest. They jointly lead and chair the Skills Alliance, which brings Government together with key Social and Economic partners, and delivery agencies, including the LSC and SSDA, to drive the implementation of the Government's Skills Strategy.
  997W
  The Skills Strategy, published in July 2003, aims to ensure that employers have the right skills to support the success of their businesses and organisations, and individuals have the skills they need to be both employable and personally fulfilled.

  Through the Government's Manufacturing Strategy we are working closely with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that UK manufacturing has the skills it needs as it increasingly moves to high value, knowledge intensive operations.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Higher Education White Paper
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the additional cost of implementing the proposals in the higher education White Paper in the first three years that they come into effect] [139752]

  Alan Johnson
  We plan to publish a Regulatory Impact Assessment before the end of the year which will set out the impact of this change alongside the financial implications of the other policies announced in the Higher Education White Paper.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 12 November,Official Report, columns. 354–5W, on the Higher Education White Paper, how many responses to the consultation on the White Paper on Higher Education were received from honourable Members; how many were included in the total in the Government's response to the consultation; and how many other responses received by (a) his Department and (b) other Government Departments and agencies within the time limit for the consultation were not included in the total in the Government's response. [139453]

  Alan Johnson
  Seven hon. Members responded to the invitation to comment on the White Paper and were included in the total in the Government's commentary of responses.

  All other responses similarly were included in the total in the commentary of responses which was published on 28 July 2003.

  Non-EU Students
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the 50(a) universities and (b) further education colleges with the highest numbers of non-European Union students registered for courses, giving the number of non-European Union students registered at each institution for the last year for which figures are available. [131724]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available figures are given in the table.

  Non EU overseas students studying in English institutions, 2001–02

  Number

  HE Institutions1

  Middlesex University

  3571

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  3425

  998W

  Non EU overseas students studying in English institutions, 2001–02

  Number

  The University of Oxford

  3265

  The University of Cambridge

  3065

  The University of Nottingham

  3042

  The University of Warwick

  3038

  University College London

  2933

  The London Institute

  2911

  The University of Leeds

  2855

  The University of Birmingham

  2827

  The Victoria University of Manchester

  2795

  The University of Sheffield

  2440

  The University of Westminster

  2104

  Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine

  2014

  City University

  1872

  King's College London

  1869

  Oxford Brookes University

  1825

  University of Luton

  1759

  The University of Leicester

  1710

  The University of North London

  1678

  The University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  1618

  The University of Central Lancashire

  1582

  University of Hertfordshire

  1567

  The University of Bristol

  1565

  The University of Liverpool

  1544

  The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1539

  The University of Hull

  1533

  The University of Essex

  1521

  The University of Salford

  1509

  The University of Reading

  1466

  The University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

  1459

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  1457

  The University of Greenwich

  1453

  The University of Lancaster

  1383

  The University of Portsmouth

  1381

  The University of Bath

  1348

  Coventry University

  1344

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  1328

  South Bank University

  1308

  The University of Surrey

  1302

  The University of East London

  1299

  The University of Wolverhampton

  1295

  De Montfort University

  1233

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  1183

  The University of Southampton

  1147

  Loughborough University

  1134

  The University of Bradford

  1108

  The University of East Anglia

  1100

  The University of Kent at Canterbury

  1081

  London Guildhall University

  1072

  Further Education Colleges2

  City College, Birmingham

  810

  Brooklands College

  747

  Bradford College

  731

  Liverpool Community College

  704

  Guildford College of Further and Higher Education

  656

  Richmond Adult and Community College

  603

  South tyneside College

  591

  Kingston College

  581

  Bournville College of Further Education

  538

  Crawley College

  500

  Oxford College of Further Education

  483

  Lambeth College

  477

  Solihull College

  398

  City College, Manchester

  392

  Newham College of Further Education

  380

  Birmingham College of Food, Tourism and Creative Studies

  379

  Chichester College

  376

  West Herts College

  376

  Reading College and School of Arts and Desigh

  360

  Barnet College

  351

  Manchester College of Arts and Technology

  338

  Croydon College

  317

  Dudley College of Technology

  317

  Leicester College

  313

  999W

  Non EU overseas students studying in English institutions, 2001–02

  Number

  Harrow College

  304

  Lewes Tertiary College

  302

  South Thames College

  298

  Oaklands College

  295

  New College Nottingham

  281

  Gloucestershire College of Arts and Technology

  279

  East Berkshire College

  276

  Blackpool and The Fylde College

  271

  Bournemouth and Poole College

  265

  Northampton College

  247

  Swindon College

  243

  Wigan and Leigh College

  235

  City of Bath College

  217

  Southgate College

  216

  Park Lane College

  214

  Thomas Danby College

  213

  Southampton City College

  206

  Stratford Upon Avon College

  205

  Barnfield College

  206

  Northbrook College, Sussex

  203

  Bracknell and Wokingham College

  201

  Broxtowe College, Nottingham

  194

  The Henley College

  190

  Suffolk College

  185

  Walsall College of Arts and Technology

  179

  Havering College of Further and Higher Education

  178

  1 HE figures cover Non-EU overseas students studying HE and FE in English HEIs including the OU, based on a census count as at 1 December.

  2 FE data cover Non-EU overseas students studying HE and FE in English FECs, based on a census count as at 1 November.

  Source: Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and Learning Skills Council (LSC)

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what percentage of non-European Union students at(a) further education colleges and (b) universities successfully completed their courses for each of the last five years for which figures are available; [131725]

  (2) if he will list the 50 universities with the lowest percentage of non-European Union students successfully completing their courses, giving the percentage for each institution in the last year for which figures are available. [131726]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  For universities and other HE sector institutions, the available information on non-completion rates is published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK", but this information covers UK domiciled students only.

  For the FE sector, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) only publish success, retention and achievement rates for those learners funded by the council in further education colleges and external institutions in England. However, the majority of learners from countries outside of the European Union are not funded by the LSC—so figures are not available. Furthermore, the LSC do not publish further education institution success, retention and achievement rates based on less than 500 learners as they can be misleading. In 2001/02, less than 15 further education institutions in England had more than 500 LSC funded non-European Union students.

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to his Department and its predecessor in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [137880]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has not awarded any contracts to Bechtel during this period.

  Capital Projects
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the Government guidelines are for bids in relation to capital projects for schools; and how counties will apply for funds; [138874]

  (2) when the bids for capital projects to build new schools were sent out to counties. [138873]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are currently two main bidding rounds through which local education authorities (LEAs) are able to apply for capital funding for their school estates, Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and Targeted Capital Fund (TCF).

  The guidelines for the BSF programme were set out in guidance sent to all LEAs on 17 July 2003. The TCF guidance was issued to LEAs on 21 July. Both sets of guidance have been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  In both cases authorities were invited to prepare proposals based on the guidance, and to submit their proposals by 31 October 2003. We hope to announce successful projects for the first phase of BSF (due to start in 2005–06) in early January 2004, and successful TCF projects (due to start in 2004–05) will be announced at the end of January.

  Expressions of interest for later years BSF funding are due to be submitted by LEAs by 19 December 2003. A further phase of successful BSF projects will subsequently be announced at the end of March.

  Childhood Obesity
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how he intends to measure the impact of the Travelling to School action plan on childhood obesity. [138745]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  "Travelling to School: an action plan" describes how we are encouraging every school to draw up a School Travel Plan in consultation with parents, pupils, local authorities and other partners. School Travel Plans will help schools, local education and transport authorities identify what needs to be done to make it safe and practical for more children to walk, cycle and take the bus to school. The School Travel Planning process includes regular checks on the way pupils travel from home to school, indicating how many children are taking regular exercise which will improve their health and reduce the risk of obesity.

  Official Residences
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [134688]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department has not had any costs relating to Government owned official residences since 1997.

  Education Villages
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what discussions and consultations education authorities were required to carry out on education villages; [138879]

  (2) how many schools have bid for capital funding for education villages in the South West; [138953]

  (3) what the estimated total cost for education village bids is for the next two financial years; [138954]

  (4) how many bids have been received for village education centres; [139043]

  (5) whether the bids for (a) capital projects, (b) education improvements and (c) education villages are publicly available. [138872]

  Mr. Miliband
  Although we are unfamiliar with the term education village, we understand that this expression has been used at some local meetings in Somerset when discussing the local education authority's (LEA) proposal for Building Schools for the Future (BSF).

  My written statements of 26 February and 26 June 2003 explain the aims of BSF, which is a programme of rebuilding and renewal to ensure that secondary education in every part of England has facilities of 21st century standard within 10 to 15 years (subject to future spending decisions), from 2005–06, when over £2 billion will be made available for investment.

  We asked LEAs to consult widely on their proposals for BSF, as set out in guidance for LEAs, a copy of which I have placed in the House of Commons Library. The closing date for submission of proposals for the first wave was 31 October.

  The Department does not make capital bids publicly available, because the bidding processes involve an exchange of information which is given in confidence. Whilst we are not aware of a bidding programme specifically aimed at education improvements, all capital investment is designed to raise educational standards in schools.

  Although Somerset is the only LEA to be using the term education village in this context, we have received 53 BSF proposals (including the one for Somerset) for consideration for the first wave of investment. Three of these are from the South West.

  Foundation Degrees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the 1002W
  number of students who will be studying foundation degrees in 2010; and how many he expects to study locally. [139085]

  Alan Johnson
  The estimated number of full-time equivalent places on foundation degree courses in English universities from 2002–03 to 2005–06 are given below. Projections by whether the student is living at home while studying are not available.

  Full-time equivalent student places on foundation degree courses (academic year)

  2002/03

  9,500

  2003/04

  12,000

  2004/05

  30,000

  2005/06

  50,000

  Note:

  These numbers include HND places being replaced by foundation degrees.

  It should be noted that the total number of students in 2010 would depend on a number of factors, including demographic trends and rate of growth in participation towards the end of the decade. It is not possible therefore to make an estimate for 2010.

  GCSEs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of fifth-form pupils in(a) England, (b) comprehensive schools, (c) grammar schools, (d) secondary modern schools and (e) grammar and secondary modern schools taken together have achieved (i) five or more A* GCSEs, (ii) five or more A* or A GCSEs and (iii) five or more A*-C GCSEs in each year since 1997. [139029]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is given in the tables:

  (a) England

  Percentages

  Academic Year

  (i)15 year olds achieving five or more A* grades at GCSEs

  (ii) 15 year olds achieving five or more grades A*-A at GCSEs

  (iii)five or more A*-C GCSEs in each year since 1997

  20031

  2.9

  12.3

  52.6

  2002

  3.0

  12.2

  51.6

  2001

  2.8

  12.1

  50.0

  2000

  2.6

  11.7

  49.2

  1999

  2.4

  11.2

  47.9

  1998

  2.1

  10.6

  46.3

  1997

  1.7

  9.8

  45.1

  1 Provisional

  (b) Comprehensive schools

  Percentages

  Academic Year

  (i) 15 year olds achieving five or more A* grades at GCSEs

  (ii) 15 year olds achieving five of more A*-A at GCSEs

  (iii) 15 year olds achieving five or more grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ

  20031

  1.5

  8.7

  50.1

  2002

  1.5

  8.6

  48.8

  2001

  1.5

  8.5

  47.1

  2000

  1.4

  8.3

  46.4

  1999

  1.2

  7.8

  45.0

  1998

  1.1

  7.4

  43.1

  1997

  0.9

  6.8

  41.8

  1 Provisional

  1003W

  (c) Grammar schools

  Percentages

  Academic Year

  (i) 15 year achieving five or more A* grades at GCSEs

  (ii) 15 year olds achieving five or more grades A*-A at GCSEs

  (iii) 15 year olds achieving five or more grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ

  20031

  15.0

  51.59

  7.4

  2002

  14.9

  50.89

  7.5

  2001

  113.5

  49.7

  97.5

  2000

  12.5

  47.9

  97.3

  1999

  11.3

  45.1

  96.4

  1998

  9.3

  42.0

  95.4

  1997

  7.1

  37.6

  94.1

  1Provisional

  (d) Secondary modern school

  Percentages

  Academic Year

  (i) 15 year olds achieving five or more A* grades at GCSEs

  (ii) 15 year olds achieving five or more grades A*-A at GCSEs

  (iii) 15 year olds achieving five or more grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ

  20031

  0.2

  2.7

  40.8

  2002

  0.3

  2.6

  38.8

  2001

  0.2

  2.5

  36.8

  2000

  0.2

  2.1

  34.6

  1999

  0.1

  2.0

  32.8

  1998

  0.1

  1.5

  31.1

  1997

  0.0

  1.3

  29.0

  1 Provisional

  (e) Grammar and secondary modern schools

  Percentages

  Academic Year

  (i) 15 year olds achieving five or more A* grades at GCSEs

  (ii) 15 year olds achieving five or more grades A*-A at GCSEs

  (iii) 15 year olds achieving five or more grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ

  20031

  7.1

  25.4

  67.2

  2002

  7.0

  24.9

  66.0

  2001

  6.3

  24.2

  64.7

  2000

  5.9

  23.4

  63.8

  1999

  5.6

  23.3

  64.2

  1998

  4.6

  21.5

  62.8

  1997

  3.5

  19.3

  61.3

  1 Provisional

  Graduate Tax
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish side-by-side comparative analyses of the cashflow profiles, showing projected expenditure and receipts of(a) the graduate payback scheme proposed in the White Paper on Higher Education and (b) the principal variants of a graduate tax which his Department has considered.[139342]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the two letters to my hon. Friend from my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, dated 11 April 2003 and 3 June 2003. Copies of both letters are in the House Library. I also refer my hon. Friend to the Government response to the Education and Skills Select Committee's report on the Higher Education White paper, published on 28 July, and to a letter to my hon. Friend from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, dated 12 November 2003.
  1004W
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place in the Library copies of focus group research which his Department has carried out into(a) higher education funding and (b) possible graduate contribution schemes. [139364]

  Alan Johnson
  Copies of "Student funding: findings from a two-stage programme of qualitative research on the funding of higher education" were placed in the Library and posted on the Department's Internet site on 28 March 2003.

  Graduates
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent reports he has received from Barclays Bank in respect of changes to the time it is taking for graduates to find a permanent employed position after leaving university. [139628]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has not received any recent reports from Barclays Bank on the changing patterns of graduate employment.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent reports he has received from Barclays Bank regarding recent levels of average graduate salaries. [139639]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has not received any recent reports from Barclays Bank on average graduate salaries.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent on widening participation in higher education in each year since 1997; on what schemes; and how much will be spent in each of the next five years. [137203]

  Alan Johnson
  Excluding student support, the relevant schemes and initiatives are as follows:Aimhigher (previously called Excellence Challenge) provides grants mainly to schools and colleges to raise the aspirations and attainment levels of young people. The Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE) Partnerships for Progression provides funds to universities for outreach. The White Paper The future of higher education announced that these two initiatives would be merged to form a new Aimhigher programme. Between 1998 and 2003, HEFCE established regionally based widening participation projects. Expenditure on these schemes and initiatives to 2005–06 are given in the following tables.
  In addition, HEFCE uses part of its teaching grant to provide a widening participation premium to universities to assist them with the additional costs of recruiting and retaining students from non-traditional backgrounds. The amount for this is £255 million in 2003–04, which includes £10 million from the Department's Aimhigher/Excellence challenge budget. HEFCE's disability allocation (£10 million in 2003–04) provides additional funding to universities to support recruitment and retention of disabled students.

  Plans for expenditure after 2005–06 will be determined during the next spending review.
  1005W

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–051

  2005–061

  Excellence Challenge/higher

  —

  —

  —

  50

  69.5

  100

  —

  —

  Partnerships for Progression

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  —

  —

  The new Aimhigher

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  126

  128

  HEFCE's Regional projects

  1.5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Total non-student support

  1.5

  5

  5

  55

  74.5

  120

  126

  128

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what models of higher education funding his Department has assessed based on increases to(a) basic rate income tax, (b) basic rate national insurance payable by individuals and businesses, (c) income tax paid by higher rate taxpayers only and (d) national insurance payable by individuals and businesses in respect of higher rate taxpayers only. [139163]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the two letters to my hon. Friend from my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, dated 11 April 2003 and 3 June 2003. Copies of both letters are in the House Library. I also refer my hon. Friend to the Government response to the Education and Skills Select Committee's report on the Higher Education White paper, published on 28 July, and to a letter to my hon. Friend from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, dated 12 November 2003.

  Household Incomes
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will publish the latest research he has commissioned on average household incomes by(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) local education authority in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland. [139634]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Farrelly dated 19 November 2003:

  Percentages

  (a) Wiltshire LEA

  (b) Dorset LEA

  (c) Devon LEA1

  England

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  20032

  74

  77

  75

  77

  70

  73

  68

  70

  2002

  70

  73

  72

  73

  71

  71

  67

  67

  2001

  69

  72

  70

  73

  65

  70

  65

  66

  2000

  70

  71

  70

  72

  63

  67

  64

  65

  1999

  71

  69

  67

  69

  66

  66

  64

  62

  1998

  71

  66

  68

  65

  68

  64

  65

  59

  1997

  63

  67

  62

  68

  60

  63

  57

  60

  1 For 1997, Devon LEA included schools in Torbay and Plymouth. Following the local government reorganisation in 1998, Torbay and Plymouth schools are excluded from the Devon figures.

  2 The 2003 information is based on provisional data.

  1006W
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question relating to research commissioned on average household incomes by (a) parliamentary constituency and (b) local education authority in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland.

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has not commissioned any research on average household incomes by parliamentary constituencies or by local education authorities. However, estimates of average household income and household disposable income are available at regional, sub-regional and local area levels (NUTS levels 1, 2 and 3 respectively), and were published in a news release on 26 March 2002, available on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/reg0302.pdf.

  In most cases, NUTS level 3 areas are groups of administrative areas that are also local education authorities, but this is not the case throughout the UK.

  ONS has also conducted work to develop estimates of average incomes at the ward level, and the results should be published within the next three months. However, these estimates cannot simply be aggregated to parliamentary constituencies or local education authorities. These results will be the best estimates at the ward level, and to produce the best estimates for parliamentary constituencies or local education authorities, different methodologies are likely to be more appropriate.

  I understand that there is work carried out by the devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland on household incomes at various geographic levels.

  Key Stage 3
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children in(a) Wiltshire, (b) Dorset and (c) Devon gained level 5 or above in the Key Stage 3 tests in (i) English and (ii) mathematics in each year since 1997. [138963]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]: The percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 or above at Key Stage 3 in (a) Wiltshire (b) Dorset and (c) Devon in (i) English and (ii) mathematics from 1997 onwards are:

  Licensed Qualifications
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to introduce a licensed qualification for(a) bricklayers and (b) hairdressers; and if he will make a statement. [138960]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have no plans to introduce licensed qualifications for either bricklayers or hairdressers. While a statutory approach, such as a licence to practice or operate, may suit some industries, we believe that collaborative voluntary action will be the appropriate route for most sectors.

  We have an excellent example of such an employer led initiative in the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS). Major contractors have made a commitment to improve performance by requiring members of their workforce to hold an industry record card—normally the CSCS.

  In the skills strategy we stated our determination to put employers' needs centre stage; it is for employers, not Government, to determine through their Sector Skills Council, whether this kind of agreement for collaborative action should be pursued.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total targeted transitional grant is that he expects to give to local education authorities; and whether this sum is additional to the total DFES support grant available for local education authorities. [139093]

  Mr. Miliband
  Indicative allocations of targeted transitional grant for 2004–05 were published on 29 October: these totalled £120 million. Allocations for 2004–05 will be confirmed later this month. I expect to make around half the 2004–05 level of grant available nationally in 2005–06: details will be confirmed in due course. The transitional grant is additional to the funding for local education authorities which was announced following the Spending Review 2002.

  In addition, if any local education authority 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 to each LEA 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.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions he has had on modern apprenticeships; what plans he has to expand Government aided apprenticeships; and if he will make a statement. [139444]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have regular meetings with numerous organisations and agencies 1008W
  to discuss modern apprenticeship developments. The Secretary of State has agreed to take part in a panel discussion at the Confederation of British Industry conference to address skills issues including modern apprenticeships. There are plans for Sir Roy Gardner, Chair of the Modern Apprenticeship Task Force, to feed back the task force's interim findings to the Secretary of State and myself.

  The Government are wholly behind modern apprenticeships as a high quality work-based learning option for young people. We are fully committed to implementing the reforms recommended by the Modern Apprenticeships Advisory Committee under Sir John Cassels, and more recent skills strategy announcements. We have adopted a PSA target for 2004 of 28 per cent. of young people entering a modern apprenticeship before the age of 22. We have made sufficient resources available to ensure that we meet this target and are on course to achieve it.

  Office of Fair Access
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the(a) capital expenditure and (b) running costs likely to arise as a result of the establishing of the Office of Fair Access. [137474]

  Alan Johnson
  This matter will be addressed in the explanatory notes which will be published when legislative proposals are presented to the House. We have proposed, in "Widening Participation in Higher Education" that OFFA will be separate from but supported by HEFCE. We do not expect any significant capital expenditure.

  Primary Schools (Essex)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the vacancy figure for primary school teachers in Essex was on 1 September 2003. [139523]

  Mr. Miliband
  Vacancy information is collected in January of each year. Information for January 2003 is shown in table 17 of the Schools Workforce in England statistical first release (SFR) of 9 September 2003. A copy of this SFR has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgatewav/DB/SFR/s000411/index.shtml

  School Performance Tables
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost of publishing stand-alone school performance tables for Key Stage 3 was. [139087]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 4 July 2003,Official Report, column. 680W. The Key Stage 3, GCSE/GNVQ and post-16 performance tables are managed as one exercise so there are no separate costings.

  Schwarz Review
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what process he followed in appointing Mr. Steven Schwarz to lead a review into admissions to higher education; what(a) exchanges and (b) representations took place between himself and Mr. Schwarz regarding the independence of such a review; and what guidelines there are regarding independence of reviews carried out at his request.[139123]

  Alan Johnson
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills appointed Professor Steven Schwartz following discussion with organisations in the higher education sector. This included contact with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), and Universities UK (UUK).

  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills has drawn up clear terms of reference for the Admissions to Higher Education Steering Group which are set out in its recent consultation paper, "Consultation On Key Issues Relating To Fair Admissions To Higher Education", available from www.admissions-review.org.uk.

  The Admissions to Higher Education Review adheres to good practice in preserving the independence of such reviews. This is demonstrated by the following:

  Professor Schwartz, vice-chancellor of Brunel University, has been chosen as an independent chair from the HE sector.

  Professor Schwartz has a Steering Group whose members represent a wide range of interests and views.

  The secretariat support to the Steering Group is led by consultants seconded from universities, rather than permanent civil servants.

  Any services commissioned by the Steering Group where resources or facilities are provided by the DfES have been subject to service level agreements.

  An independent press agency has been used for all matters relating to the review.

  Statistical Bulletin
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place in the Library statistics for the most recent available year consistent with those on which DFES statistical bulletin 13–84 was based. [139028]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department does not produce figures in the form of bulletin 13–84 and to produce an update in that form would involve disproportionate cost.

  Student Drop-outs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence he has collated on the differences in student drop-out rates between institutions, correlated with the socio-economic class of those dropping out.[135780]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information on non-completion rates by institution is contained in the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) publication 'Performance indicators in higher education in the UK ', a copy of which is in the house 1010W
  Library. The figures cover full-time first degree courses only and show the proportion of entrants who failed to complete their course for each individual HE institution in the UK. This data is not disaggregated by social class. However, the publication does show the proportion of young full time first degree entrants from the 'lower' social class categories for each institution.

  However, a number of research studies have explored the factors associated with students dropping out of higher education. The evidence shows that non-completion is a complex process that cannot normally be explained by a single factor. Other important factors (many of which are inter-related) include:

  Incompatibility between the student and their course or institution;

  lack of preparation for higher education;

  lack of commitment to the course:

  level of prior attainment;

  financial hardship;

  poor academic progress;

  health and other personal reason;

  age;

  gender; and

  whether or not the individual applied through clearing.

  Studies in this area include:

  (i) 'Right Choice? A follow up to "Making the Right Choice"' by Connor H, Pearson R, Pollard E, Tyers C, Willison R. Universities UK 2001, available from http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pubs/report.php?id = 1427uuk

  (ii) 'Effects of in-class variation and student rank on the probability of withdrawal: cross-section and time-series analysis for UK university students', by Arulampalam W, Naylor R A and Smith J, presented at the Royal Economic Society Conference at the University of Warwick in March 2002. It can be downloaded from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/economics/staff/faculty/naylor/publications/

  (iii) 'Dropping Out: A study of early leavers from Higher Education' by Rhys Davies and Peter Elias, DfES Research Report 386 available from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/

  (iv) 'Higher Education: Student Retention' a report made by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to the House of Commons Education and Employment Committee, found at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmeduemp/124/12402.htm.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has(a) conducted or (b) received into the relationship between a student's financial position and their propensity to drop out of higher education; and what conclusions he has drawn. [139626]

  Alan Johnson
  A number of research studies have explored the factors associated with dropping out of higher education. These include:

  Improving student achievement in the English higher education sector HC 486, Parliamentary Session 2001/2002;

  "Dropping Out: A study of early leavers from Higher Education" (2003) Rhys Davies and Peter Elias, DfES Research Report 386; and

  Yorke, M (1997) "Undergraduate Non-completion in Higher Education in England" Bristol HEFCE;

  Arulampalam, W., Naylor, R. A. and Smith, J., "Effects of in-class variation and student rank on the probability of withdrawal: cross-section and time-series analysis for UK university students," presented at the Royal Economic Society Conference, University of Warwick, March, 2002;
  1011W
  "Right Choice? A follow-up to 'Making the Right Choice"', Connor H. Pearson R, Pollard E, Tyers C, Willison R. Universities UK 2001;

  "Losing out: socio-economic disadvantage and experience in further and higher education" May 2003 Joseph Rowntree Foundation Smith J. and R. A. Naylor, "Dropping out of University: a statistical analysis of the probability of withdrawal for UK university students," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 2001, vol. 164, pp. 389–405;

  The evidence shows that non-completion is a complex process that cannot normally be explained by any single factor. Incompatibility between the student and their course or institution and a lack of preparation for higher education are the most commonly cited reasons for dropping out of higher education. Other reasons, which are often inter-related, include:

  lack of commitment to the course;

  financial hardship;

  poor academic progress; and

  health or other personal reasons.

  Research also shows that students with lower prior attainment and those who apply through clearing are more likely to drop-out of higher education other things being equal.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effect on costs to his Department of raising the repayment thresholds on student loans to £15,000 a year. [137574]

  Alan Johnson
  We plan to publish a Regulatory Impact Assessment before the end of the year which will set out the impact of this change alongside the financial implications of the other policies announced in the Higher Education White Paper.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of(a) the total outstanding size of student loan debt with the Government and its agencies in each year since 2001 and (b) the total Government payment for full or partial remission of tuition fees since 2001; and if he will list the planning assumptions for the size of each for the next three years. [139022]

  Alan Johnson
  On(a) the outstanding size of student loan debt for England and Wales at the end of financial year 2001–02, i.e. at 31 March 2002 was £7,203,199,000. A figure for student loan debt as at 31 March 2003 will be available when the DfES Resource Accounts for 2002–03 are published which is planned for December 2003. Planning assumptions are based around an increase of approximately £2 billion per annum in student loan debt for England and Wales. The Department does not hold figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  On (b) the cost to the Government of the public contribution to existing tuition fee remission arrangements for English and Welsh domiciled students studying in the United Kingdom is £382 million for 2001/02 academic year. Projections of fee income to English HEIs from home and EU domiciled students will be available at the end of November.
  1012W
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent research his Department has undertaken to establish whether students differentiate between debt and income-contingent loans. [139636]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department has not undertaken research to establish whether students differentiate between debt and income-contingent loans.

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average level of debt for a student leaving university was in each academic year since 1993–94. [139642]

  Alan Johnson
  The table shows the average student loan debt at the point at which they entered repayment status for borrowers who became liable to repay their loans in financial years 1999–2000 to 2002–03. Data for earlier years are not available.

  £

  Average student loan debt on entering repayment status1

  Financial year entered repayment status2

  Mortgage style loans3

  Income contingent loans4

  Part-time loans5

  1999–2000

  3,530

  6—

  6—

  2000–01

  4,090

  2,300

  6—

  2001–02

  4,490

  3,410

  450

  2002–03

  5,150

  5,980

  520

  1 Data rounded to nearest 10. Includes interest accrued up to the point of entering repayment status. Excludes any early voluntary repayments which may have been made before borrowers enter repayment status. Debt of borrowers with more than one loan type has been split between types.

  2 Borrowers enter repayment status in the April following their graduation or otherwise leaving their course. Borrowers may have accounts in more than one cohort year of entering repayment.

  3 Loans made to students who entered higher education up to 1997/98 or who entered in 1998/99 under existing arrangements. Includes loans repayable to the private sector following the sale of two tranches of student loans.

  4 Loans, repayable on an income contingent basis, available to students who entered higher education from academic year 1998/99. These loans were subject to a repayment holiday until April 2000. Includes hardship loans.

  5 Fixed-rate loans made to eligible part-time students, introduced in September 2000.

  6 Not applicable.

  Source:

  Student Loans Company.

  The first cohort of students on a three-year degree course who entered higher education under the new student support arrangements became liable for repayment in April 2002. That, and earlier, cohorts includes a disproportionate number of students on shorter courses as well as those who have left higher education before completing their courses. Therefore the average level of debt will not be representative of the average debt experienced by those who complete their courses.

  Borrowers are liable to repay their loans from the April following graduation or otherwise leaving their course. Most borrowers who started their course from the 1998/99 academic year will repay income contingent loans. Loans for those who started their course before 1998/99 are repayable on a mortgage style basis.
  1013W
  The Department does not have annual data for HE students' total debt on graduation (including bank loans, overdrafts, credit cards, and informal debts to family and friends). The Student Income and Expenditure Survey (SIES), which collects this information is undertaken every three to four years. Findings from the last survey in 1998/99 showed that the average total anticipated debt of all full-time students graduating in 1998/99 was £3,462. The Department has conducted a SIES for the 2002/3 academic year which will be published shortly.

  Students
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent reports he has received on the percentage of students attending university whose parents were graduates; and what trends they demonstrate. [139638]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2002 36 per cent. of 18 year olds in higher education had at least one parent with a degree (Youth Cohort Study Cohort 10 sweep three). The table shows that the trend over time appears to be reasonably flat.

  18 year olds in higher education with at least one parent with a degree

  Percentage

  Year

  1994

  1998

  2000

  2002

  18 year olds in HE with graduate parent(s)

  35

  37

  38

  36

  Source:

  Youth Cohort Study cohorts 6,8,9 and 10

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to improve teacher training for further education college staff; and if he will make a statement. [138957]

  Alan Johnson
  In "Success for All" the Government set out its aim to enable six million learners to reach their potential. This depends on quality of teaching, which in turn depends on quality of teacher training. On 11 November we launched a consultation "The Future of Initial Teacher Education for the Learning and Skills Sector—An Agenda for Reform": http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations2/30.

  We want all our partners in the learning and skills sector including the Inspectorates, funding bodies, employers and unions to join us in developing this agenda for change. This will support our ambition for more successful and satisfying careers for current and future generations of teachers, to the lasting benefit of learners.

  Top-up Fees
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received on top-up fees for university students; what assessment he has made of the effect of top-up fees on decisions by students from low-income families to pursue further and higher education; what steps he will take to encourage 1014W
  students from low-income families to enter further and higher education; and if he will make a statement. [139439]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 11 September 2003,Official Report, column 464W, in which I described the numerous representations which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received regarding variable fees. With respect to the impact of variable fees on students from low income backgrounds, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-Under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) of 12 November 2003, Official Report, column 354W, in which I set out the Government's proposed measures for safeguarding access to higher education for those from low income backgrounds.

  Our AimHigher campaign provides a focus for the many and varied widening participation activities going on at an institutional, local and regional level. To date, it has reached 1,223 schools and sixth form colleges and a total of 129,130 pupils, and the evidence shows that it is working: applications for entry into higher education in 2003 are up 4.2 per cent. in AimHigher areas compared to 1.6 per cent. in non-AimHigher areas.

  The introduction of variable fees will not impact directly on those in further education. However, we aim to increase participation in further education through a range of actions set out in our 14–19 Skills for Life, Skills and Success for All strategies which will ensure that students from low income families have access to high quality opportunities which meet their individual needs and that they are encouraged to fulfil their potential.

  Tuition Fees
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of the possible impact of tuition fees at universities in England on salaries for teaching and research staff at universities in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland; [139002]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure, under the proposals in the White Paper on Higher Education, equality of opportunity for English students seeking to go to universities in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland; [139164]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the impact so far of the different systems of student funding in the UK on cross-border flows of students from (a) England and Wales to Scotland and (b) Scotland to England and Wales; [139128]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the possible impact of tuition fees at universities in England on (a) research and (b) teaching at universities in (i) Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland; [139003]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the possible impact of tuition fees in England on cross-border flows of students from (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland to universities in England;[139004]

  (6) what assessment he has made of the possible impact of tuition fees at English universities on the overall competitiveness of universities in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland;[139129]
  1015W
  (7) what assessment he has made of the possible impact of tuition fees at universities in England on cross-border flows of academic staff to England from universities in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland. [139130]

  (8) what assessment he has made of the possible impact of tuition fees in England on cross-border flows of English students to universities in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland. [139005]

  (9) how, under the proposals in the White Paper on higher education, he will ensure equality of opportunity for (a) Welsh, (b) Scottish and (c) Northern Irish students to go to universities in (i) Wales, (ii) England, (iii) Scotland and (iv) Northern Ireland; [139105]

  (10) what assessment has been made of the overall impact of the implementation in England of the proposals in the White Paper on Higher Education on universities in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland. [139175]

  Alan Johnson
  We are involved in regular discussion with the devolved administrations on these issues.

  Funding decisions on higher education relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for the devolved administrations. Matters relating to student support are also devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government propose, subject to Parliamentary approval, to transfer student support to the National Assembly for Wales.

  After legislation to give effect to the transfer is in place, Professor Teresa Rees will start an independent review of student support and tuition fees in Wales. This will include the key question of future policy on variable fees and will advise the Assembly on what it might do with its new student support powers. The Third Stage Higher Education Review in Scotland is currently assessing the impact of the proposals emanating from the White Paper The Future of Higher Education (Cm 5735).

  Subject to any provisions in their access agreements, it will be for individual institutions to determine how they spend income raised from variable tuition fees.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the residual income requirements are for full or partial remission of university tuition fees; and what the proposed residual income levels will be above which student grants will not be(a) fully and (b) partly paid from 2004. [139097]

  Alan Johnson
  For the present residual income requirements for full or partial fee remission, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20 October,Official Report, column 438W.

  The income thresholds for 2004–05 have not yet been finalised. From 2004 academic year, new students from a household with an income of £15,200 or less will qualify for a full HE Grant of 1,000. Those from a household with income between £15,201 and £21,185 will qualify for a partial grant of between £50 and £1,000. We expect to announce the rates for the remaining thresholds within the next few weeks.
  1016W
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what fee remissions he proposes for(a) students from more modest backgrounds and (b) students taking up (i) medicine or (ii) teaching; [139627]

  (2) what further measures in respect of (a) maintenance grants and (b) student loans he intends to bring forward; and if he will make a statement. [139629]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government's policy on maintenance grants, student loans and tuition fee remission grant is set out in the White Paper "The future of higher education" (Cm 5735) published on 22 January 2003. I also refer to my written statement of 16 July 2003 to the House of Commons on raising the income threshold, for receipt of the full £1,000 Higher Education Grant, to £15,200.

  Universities
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has sought from businesses on their preferred methods of contributing to more funding for(a) teaching and (b) research in universities in the United Kingdom. [139174]

  Alan Johnson
  I have not specifically invited representations from business in relation to the funding of teaching in universities. As to research, a consultation on funding for research in Higher Education Institutions, The sustainability of University Research', was published by the Office for Science and Technology at the end of May. It closed for consultation on 30 September. Over 162 formal responses were received, including 11 from industry. These responses, and contributions from meetings with a range of organisations, are receiving careful consideration. The government anticipates an announcement on the outcomes of the consultation early in 2004.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the feasibility of implementing the recommendations in the report of July 2002 by the House of Lords Select Committee on the use of animals in scientific procedures; and if he will make a statement. [140045]

  Caroline Flint
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans there are to establish national research on the replacement of animals in basic medical research. [133349]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department is taking to enhance the status of alternative research to replace animal experiments. [133350]
  1017W
  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: The use of alternatives is widely encouraged and the use of animals in regulated procedures is prohibited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in cases where a scientifically valid non-animal alternative is available.

  Much importance is already attached to alternatives research, both by Government (including public service research funding bodies) and the scientific research community. The latter has considerable incentive to develop replacements for the use of animals, and has an impressive track record in doing so. Responsibility for further progress continues to rest primarily with the researchers themselves, as they try to overcome the technical limitations of those systems and methodologies still dependent upon animal use. The Government will continue their efforts to support that, with the added focus and impetus provided by the various related recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, the Government response to which has been well reported.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into the levels of financial support other EU member states have given to alternatives to animal research; and what conclusions he has drawn. [133351]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 22 October 2003]: The Government have not commissioned any research into the levels of financial support other EU member states have given to alternatives to animal research and has no current plans to do so. However, we have not ruled out such research, should it become relevant to our consideration of the need for a United Kingdom centre for research into the alternatives.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to encourage alternatives to animal testing for medical research. [133541]

  Caroline Flint
  The use of alternatives is widely encouraged and the use of animals in regulated procedures is prohibited by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in cases where a scientifically valid non-animal alternative is available. Every year the Home Office makes available to the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) a budget aimed at developing or promoting the use of alternatives which replace animal use, reduce the number of animals used, or refine the procedures involved to minimise suffering (the 3Rs). Work aimed at improving the environmental conditions in which laboratory animals are kept and transported has also been sponsored. The amount made available to the Committee for 2003–04 for this specific purpose is £280,000.

  This is not the only money spent by the Government on alternatives, other Departments also fund such work. It is estimated that the total spent by the United Kingdom Government is between £2 million and £10 million each year. Industry also spends many millions of pounds each year on the search for and development of alternatives.

  We also support international initiatives, including the work of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). The Chief Inspector of
  1018W
  the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate is now the United Kingdom representative on the ECVAM Scientific Advisory Committee and is contributing to discussions about the future direction of ECVAM's work. The Chief Inspector and other members of the Inspectorate also participated last year in the Fourth World Congress on alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences, in New Orleans, which the Home Office co-sponsored.

  Alcohol (Public Places)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances he would advise a local authority to introduce a city-wide drinking ban using the model Home Office bye-law rather than a designated public places order; [136603]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which a designated public places order for a city-wide drinking ban may be used to address aggressive begging; [136599]

  (3) what the average length of time taken to implement a designated public places order has been from the day on which the local authority made a decision. [137239]

  Ms Blears
  Section 12–16 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (CJPA) came into force on 1 September 2001. The provisions in the Act allow local authorities to designate areas to restrict public drinking where there is evidence that nuisance is alcohol related. In such designated areas the police may use their discretionary powers to confiscate all alcohol where they reasonably believe that continued drinking in that place will lead to further disorder or nuisance. The CJPA provides the police with a more consistent set of powers including the power of arrest, which was not available in the previous bye-laws. Any relevant local authority drinking bye-law will lapse after five years commencing on 1 September 2001.

  The powers contained in the CJPA were never intended to be used to introduce a blanket restriction on public drinking. The powers were intended to be used to stop the immediate problems caused by anti-social drinking in designated areas and to allow the police to confiscate alcohol in those areas. Section 13 of the CJPA could permit the designation of an entire local authority area should that area be experiencing problems with nuisance that is alcohol related.

  The time it takes for a local authority to introduce an order will vary from the size of the area to be designated and also with regard to the time it takes to carry out the procedures required under the Local Authorities (Alcohol Consumption in Designated Places) Regulations 2001.

  The objective of the CJPA powers is to tackle anti-social street drinking, rather than begging. Begging is an offence under Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. It will be made a recordable offence from 1 December 2003.

  Anonymity
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what informed and
  1019W
  strengthened guidance has been given to the police and media on anonymity for those accused of historical child abuse; and where and to whom it is available; [138279]

  (2) which Ministers are discussing with media representatives how intrusive and unhelpful reporting in cases with suspects of historical child abuse can be avoided. [138282]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will remove the right to buy from a council tenant any of whose family resident in the family home are subject of an antisocial behaviour order for neighbour nuisance. [138798]

  Ms Blears
  Under the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill we have made a number of improvements to anti-social behaviour orders. However, we are also aware that anti-social tenants can sometimes evade eviction by buying their homes under the right to buy. We are actively considering what steps we can take to prevent this and thus to protect communities.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his provision of taxis for asylum seekers for visiting friends and family; out of which budget they are paid for; what criteria are used to assess whether or not an asylum seeker might be able to make use of such arrangements; and whether provision of taxis is a temporary measure. [134130]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in each of the last six years have received(a) a criminal record and (b) been sentenced to prison. [135872]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many female asylum seekers that have been settled in the United Kingdom requested that their husband not be granted asylum so as to protect them from domestic violence in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003; [138172]

  (2) how many female asylum seekers arrived in the UK seeking protection from an abusive husband or partner in (a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [138173]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose claims have been certified as clearly unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have lodged appeals from abroad; and how many of those appeals have been successful. [139232]
  1020W
  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate the Department has made of the number of asylum seekers given on committing fraud by unqualified legal advisers in the last year for which figures are available. [138691]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Bus Lanes (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much policing bus lanes in England cost in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [137684]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not held centrally.

  Citizenship Applications
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how long on average it has taken to deal with British Overseas Citizens' applications in the last year for which figures are available. [133482]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Civil Service Bodies
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) criminal justice and (b) other civil service bodies accountable to his Department which are not required to produce an annual report. [131163]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Community Justice
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to introduce community courts; and how these courts will work in practice. [137532]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects there to be a community justice centre in every area. [138364]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Community Policy Directorate
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the purpose is of the Community Policy Directorate of his Department; what its estimated costs were for each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [99805]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Corporate Killing
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the introduction of health and safety legislation to deal with corporate killing; and if he will make a statement. [136864]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he will reply to the letter of 11 September from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding a constituent, reference: PO 13626/3 + K454708. [133067]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton to discuss the letter to him dated 18 September 2003, with regard to Mr. M. J. Sattler. [138459]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A letter was sent to my right hon. Friend on 22 September explaining that his letter had been transferred to the Office for National Statistics.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the hon. Member for Bolton, South East will receive a response to his letters of(a) 25 April, (b) 18 June, (c) 29 July, (d) 3 September and (e) 8 October regarding Mr.Dana Kamal, (HO Ref.K1119164). [138771]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he will reply to the letter of 24 July 2003 from the hon. Member for Aylesbury on behalf of Mrs. M. Else of Allonby Way, Aylesbury. [139303]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 18 November 2003]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Clare Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood of 4 September 2003 regarding Weston Clark, date of birth 26 February 1975, ref MEV339443. [139577]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to my right hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Crime Statistics (Northumbria)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the recorded crime figures were for Northumbria in each year since 1997.[137470]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the number of applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2002–03; and how he estimates this will affect its means of estimating application rates in the future. [138240]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how he intends to(a) decrease the rate of case review manager turnover and (b) increase the rate of recruitment in the Criminal Cases Review Commission; [138241]

  (2) what measures are being taken to ensure that the number of case review managers is not affected by (a) staff turnover and (b) recruitment levels. [138295]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the relationship between his Department and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [138242]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of accountability of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [138243]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission in its responsibility to consider and report to the Secretary of State on whether to recommend exercise of Her Majesty's prerogative of mercy in relation to a conviction. [138246]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many and what percentage of cases reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission an investigating officer was appointed from another public body; and what percentage of these cases was referred to a court of appeal in each year since the inception of the service. [138247]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of cases reviewed by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have been referred to a court of appeal in each year since inception of the service. [138248]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1023W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to promote public understanding of the role of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.[138249]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission have arisen from each region in the United Kingdom in each year since its inception. [138250]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of public confidence in the criminal justice system since the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [138251]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of co-operation by(a) health authorities and (b) social services departments with the investigations of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with particular reference to (i) the preservation of documents and (ii) access to them. [138252]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the Criminal Cases Review Commission has made of(a) its dealings with non-public bodies and (b) its helpfulness in investigations. [138253]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission were referred by(a) an independent solicitor and (b) legal partnerships in 2002–03. [138254]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Criminal Cases Review Commission has a duty to analyse the causes of miscarriages of justice and suggest ways to reduce their incidence. [138255]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment the Criminal Cases Review Commission has made of applicants and their views on the openness and transparency of the review process at the various stages; [138256]

  (2) what measures are in place to assess the satisfaction levels of applicants to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the work and investigation that is done on their behalf. [138257]
  1024W
  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many and what percentage of initial inquiries and communications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission were responded to within three working days in each year since the inception of the service; [138258]

  (2) how many and what percentage of correspondence at stage two of the Criminal Cases Review Commission have been responded to within 10 working days in each year since the inception of the service; [138265]

  (3) how much and what percentage of correspondence at stage two of the Criminal Cases Review Commission was responded to within 10 working days in each year since the inception of the service; [138261]

  (4) how much and what percentage of correspondence to the Criminal Cases Review Commission at stage one was responded to within 10 working days in each year since the inception of the service. [138259]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many and what percentage of reviews at stage one of the Criminal Cases Review Commission have been completed within 30 working days in each year since the inception of the service; [138260]

  (2) how many and what percentage of reviews at stage two screen of the Criminal Cases Review Commission have been completed within 30 working days in each year since the inception of the service. [138262]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of provisional non-referrals at stage two screen of the Criminal Cases Review Commission involved the applicant making further representations within 20 working days; and what percentage of these cases went on to(a) stage two and (b) referral to Court of Appeal, in each year since the inception of the service. [138263]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on reaching tray two in the Criminal Cases Review Commission, how long on average cases have waited in each year since the inception of the commission before being assigned a caseworker. [138264]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many and what percentage of cases the Criminal Cases Review Commission investigated issues by(a) using its own resources, (b) appointing an expert to carry out an investigation or prepare a report, (c) requesting police

  1025W
  to carry out work and (d) the formal appointment of an investigating officer, in each year since the inception of the service. [138266]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of provisional non-referrals at stage two of the Criminal Cases Review Commission involved the applicant making further representations; and what percentage of these cases went on to(a) stage three and (b) referral to Court of Appeal, in each year since the inception of the service. [138267]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many and what percentage of cases convictions have been quashed as a result of legislation that has been passed since the original case was heard, in each year since the inception of the service. [138268]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many and what percentage of cases the Criminal Cases Review Commission exercised its section 17 powers in 2003; [138288]

  (2) what the outcome was of discussions between the Criminal Cases Review Commission and his Department concerning possible improvements to the powers of the Commission.[138301]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many and what percentage of referrals non-disclosure has been a determining factor in the decision to refer in 2003. [138289]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what period of time on average cases were classed as non-priority by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each year since the inception of the service. [138290]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the outcome was of the Process Improvement Project; [138291]

  (2) how many internal process improvement groups have been convened by the Chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and how many process improvement projects have been set up as a result in each year since the inception of the service. [138292]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1026W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long the Criminal Cases Review Commission estimates it will take to complete the review of case files that have been stored for five years following completion of reviews. [138293]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets the Criminal Cases Review Commission is working towards in the effort to minimise case accumulation; and when it estimates that this will be achieved. [138294]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what ways the Criminal Cases Review Commission's accommodation in the Alpha Tower has been designed to encourage communication and openness; [138297]

  (2) how many training sessions and external courses were held by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2002–03; and what percentage of staff attended. [138296]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding was allocated to the Criminal Cases Review Commission under the Invest to Save initiative; and how this money was used. [138298]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cases were referred to the court of appeal in each year from 1990 until the Criminal Cases Review Commission was established; and of these cases, how many(a) appeals were rejected and (b) convictions were quashed; [138321]

  (2) what the results were of the quarterly surveys conducted by the Criminal Cases Review Commission to determine (a) how applicants became aware of the Commission's existence, (b) whether or not they found Commission staff helpful and (c) how they believe communications could have been improved; [138300]

  (3) what the results were of the proof-of-concept trials by the Criminal Cases Review Commission on a knowledge management package in May and June. [138299]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many applications were received by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each year from 31 March 1997 and 31 March 2003. [139623]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Criminal Justice Bill
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for making appropriate treatment more widely available for the purposes of clause 16 of the Criminal Justice Bill. [128629]

  Caroline Flint
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Criminal Justice Boards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on the(a) work and (b) efficiency of the criminal justice boards; and what recent changes have occurred in the way cases are handled at local level. [137826]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Criminal Justice Royal Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice that reported in June 1996; what the main budgetary items of expenditure were; for how many days the Commission sat in public; how many witnesses gave evidence; and how many copies of the final report were distributed. [137501]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the representation of victims' interests in the criminal justice system. [137346]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the timescale is for the Government's review of inspection arrangements within the criminal justice system. [139255]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the Criminal Records Bureau's Overseas Information Service; [127768]

  (2) what measures he takes to ensure that other Departments are made aware of the Criminal Records Bureau's Overseas Information Service; [127769]

  (3) what measures he has taken to publicise to voluntary sector organisations the service offered by the Criminal Records Bureau's Overseas Information Service. [127770]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1028W
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether applicants for disclosures through the Criminal Records Bureau are required to have their fingerprints taken. [137388]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 11 November 2003]: I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on the outsourcing of Criminal Records Bureau data processing to a company whose employees are based in India. [138838]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Cumbria Crime Squad
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on(a) the total cost, (b) the cost in terms of the wages of the officers under investigation of the inquiry into the Cumbria Force Crime Squad and (c) the cost in terms of public money; [94025]

  (2) what reasons underlie the length of time taken by the inquiry into the Cumbria Force Crime Squad. [94026]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Deaths in Custody
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many deaths of under-18s held in custody in descending order by institution, there were in the past 20 years.[133050]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many incidents of(a) suicide and (b) attempted suicide by under 18s held in custody there have been in each of the last 20 years. [133052]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action(a) has been and (b) will be taken by his Department regarding the recommendations of the 1998 report, Policing Domestic Violence: Effective Organisational Structures. [81091]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned on how many children who grow up in homes with domestic violence are(a) abused by a partner or husband and (b) abuse a partner or husband later in adulthood. [138169]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Drugs
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of property crime attributable to the misuse of Class A drugs. [128628]

  Caroline Flint
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug dealers were convicted in London in each of the last six years. [139266]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]: The table contains data from the Home Office Court Appearances and Cautions Drugs Database showing the number of drug dealers in the City of London and Metropolitan Police force area cautioned and convicted in the years 1996 to 2000 (the latest year available). "Dealing" has been taken to mean drug trafficking, that is: to include possession with intent to supply, unlawful supply, unlawful production and unlawful import/ export.

  Drug dealers1 convicted or cautioned for drug offences in London, 1995–2000;

  Number of persons

  1995

  2,360

  1996

  1,980

  1997

  2,130

  1998

  2,350

  1999

  2,040

  2000

  2,320

  1 The Phrase "drug dealer" has been taken to mean trafficking in drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. That is: to include possession with intent to supply, unlawful supply, unlawful production and unlawful import/export,

  Source:

  Drug offender statistics data bases.

  These data are taken from the annual Home Office Statistical Bulletin, "Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics, UK". Copies of the bulletin, area and supplementary tables and are available on the RDS website and in the Library (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb402.pdf)

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the street prices of illegal drugs in the last two years. [139229]

  Caroline Flint
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Dungavel
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of stay at Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre for(a) adults and (b) children has been over the last 12 months. [131558]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Prisoner Education
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners at each 1030W
  (a) prison and (b) young offenders institution have received formal education within those institutions in 2003. [131754]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison staff in each(a) prison and (b) young offenders institution are employed to provide educational services; and what proportion these figures represent of the total staff employed in each institution. [131755]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison staff are employed in(a) prisons and (b) young offenders institutions to provide educational services for each of the past 10 years. [131756]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget has been for(a) literacy and (b) numeracy courses in (i) prisons and (ii) young offenders institutions in each of the past five years. [131757]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Enforced Migration
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work he is doing with the Department for International Development to tackle the root causes of enforced migration, with particular reference to(a) human rights abuses and (b) inequality. [138271]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  Enforced migration deriving from human rights abuse and inequality starts with discrimination and marginalisation. Both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for International Development (DFID) address these root causes in their work to promote human rights abroad. This year the FCO will fund over £12 million worth of grass roots human rights projects in more than 60 countries. Full details of the FCO's work to promote human rights can be found in the Annual Report on Human Rights, a copy of which was sent to all Members of the House. An electronic version is available at: www.fco.gov.uk/ humanrightsreport2003DFID is dedicated to the elimination of poverty through realisation of the human rights of the poorest people of the world. In 2002–03, spending related to human rights and empowerment totalled £112 million. DFID seeks to ensure that poor people are consulted on policies and decisions that affect them and are aware of their rights. This approach aims to promote social justice, including tackling human rights abuse. In October 2000, DFID published its strategy for achieving this goal, entitled "Realising Human Rights for Poor People". A copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many staff were employed by the National Probation Service in England and Wales as(a) chief officers, (b) assistant chief officers, (c) senior probation officers, (d) probation officers, (e) Probation Service officers and (f) administrative and clerical grades on the latest date for which figures are available; and how many in each category were (i) black and (ii) Asian; [138398]

  (2) how many staff were appointed during 2002 by the National Probation Service in England and Wales as (a) chief officers, (b) assistant chief officers, (c) senior probation officers, (d) probation officers, (e) Probation Service officers and (f) administrative, clerical and secretarial grades; and how many in each category were (i) black and (ii) Asian. [138399]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people left(a) the police service in England and Wales, (b) the prison service in England and Wales and (c) the probation service in England and Wales during 2001–02 and 2002–03; and how many of those who left were (i) black and (ii) Asian in each case. [138497]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Evidence (Audio-recording)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason all interviews between the prosecution and defence witnesses in advance of trial cannot be audio-recorded. [138285]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Female Prisoners
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much it costs per annum for each female detained in prison in the UK. [132319]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Female Rape
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to reduce female rape. [136242]

  Caroline Flint
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Firearms Legislation
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his timetable is for the review of firearms legislation announced on 30 April 2003. [131653]

  Caroline Flint
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Fireworks
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answers of 16 December 2002,Official Report, column 640W, on fireworks, and 28 January 2003, Official Report, column 754W, on crime reduction, when he expects to place the findings of the exercise on crime and disorder reduction partnerships and their implications for nuisance and noise associated with fireworks in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [127181]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Grants (Administrative Costs)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the administrative costs were of(a) Active Community Unit grants, (b) Race Equality grants and (c) Refugee Integration Unit grants in the last financial year. [101493]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Gurpal Virdi
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will request a copy of the investigation report by south Wales Police for the Metropolitan Police on the handling of the case of Gurpal Virdi. [139528]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implications of the proposed identity cards for(a) Irish citizens living in Great Britain and (b) persons living in Northern Ireland who under the Good Friday Agreement may define themselves as Irish citizens; and what discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the issue. [139120]

  Beverley Hughes
  The identity cards scheme will enable residents of the United Kingdom, whatever their nationality, to obtain secure evidence of their identity. Irish citizens resident in any part of the United Kingdom, including persons born in Northern Ireland, who identify themselves as Irish will be able to apply for an identity card as soon as the scheme is in place.

  We have already alerted the Irish authorities to our plans and will discuss these with them in more detail once the work on implementation of the scheme is further advanced.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his statement on Identity Cards on 11 November 2003,Official Report, columns. 171–87, what the evidential basis was of his estimate of £100 million a year in savings on benefit and related systems from introducing an identity card. [139799]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Identity Theft
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to propose legislation to make identity theft a criminal offence. [132506]

  Caroline Flint
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Immigration
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Crosby on delays in releasing persons subject to immigration control from Her Majesty's Prison Liverpool at the end of criminal sentences. [124475]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made by(a) police and (b) immigration officers for offences under the Immigration Act 1971 in each year since 1997. [138505]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision on the case of Mr.William Michael Moore Rigg and Mrs.Marilyn Rigg, reference number R355557; and if he will make a statement. [138395]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate made a decision on Mrs. Marilyn Rigg's case on 12 November 2003. A letter was sent informing them of the decision on Friday 14 November. Further documentation will be sent shortly.

  Independent Monitoring Board
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Independent Monitoring Board annual reports he has received in each year since 1997. [139256]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Jamaican Prisoners
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of female Jamaican nationals in prison in the UK have(a) attempted suicide and (b) committed suicide in each of the last five years. [132318]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 6 November; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [139090]
  1034W
  Caroline Flint
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Market Research
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each item of market and opinion research commissioned since May 1997 by(a) his Department and (b) agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible; what the purpose of each item was; and whether the results were published. [137016]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of children who ran away from home since 1997 had(a) alcohol and (b) drug abuse problems. [88192]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  National Alcohol Strategy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the development of a national alcohol strategy; and what assessment he has made of its effectiveness. [130490]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  National Probation Service
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many probation areas have suffered a financial penalty this financial year for failing to meet their targets; and what penalty was imposed in each case. [136001]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Ombudsmen
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were considered by the(a) Police Ombudsman and (b) Prison and Probation Ombudsman in the last year for which figures are available; how many cases were (i) upheld or (ii) rejected; what the average time taken was to consider cases; and what the average cost per case was. [137196]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Overseas Pupils
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate he has made of the total amount of visa charges that will be levied on overseas pupils attending boarding schools in the United Kingdom in this financial year. [133937]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Woking on 23 October 2003, references(a) 134049, (b) 135434, (c) 135433, (d) 135431, (e) 135429 and (f) 135430. [139809]

  Beverley Hughes
  I replied to all the hon. Member's questions on 17 November 2003.

  Passports
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the target period of time is for the passport service to deal with applications for passports; and what their performance was in the most recent period for which this information is available. [139297]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he carried out before introducing fees for(a) applications for variation of leave and (b) endorsing passports. [136963]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress his Department is making in dealing with(a) passport fraud and (b) duplicate or false national insurance numbers. [137345]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans),Official Report, 30 October 2003, column 321W, what the projected administrative expenditure on passports is in (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [138529]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Payroll Contracts
  Mr. Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 June 2003,Official Report, column 14W, on payroll contracts, what period the £13.94 million contract relates to; and what estimate he has made of the amount of the reduction in the price paid in each year. [139561]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Penal System
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 1 May 2003,Official Report, column 527W, on the penal system, if he will make a statement on the conclusions and recommendations of the second phase of the review of correctional services led by Patrick Carter; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [138477]
  1036W
  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have taken early retirement(a) prior to and (b) during investigation for misconduct or other work-related offences in each of the past five years for which figures are available, broken down by (i) grade and (ii) force. [139572]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding per head of population Lincolnshire Police received in each year since 1995 from the Government. [138229]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding per head of population each police authority in England and Wales received in 2002–03. [138230]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to guarantee compensation payments to police officers for illnesses caused by continuous long-term low level occupational exposure to radio frequency radiation. [132515]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Prisons
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to combine the prison and probation services into a single correctional service; and if he will make a statement. [125418]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons which offer paid employment and the nature of the employment; which prisons have contracts with the(a) private and (b) public sector; what services and products are produced; and whether the services are profitable. [131242]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 September, references 128559 and 129219, on prisons, for what reason he chose scenario C as the basis for the projection; and if he will provide similar projections on the basis of scenarios(a) A, (b) B and (c) D. [132218]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1037W
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of staff at(a) High Down and (b) Downview Prisons are not receiving the pay to which they are entitled within one month; and what proportion of staff this represents. [133264]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1244W, on prisons, on which (a) assumptions about future sentencing trends and (b) new policy initiatives with an agreed timetable the forecast average prison population for 2003 to 2006 is based. [128559]

  Paul Goggins
  The projected prison population for 2003–06 in the answer given by the Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) on 6 March 2003,Official Report, column 1244W, was scenario C published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 14/02 in December 2002. It assumes that custody rates increase by 1.25 per cent. per year for males and 2.5 per cent. for females to 2005, with the increase halving thereafter.

  The legislative and other changes that are included in the projection are given as follows:

  'Narrowing the Justice Gap'—one of the delivery targets for the Criminal Justice System.

  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997—automatic life sentences for serious repeat offenders; minimum custodial sentences of three years for third-time domestic burglars.

  Crime and Disorder Act 1998—the recall of short sentence prisoners released on licence; the extension of secure remands.

  Early release from Detention and Training Orders (DTOs).

  Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes (ISSPs).

  Added days—effect of a decision by the European Court of Human Rights.

  The number of Immigration Act detainees.

  Extension of Home Detention Curfew (HDC)—the maximum period of HDC to be increased to 90 days for those prisoners eligible from 16 December 2002.

  An updated set of prison population projections was released on Tuesday 9 September in the April 2003 monthly brief. The projections take into account recent policy changes, such as the extension to HDC in July, and sentencing trends.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juvenile girls being held in prison are pregnant. [132160]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 February 2003, Official Report, column 116W, what his assessment is of the change in(a) criminal convictions and (b) the custodial population between 1980 and 2000. [99962]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.
  1038W
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in each of the last 15 years tested positive for(a) heroin and (b) crack cocaine; what proportion of the total prison population these represented; and if he will make a statement. [133905]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is necessary for the Chief Inspector of Prisons to seek the permission of the Home Secretary to enter prison at any time; and what plans he has to change the rules governing the Chief Inspector's access to prisons. [137075]

  Caroline Flint
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his strategy for dealing with changes in the prison population. [137551]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the populations of each(a) prison and (b) young offenders institute; whether each institution is overcrowded, giving (i) the definition of overcrowding used, (ii) by how much and (iii) for how long the institution has been overcrowded; and for each institution, how many prisoners (A) in absolute terms and (B) as a percentage of the total population (1) are serving 0 to three months, (2) are serving three to six months, (3) are serving six to nine months, (4) are serving nine to 12 months, (5) are serving 12 to 24 months, (6) are young offenders, (7) are elderly, (8) have mental health problems, (9) have learning difficulties and (10) are illiterate. [131351]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisons offer rehabilitation programmes, giving the nature of the programmes; how many prisoners participated in rehabilitation programmes in(a) absolute terms and (b) as a percentage of total population in 2003; and how many hours they spent on average in rehabilitation programmes on a weekly basis. [131352]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the population of each prison in Haltemprice and Howden was in the last quarter for which figures are available; and what the figures were for the preceding four quarters. [132328]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Probation Services
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), of 20 October 2003,Official Report,

  1039W
  column 416W, on probation services, what steps he is taking to avoid an overspend in the probation budget. [138531]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Profiting from Crime
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the law so that current and former criminals cannot profit from their crimes by(a) selling recorded or written material relating to their crimes and (b) engaging in speaking events regarding their crime. [136929]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Pupil Visa Charges
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what form of consultation was undertaken by his Department on the planned introduction of visa charges for overseas school pupils attending United Kingdom schools. [133073]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Racial Crime
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of crimes committed in(a) England and (b) Wales in each year since 1997 were racially motivated; what steps he is taking to reduce these figures; and if he will make a statement. [133187]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Rap Music
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent meetings he has held with producers of rap music records; and what the outcome was of those meetings. [136247]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my right hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Rape
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug rapes were reported in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) the first half of 2003, broken down by sex of victim. [129670]

  Caroline Flint
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women reported rape by their husband or partner in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [138175]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Recorded Crime
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for what reasons the number and proportion of recorded crimes for which an offender was brought to justice changed in 2001—02. [130485]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Sex Offenders Register
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will set out in descending order how many(a) registered sex offenders and (b) registered sex offenders per 100,000 population there were in each local authority. [133051]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans he has to provide further assistance to police in(a) checking details of individuals on the Register of Sexual Offenders and (b) undertaking risk assessments of those individuals; and if he will make a statement. [138047]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those on the sex offenders register have been convicted of a further offence following registration.[139257]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Offender Rehabilitation
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to introduce legislation to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. [138480]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Released Prisoners (London)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were released from prison in London in the last 12 months; and how many are estimated to have(a) mental health and (b) drug or alcohol problems. [139233]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what standard of accuracy speed cameras work. [138947]

  Caroline Flint
  Until July 2003, the standard to which speed cameras were required to operate was a positive error of no more than 3mph up to 100mph, and 3 per cent. above 100mph. The negative error was not greater than 5mph or 10 per cent. above 50mph. From July 2003, in line with European standards, new speed cameras will be required to be accurate to 2mph up to
  1041W
  66mph and 3 per cent. above 66mph. This has not yet been implemented for existing cameras, but we consider that all cameras are in fact already accurate to this level.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what help he gives to chief constables to publish speed messages. [139037]

  Caroline Flint
  Publicity on this issue is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. We recognise that speeding contributes to accidents and that encouraging drivers to slow down can help effect a reduction in the number of accidents. We have made clear in the National Policing Plan our conviction that the National Safety Camera Scheme is effective in reducing speed-related death and injury and our encouragement for all police forces to support it.

  Schools (Violence)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government are taking to support teachers and school staff in their work to prevent(a) violence and (b) crime in schools. [138749]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The great majority of schools are orderly places and serious violence is rare. However, we are determined to raise standards of behaviour and security further. We are therefore investing an average of £156 million annually over the next three years in a wide-ranging programme to improve behaviour and attendance in schools. This includes better training for school staff in managing pupil behaviour; support for pupils at risk of becoming involved in crime; and closer working between police and schools, with some officers based in schools in over 50 local education authority areas. We are currently running conferences to help schools combat bullying. We are also making schools more secure; we have legislated against offensive weapons and trespass and published a legal toolkit for dealing with aggressive intruders; we have supported security measures through the Standards Fund and Capital Modernisation Fund, and we are giving school security priority in credit approvals for local authority capital investment.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the sentences available to judges following a conviction for throwing missiles from bridges over motorways and trunk roads. [138881]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve public understanding of(a) sentencing policy and practice and (b) community service. [139230]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Sexual Offences
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the most recent rates of 1042W
  (a) prosecution and (b) conviction are for rape and sexual assault in police areas which (i) have and (ii) do not have sexual assault referral centres. [110722]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of offenders likely to be caught under the internet grooming provision of the Sexual Offences Bill. [139219]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) arrested, (b) charged, (c) convicted and (d) sentenced to immediate custody in the course of Operation Ore; how many cases are being investigated; and if he will make a statement. [139220]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether a code of practice will accompany the Sexual Offences Bill. [137813]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he will publish guidelines for the Sexual Offences Bill; and what plans he has to consult on these guidelines. [137841]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the NGOs to whom the parliamentary under secretary expressed appreciation for the work they had done on the issue of consensual sexual activity short of penetrative sex between under 16s; and whether these NGOs will be directly involved in compiling the Crown Prosecution Service guidance on this issue. [138206]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Student Visas
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what recent estimate he has made of the percentage of those on student visas who complete their courses; and what estimate he has made of the number of those on student visas who remain in this country after their visa has expired. [132922]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Sustainable Development
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and if he will make a statement on how it has changed since the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. [83502]
  1043W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  "Think First" Programmes
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will publish his research on the completion rates of offenders attending pilot accredited programmes, known as "Think First", in England and Wales. [135997]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Victim Support
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) number and (b) percentage of complainants (i) were offered victim support services and (ii) accepted the help of victim support services, at an early stage in the investigation of child abuse cases in the last five years. [138284]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Vulnerable People (Transport)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has given to local authorities to help them determine the suitability of licensed(a) taxi and (b) private hire drivers to escort vulnerable people, including children, in the absence of an enhanced check. [133945]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Waterloo Immigration Office
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what impact he estimates the proposed closure of the Waterloo Immigration Office will have on border control at this point of entry. [138210]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he estimates the cost will be of relocating the Immigration Office at Waterloo to France. [138211]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason(a) French officers at the Waterloo Immigration Office carry guns and (b) British officers there do not. [138212]

  Beverley Hughes
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Wetherby Young Offenders Institution
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) assaults and (b) incidents of criminal damage there were in Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Wetherby in each of the past five years. [131974]
  1044W
  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sick days have been taken off by staff at Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Wetherby in each of the past five years. [132254]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times staff at Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Wetherby had to use control and restraint in each of the past five years. [132255]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the grounds are for(a) the removal of staff batons and (b) the proposed replacement of staff uniforms at Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Wetherby. [132256]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many young offenders found guilty of criminal damage have undertaken reparation under the(a) Reparation Order, (b) Action Plan, (c) Referral Order and (d) Supervision Order since their introduction; [138273]

  (2) how many young offenders he estimates will undertake reparation under the (a) Reparation Order, (b) Action Plan, (c) Referral Order and (d) Supervision Order over the next two years; [138274]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the forms of reparative activities that have been undertaken through the (a) Reparation Order, (b) Action Plan, (c) Referral Order and (d) Supervision Order; [138275]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the re-offending rate of young offenders found guilty of criminal damage who took part in reparation schemes in 2002–03. [138276]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of the ISSP schemes; what the completion rate of young offenders guilty of criminal damage on the ISSP schemes has been; and what the re-offending rate of the young people responsible for criminal damage on the ISSP scheme has been. [138277]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many juveniles failed to make contact with the youth offending team on release from prison in the last year for which figures are available. [139000]
  1045W
  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many girls aged(a) 16, (b) 17 and (c) 18 years are serving sentences in women's prisons. [139135]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Youth Violence
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are taking to reduce youth violence. [138748]

  Ms Blears
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Zahid Mubarek
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will set up a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Zahid Mubarek following the judgment of the House of Lords on 16 October in the case of Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Amin. [137141]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 10 November 2003: I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Georgia
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to ensure that(a) proper democratic processes are being followed and (b) that fair elections are taking place in the Republic of Georgia. [139049]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Kingdom has taken every opportunity, both in our bi-lateral contacts and through our membership of international fora, to impress upon the Georgians the importance of the parliamentary elections being free and fair. Our Embassy in Tbilisi has maintained close and regular contact with government, opposition leaders and the Central Electoral Commission in the run up to, and the aftermath of the elections. We contributed a large number of observers to the OSCE monitoring mission. The UK also helped fund a Georgian NGO, the International Society for Fair Elections, to conduct a media campaign raising awareness of the democratic process.

  The UK has endorsed the findings of the International Election Observation Mission on the conduct of the electoral process and encouraged all sides to come to a peaceful, negotiated settlement. The international community, including the UK, has impressed upon the Georgian authorities the need for perceived weaknesses in the electoral system to be resolved before the Presidential elections in 2005. Together with our EU partners, we made a statement on 13 November to this effect. The UK Special
  1046W
  Representative to the South Caucasus also raised the matter with government and opposition politicians during his visit to Tbilisi last week.

  We will consider how we can best help the Georgian Electoral Commission to bring about the required improvements in the electoral system.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Georgia. [139281]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) today (UIN 139049).

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made in improving Afghanistan's drug law enforcement capacity. [138430]

  Mr. Rammell
  As lead nation for counter narcotics activity in Afghanistan, the UK supports the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy which was adopted by President Karzai in May 2003. The strategy proposes activities in four key areas: improved drugs law enforcement; alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers; capacity building for Afghan drugs institutions; and public awareness campaigns/treatment programmes to help reduce demand. The UK is committing £70 million over the next three years and additional British Embassy drugs personnel to drive forward implementation of the strategy.

  In the area of improved drugs law enforcement, the UK is working with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime on a basic law enforcement training programme to develop the investigation, detection, interdiction and intelligence capabilities of Afghanistan's principal drug enforcement agency, the Counter Narcotics Police. The UK has trained over 100 officers of the Counter Narcotics Police to date, including two female officers, and has involved trainers from Pakistan, Turkey and Iran in the counter-narcotics training package.

  The UK plans to build upon this training by seconding international experts to mentor officers in Kabul and the regions. Progress in reforming Afghanistan's drug enforcement capacity, as in other areas of the drugs strategy, is dependent upon wider improvements in security and governance.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent estimate he has made of the percentage of the UK's heroin supply coming from Afghanistan. [138431]

  Mr. Rammell
  On the basis of forensic analysis of heroin seizures, it is estimated that at least 95 per cent. of the heroin used in the UK is produced from opium grown in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the size of the poppy harvest was in Afghanistan in each year since 2000. [138476]
  1047W
  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) conducts an annual survey into the level of opium cultivation and production in Afghanistan. Their figures since 2000 are as follows:

  Hectares

  Tonnes

  2000

  82,000

  3,300

  2001

  8,000

  185

  2002

  74,000

  3,400

  2003

  80,000

  3,600

  The low level of cultivation and low production figure in 2001 reflect the Taliban ban on opium cultivation; the ban did not however address the underlying causes of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan and was enforced with mix of threat and bribery.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with Azerbaijan. [139127]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK has a good bilateral relationship with Azerbaijan. The most recent ministerial visit was by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Energy in May this year, to attend the Caspian Oil and Gas Show in Baku. Ilham Aliev, now President, visited the UK in June when he called on the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mike O'Brien), and the then Secretary of State for International Development my noble Friend Baroness Amos.

  In January 2003, we extended the mandate of Sir Brian Fall the UK Special Representative to cover the whole of the South Caucasus underlining the commitment of the Government to play an active part in the efforts of the international community to help resolve the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

  UK investment in Azerbaijan totals $US 2 billion. The vast majority of this is BP's investment in the oil and gas sector, which has contributed much to the development of the oil and gas industry in Azerbaijan. BP is the largest foreign investor, operating four offshore oil and gas exploration and development contracts. BP is leading the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (ETC) pipeline project. The BTC pipeline will provide an export route for oil (and subsequently gas) from Azerbaijan's Caspian oil fields to Europe.

  Burma
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British American Tobacco's decision to stop its cigarette making operation in Burma. [138824]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I welcome that BAT, the largest remaining UK investor in Burma, has responded to the Government's request that they leave the country. BAT's decision reinforces our long held policy of not encouraging trade, investment or tourism in Burma. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in June, trade and investment with Burma is not appropriate while the military regime continues to suppress the basic 1048W
  rights of its people. This will remain our policy until we see concrete evidence of genuine political will by the regime to work towards national reconciliation, democracy, and respect for human rights in Burma.

  Colombia
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to ensure compliance by the Colombian Government with recommendations by the UN on human rights. [138944]

  Mr. Rammell
  The issue of the implementation of UN recommendations was discussed at the London Meeting on International Support for Colombia which the UK hosted on 10 July this year. The Colombian Government pledged to implement these recommendations promptly and take effective action against impunity and collusion especially with the paramilitary groups. In my meeting with the Colombian Foreign Minister in New York in September, I underlined the importance we attached to this commitment. A working group of representatives of the governments who attended the London Meeting has been set up in Bogota to monitor and evaluate progress on implementation.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his officials have held with the Colombian Government on rates of voter abstention in(a) the Colombian referendum and (b) the municipal and departmental elections of 25 and 26 October. [138946]

  Mr. Rammell
  We hold regular discussions with the Colombian authorities and others on a wide range of topics, including the outcomes of the recent referendum and the municipal and departmental elections.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 7 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. R. F. Nayeem; [138455]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 6 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. F. Begum; [138457]

  (3) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 2 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Tufail Choudhary. [138458]

  Mr. Mullin
  I can confirm that as a result of an administrative error, no replies were sent to my right hon. Friend's letters of 2, 6, 7 October to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about Mr. Tufail Choudhary, Mrs. F. Begum and Mrs. Ruzi Farzana Nayeem.

  It would appear that a package containing a number of my right hon. Friend's letters was lost while in transit between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's office and UKvisas, the department responsible for entry clearance matters arising overseas. The letters that were lost have now been identified and copies have been sent to UKvisas. I can assure my right hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will write to him in the next few days on this case.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the levels of(a) United Kingdom and (b) UN troops in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [137618]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 18 November 2003.]: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 12 November 2003, Official Report, column 314W.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was to his Department for(a) ministerial cars and drivers, (b) taxis, (c) train travel, (d) the use of helicopters, (e) airline tickets and (f) chartered aeroplanes in each year since 1997. [123075]

  Mr. Rammell
  Under the terms of the Framework Document, the responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers is delegated to the Government Care Despatch Agency. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 13 November 2003,Official Report, column 397W.

  Expenditure in the UK under the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) taxi contracts for each year since 1997 was as follows:

  £

  Year

  Expenditure

  1997–98

  152, 442.64

  1998–99

  226,736.15

  1999–2000

  329,903.63

  2000–01

  380,830.36

  2001–02

  525,026.69

  2002–03

  499,164.22

  These figures do not include details of any taxi journeys undertaken by staff outside the scope of the FCO's taxi contracts and for which reimbursement is made through the Department's travel claim system. Expenditure on taxis will also have been incurred by our Missions overseas. Neither of these costs are recorded separately, and it would involve disproportionate cost to identify them.

  The FCO purchases tickets for rail and air travel through a contract with American Express. Figures for this expenditure are immediately available for the 2001–02 and 2002–03 financial years only, and are as follows:

  £

  Year

  Rail

  Air

  2001–02

  752,364

  15,730,892

  2002–03

  699,569

  15,269,677

  I will write to the hon. Member with the figures for 1997–98 to 2000–01 as soon as they are provided by American Express. However, this data do not include
  1050W
  the cost of rail or air journeys booked direct by members of staff and reimbursed through the Department's travel claim system. Direct expenditure on air travel will also have been incurred by our Missions overseas. These costs are not recorded separately, and again it would involve disproportionate cost to identify them.

  Details of the types of aircraft used by FCO travellers, (i.e. helicopters), are not recorded. Neither does the Department or its contractor centrally maintain information on whether FCO personnel travel by scheduled or chartered flights.

  European Court of Human Rights
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy(a) to oppose the introduction of new admissibility criteria for individual petitioners to the European Court of Human Rights and (b) to urge all member states to consult on the matter with (i) the legal community and (ii) civil society; and if he will make a statement. [138795]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government supports the introduction of the new admissibility criteria for individual petitioners to the European Court of Human Rights. The new admissibility criteria are not designed to restrict the right of individual application. But if the Court is not given discretion to apply the new criteria, that right could be put at risk by the ever-increasing volume of applications which prevents the Court from dealing with any applications in a reasonable time.

  The Government endorses paragraph 14 of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers' Declaration of 15 May, which encourages the Governments of member states to share information on this matter with civil society. Civil society representatives and independent experts will have the opportunity to raise questions at a Symposium at the Council of Europe on 17 November, with a further symposium proposed for early 2004.

  European Constitution
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what shared competence exists on energy policy within the EU; and what impact he estimates the proposed Energy Chapter will have on the United Kingdom. [137739]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 11 November 2003,Official Report, column 204W.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the areas of policy, legislation, administration and decision on objectives to be attained which(a) are and (b) will be the exclusive responsibility of the European Union, and the Articles of the proposed Constitution in which these are set out. [137941]

  Mr. MacShane
  Article 12 (1) of Part I of the Convention on the Future of Europe's draft Constitutional Treaty states that the EU would have exclusive competence in the following areas: competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market: monetary policy for member states who
  1051W
  have adopted the Euro; common commercial policy: customs union: and the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Gibraltar Government in negotiations with the Spanish Government on the future of Gibraltar. [133529]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had no recent discussions with the Government of Gibraltar on this subject. When 1 visited Gibraltar on 4 July, my discussions with the Chief Minister covered, among many other issues, the subject of negotiations with Spain.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the decision by the United States Supreme Court to reassess the legality of holding prisoners in Guantanamo military base as it affects British prisoners held there. [139032]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 10 November, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case Al Odah v. United States, which concerns detainees held in Guantanamo Bay. The question that the Court has agreed to hear is "Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba."

  The Government will of course consider the Supreme Court's judgement on this question once it has been issued.

  Indonesia
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Government of Indonesia on(a) suppressing the rebels' uprising and (b) humanitarian assistance in Aceh. [138825]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government has regularly urged the Indonesian Government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) to return to negotiations for a peaceful solution to the conflict in Aceh.

  Together with other members of the Tokyo Group (the EU, US, Japan and World Bank) we have recently called for improved access to Aceh for international agencies and NGOs, and for the impact on the people of Aceh to be minimised. The UK continues to work through NGOs and the UN to provide assistance to the people of Aceh. We continue to discuss Aceh with political contacts in Indonesia and the Indonesian Ambassador to the UK.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to make additional resources available to the International 1052W
  Atomic Energy Agency to support its increased safeguards burden in Iran following the agreement concluded in Tehran on 21 October. [134572]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom supported a successful call for additional resources for the IAEA's activities at the board of Governors' meeting earlier this year. We believe that, with these additional resources, the IAEA will be able to undertake all of the safeguards tasks with which they are mandated, including work in Iran.

  Iran
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining and developing the capabilities to(a) produce and (b) employ nuclear weapons. [136765]

  Mr. Rammell
  Together with our partners from France and German, we have been engaged in intensive discussion with the Iranian Government to persuade them to suspend activities associated with the development of a nuclear weapons capability.

  Iran has announced that it will suspend the enrichment of uranium and activities associated with the reprocessing of nuclear fuels. We will continue to monitor closely Iran's implementation of this course of action.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on Iran's enrichment of uranium. [137999]

  Mr. MacShane
  Together with our French and German partners, we have made clear to Iran that it must suspend all uranium enrichment activities.

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the evidential basis is for the statements made on page 34 and 35 of the Iraq dossier of 24 September on inspections by UNSCOM of the presidential sites. [135348]

  Mr. Rammell
  Only one team of inspectors (UNSCOM 243) was allowed to visit Presidential Sites under a special arrangement facilitated by the UN Secretary-General. Their report of their visit to the sites makes clear that they were not able to carry out full inspections at any of he sites. They were never allowed to return.

  The full report of UNSCOM 243 can be found on the UNSCOM internet website at: www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s98–326.htm.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to the provision of a civil police service in Iraq. [137777]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are currently a total of 10 UK police officers in Iraq; three in Basra and seven in Baghdad. Our focus is on recruiting, training and deploying more Iraqi police officers. We plan to deploy a further 24 UK officers to Basra in the near future and
  1053W
  up to a further 75 UK police officers towards a multinational effort to train new Iraqi recruits at a training facility in Jordan. The first nine of these 75 police officers are already in Jordan and another 27 are planning to depart on 23 November.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Iraqi(a) civilians, (b) police officers and (c) military police he estimates have been killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq since 1 May. [137995]

  Mr. Rammell
  There are no reliable statistics available for the number of civilian casualties. I expect to have further information shortly on the Iraqi police killed, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Although the first battalion of the Iraqi Army completed training on 4 October, there are no Iraqi military police at present.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made in Iraq to re-employ the Iraqis who are unemployed; what discussions he has on assisting these people while unemployed; and if he will make a statement. [138702]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Coalition and Iraqi ministries have placed very significant emphasis on the need to sustain and stimulate employment in Iraq. The payment in full of public sector wages has returned rewards for work to many crucial employees. A micro-finance programme has been created for small businesses and rules on foreign direct investment and tariff holidays have also been introduced to promote the Iraqi private sector, protecting existing jobs and creating new ones.

  As a result of the publication of the Iraqi Budgets for 2003 and 2004, for the first time in decades the revenue from Iraqi oil sales is being spent on meeting the needs of the Iraqi people. In combination with the many billions of dollars of international reconstruction funding being channelled into Iraq this public expenditure is stimulating demand for labour.

  With the exception of senior Ba'athists, former members of the military who lost their job as a result of disbanding the Iraqi army have been paid a stipend. Many are also undergoing retraining to join the new Iraqi security forces.

  Islamabad High Commission
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current status of the high commission in Islamabad; and when he expects it to be fully operational. [137832]

  Mr. Mullin
  As a result of the security situation in Pakistan our high commission in Islamabad operated for a substantial period with severely reduced staff. This reduced our visa section's capacity to provide a full service. In recent months service levels have increased significantly. Islamabad has handled over 81,000 entry clearance applications so far this year.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is committed to restoring a full visa operation in Pakistan as soon as is practical. The high commission in
  1054W
  Islamabad announced on 17 November that it would be expanding the service it offers to include visitors who have travelled to the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America within the last ten years. fiancé(e)s applying to settle in the UK, EU dependants and those applying for family reunion.

  The Foreign Secretary will be writing to all members shortly to set out these changes and the way forward in more detail.

  Israel/Palestine
  Dr. Jenny Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the UK representative on the UN Security Council abstained in the vote on 14 October on the resolution declaring illegal the Israeli construction of a security wall in the occupied territories of Palestine. [138664]

  Mr. Rammell
  We did not consider the resolution put to the Security Council on Israel's construction of a fence or wall in the West Bank reflected accurately the situation on the ground. It did not condemn suicide bombings and therefore did not acknowledge Israel's real security concerns. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 3—4, we regard the building of the wall on Palestinian land as unlawful, and we have serious concerns about its impact. But we judged that the text before the Security Council would not help implementation of the roadmap, and so we abstained.

  The resolution subsequently put to an Emergency Special Session of the UN General Assembly realistically focused on the fence's negative impact on the peace process and local population. European Union proposals for a more balanced text were accepted in General Assembly negotiations and the UK, with our EU Partners, voted for that resolution.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning the status of Palestinians living between the Green Line and the new security fence in the Occupied Territories. [138673]

  Mr. Rammell
  My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean raised our concerns about the "Closed Zone" between the fence and the Green Line on 22 October with the Israeli Ambassador, and on 29 October with the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructure.

  The implementation of this order will have grave consequences for Palestinians who live between the fence and the 1967 border, and those who farm land in this area. We are in close touch with the US and other allies to ensure that Israel understands the opposition of the wider international community to the route of the fence.

  Japan
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the
  1055W
  Government of Japan about its refusal to subscribe to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction; and if he will make a statement. [137846]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 18 November 2003]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office encourages all countries with whom the UK has comity of law to join the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (1980). We believe this comity of law exists between Japan and the UK and are committed to working with the Hague Secretariat to provide the Japanese Government with the information it needs to come to a decision on membership.

  We are working with our partners in the EU to put the case for joining the Hague Convention to Japan. In recent exchanges between the EU and Japan on human right and consular issues, the EU has raised Japanese accession to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to make representations on behalf of individual citizens of the United Kingdom to the Government of Japan when allegations of child abduction from the United Kingdom to Japan arise; and if he will make a statement. [137847]

  Mr Straw
  [holding answer 18 November 2003]: In cases of child abduction to countries that are not states party to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction 1980. such as Japan, we advise parents to resolve custody and access issues through the domestic courts in the country concerned, or through mediation.

  We would not make representations on behalf of British nationals to the foreign governments concerned as a matter of course, but would consider doing so in exceptional circumstances, for example once the court process has finished, in order properly to enforce the outcome.

  Legislative Council of St. Helena
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to meet the members of the Legislative Council of St. Helena when he is on Ascension Island at the beginning of December. [139119]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 November 2003 (UIN:139102).

  Middle East
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Israeli Government on the destruction of(a) wells and (b) other infrastructure in Gaza by the Israeli army. [137431]

  Mr. Rammell
  We deplore the destruction of Palestinian infrastructure and we have asked Israel to cease such activity. We have not recently raised the destruction of wells in Gaza. Nonetheless, my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean called in Israel's ambassador. Mr. Zvi Shtauber. on 22 October to raise our serious concerns about recent Israeli actions in Gaza. Our embassy in Tel Aviv has also raised our concerns with its Israeli interlocutors.
  1056W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the exchange of Israeli and Palestinian/Lebanese prisoners. [139052]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are pleased to hear that the Israeli Cabinet has approved a deal on the exchange of Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners. We hope that Hizbollah will follow suit, and that this matter is resolved soon.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent initiatives have been taken by the United Kingdom to strengthen the provisions of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty; and what actions have been taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to obligations under Article 6 of the NPT. [133308]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom believes that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. We welcome the increased emphasis on the crucial nonproliferation aspects of the NPT that was in evidence at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) earlier this year and intend to work with other NPT members to strengthen the effectiveness of measures against nuclear proliferation.

  We continue to stress the utmost importance of compliance with the Treaty. For example, we urge the DPRK to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme and return to compliance with the NPT. We strongly believe in the need for the universalisation of the treaty, and we regularly call on those states that have not yet acceded to do so whenever we have the opportunity.

  The UK also continues to play a full part in the NPT Review process, including most recently in the PrepCom in April and May this year. The UK issued a working paper at the PrepCom on its research into verification of nuclear disarmament and presented the conclusions of this interim study at a seminar during the PrepCom. We anticipate publishing a further paper for the 2004 session of the PrepCom and a consolidated paper at the Review Conference in 2005.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if(a) he and (b) officials from his Department will meet Christian groups in the UK to discuss rights for Christians in Pakistan. [138568]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have regular contact with a range of UK-based NGOs, including those who campaign for the rights of Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan. Officials will be meeting representatives of groups interested in the position of Christians in Pakistan within the next month.

  Science and Technology Network
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) funding, (b) remit and (c) functions of the science and technology network. [137535]
  1057W
  Mr. Rammell
  Following a review in 2000 the FCO has established a new network of S & T (science and technology) attachés to help capitalise on and enhance the UK science base, to help companies access overseas innovation and technology, to facilitate high-tech trade and attract foreign investment and to use S & T as a vehicle to maximise the UK's impact abroad.

  £3 million of funding was provided through SR2000. A further £750,000 of programme and staffing resource was made available through SR2002. By 2005 there will be a dedicated FCO S &T officer in 34 of our overseas posts in 22 countries. Several other posts have also joined the network and make use of S & T to further bilateral relations. The network reports to a wide customer base and works with a number of UK organisations with an interest in S & T overseas. These include Government Departments, parliamentary and devolved institutions, public sector bodies, universities, research and trade organisations and industry.

  The FCO works in close partnership on international S & T issues, with the Office of Science and Technology (OST), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) (especially its team of International Technology Promoters), UK Trade & Investment, the British Council and the Research Councils (RCUK). The FCO's S &T network adds value to the UK by addressing the following objectives:

  To inform UK science policy development, benchmarking UK S & T performance against other nations and using S & T to secure UK influence in international negotiations.

  To promote the UK as the international partner of choice in S & T collaboration, and attract overseas expertise, in areas which match or complement existing or potential UK strengths.

  To enhance wealth creation by using S & T to facilitate trade and inward investment, with development of the UK knowledge economy through commercially edged high technology collaboration.

  To use S & T for public diplomacy to project the UK as a creative, dynamic, technologically advanced nation.

  The network is co-ordinated by the S & T unit within the Global Issues Directorate of the FCO. The work of the network and profiles of the new generation of S & T officers are presented in the FCO's S & T annual report, available on the FCO website: www.fco.gov.uk/policy/global-issues/science-and-technology.

  The new network provides informed insight into S & T activity in the host country and an assessment of opportunities and risks for the UK. Through developing networks of opinion formers and key contacts the attachés are well placed to stimulate bilateral interactions. The integrated approach of the S & T attachés with their commercial and public diplomacy colleagues means projection of the UK as a world leading science base and development of a technologically innovative, knowledge based, economy.

  Secondment
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people from science and technology backgrounds have been seconded into the Civil Service in his Department in each of the last five years for which data are available. [138623]
  1058W
  Mr. Rammell
  In line with the 2001 Government Cross Cutting Review of Science and Research and the 2000 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) review of science and technology (S&T) work, the FCO has increased the use of S&T expertise in its work. The FCO has established a new S&T network and recruited a new and diverse generation of high calibre S&T officers, both UK appointed and locally engaged. As well as scientific and technical expertise, many have experience in business, management consultancy and policymaking, as well as skills in diplomacy and international relations. For UK appointees, in each of the last five years the following numbers of people with a science and technology background have been recruited into the S&T network either on Fixed Term contract, loan from Other Government Departments or on secondment from outside the Civil Service:

  Number

  1999

  2

  2000

  2

  2001

  7

  2002

  2

  2003

  3

  Sri Lanka
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment his Department has made of the conflict between the government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam; when this assessment was made; and if he will make a statement. [131830]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer 1 gave him on 15 October 2003,Official Report, column 266–67W.

  Turkey
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of developments in the human rights situation in Turkey; what representations have been made to him; and if he will make a statement. [131444]

  Mr. MacShane
  We welcome Turkey's progress in the protection of human rights and the constitutional and legislative changes that it has made since October 2001. The recent 6th and 7th EU-related reform packages were particularly far reaching. Consistent and effective implementation of these is now crucial, so we are encouraged by the Turkish Government's increasing emphasis on the practical application of new laws, and its creation of a committee, under Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, to monitor progress.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office monitor the human rights situation in Turkey closely. We maintain a strong network of contacts in both our missions in Ankara and Istanbul, and in London. We regularly meet local and multinational NGOs, European and International bodies which monitor Turkey's human rights performance and members of the government. We also attend human rights trials wherever possible and liaise with EU partners to maintain an EU presence at key events throughout the country. We conduct an

  1059W
  on-going bilateral dialogue with Turkey on human rights, the most recent round of which took place in Ankara on 23 October.

  For a full assessment of the human rights situation in Turkey 1 refer the hon. Member to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Annual Human Rights Report 2003, which is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk/policy/global-issues/humanrights/reports.

  United States
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the New York Consul General relocated from the residence at 4 East 66th Street; what use has been made of the apartment since; when and at what price the apartment was first listed for sale; what the actual(a) out of pocket costs and (b) annual resource costs of owning the apartment have been since the Consul General left; whether the apartment is still for sale; and at what price it is listed. [138139]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 11 November 2003]: The Consul General in New York relocated from the residence at 4 East 66th Street in August 2002. Since then the property has remained vacant. The property was first listed for sale in January 2002 at an initial asking price of US$22 million. It remains on the market, listed at US$14 million. We cannot divulge details of prices and costs as these are commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the New York Consul General moved into the new residence; what the total capital cost of this residence, including all fixtures, fittings and furnishings, professional and other fees, moving and relocation costs was; and what the residence's(a) open market and (b) existing use (i) value and (ii) annual resource cost are. [138140]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 11 November 2003]: The Consul General in New York moved into the new residence in August 2002. We cannot divulge further details of costs because these are commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and at what price the former residence of the San Francisco Consul General was sold; what net proceeds the Department expects will be from this sale after deduction of all costs of the transaction; when the San Francisco Consul General moved into the new residence; what the total capital cost of this residence including post-acquisition costs are expected to be; and what the residence's(a) open market and (b) existing use (i) value and (ii) annual resource cost are. [138141]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 11 November 2003]: The sale of the Consul General's former residence in San Francisco was completed on 31 October 2003. The Consul General moved into the new residence in the middle of October 2003.

  We cannot divulge further details of prices and costs because these are commercially sensitive.

  Website
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the content and design of his Department's website. [139367]

  Mr Mullin
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) website (www.fco.gov.uk) is kept under constant review. The site was significantly re-designed and restructured when it was re-launched in May 2002. A leading web design agency developed the new site, after consulting widely with FCO stakeholders. Usability testing on the new site was conducted in August 2002 by a specialist company using members of the public. The recommendations of their report were implemented and the findings informed a further re-design of the homepage which went live in January 2003. In July, a specialist IT consultancy, assessed the website as part of an overall review of FCO electronic information. Their recommendations are in the process of being implemented. Customer feedback is constantly monitored and assessed.

  Zimbabwe
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the UK will take to support Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa forced to return to Zimbabwe. [138750]

  Mr. Mullin
  The issue of Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa is a matter for the South African authorities and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action the Government has taken to ensure that Zimbabwe has(a) legitimate and (b) democratic government. [138751]

  Mr. Mullin
  We continue to work with our EU, Commonwealth and other international partners to bring about a return to legitimate and democratic government in Zimbabwe, which respects the rule of law and human rights.

  We have consistently condemned the Mugabe government's harassment of the opposition, independent media and civil society. We will continue to support all those working peacefully for a return to a democratically elected government.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Secretary of State will direct the House of Lords Appointments Commission to disqualify applicants for a people's peerage who are(a) knights, (b) dames and (c) other holders of a peerage. [138511]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has no power to direct the current House of Lords Appointments Commission which is an independent non-departmental public body sponsored by the Cabinet Office.
  1061W
  Any British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen over the age of 21 is eligible to be nominated for membership of the House of Lords, and the Appointments Commission assesses all nominations it receives against the criteria which are published on its web-site at www.houseoflords appointmentscommission.gov.uk

  Asylum Seekers
  Andy King
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of unqualified legal advisers who represented asylum seekers in the last year for which figures are available. [138690]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Bankruptcy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) company winding-up petitions, (b) creditors' petitions and (c) debtors' petitions were issued in each quarter since the third quarter of 2002. [139817]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures showing the number of insolvency and bankruptcy petitions issued in the county courts of England and Wales for the period set out above are provided in the following table.

  Quarter

  Company winding-up petitions issued

  Creditors bankruptcy petitions issued

  Debtors bankruptcy petitions issued

  Q4 2002

  3,257

  4,601

  4,174

  Q1 2003

  2,650

  4,366

  4,357

  Q2 2003

  2,577

  4,271

  4,776

  Q3 2003

  2,385

  4,243

  4,755

  Fines
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the total value was of fines imposed at magistrates courts in London in 2002–03; what the default rate was; and what the value of arrears is. [139243]

  Mr. Leslie
  The amount imposed by Greater London Magistrates Courts Association (GLMCA) for the financial year 2002–03 was £64,793,641. The payment rate for the same period was 40 per cent. The value of arrears was £72,288,339. DCA officials from the Targeted Intervention Project are now working with GLMCA to drive up performance on fine enforcement

  House of Lords Reform
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many staff are employed on the House of Lords reform programme; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [139244]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since August 2003, five officials have been working on the House of Lords reform programme. It is estimated that the final cost for this year will be around £227,000.
  1062W
  The cost of the unit for the last full financial year was £181,000 (although at that time fewer officials were working on House of Lords reform and they were also engaged on other duties within the Department).

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) high court judges, (b) circuit judges, (c) district judges, (d) recorders and (e) assistant recorders there were in the last month for which figures are available; and how many were (i) black and (ii) Asian. [138764]

  Mr. Leslie
  Figures for October 2003 show that there were(a) 108 high court judges of whom (i) none were black and (ii) none were Asian; (b) 609 circuit judges of whom (i) 1 was black and (ii) 3 were Asian; (c) in total there were 535 district judges broken down as follows: 429 district judges (civil) of whom (i) 1 was black and (ii) 8 were Asian; 106 district judges (magistrates' courts) of whom (i) none were black and (ii) 2 were Asian; in addition there were a total of 987 deputy district judges broken down as follows: 761 deputy district judges (civil) of whom (i) 4 were black and (ii) 7 were Asian; 176 deputy district judges (magistrates' courts) of whom (i) 4 were black and (ii) 5 were Asian, (d) 1367 recorders of whom (i) 19 were black and (ii) 18 were Asian; (e) the post of assistant recorder was abolished on 12 April 2000.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) high court judges, (b) circuit judges, (c) district judges, (d) recorders and (e) assistant recorders were appointed in 2002; and how many were (i) black and (ii) Asian. [138765]

  Mr. Leslie
  The 2001–2002 Judicial Appointments Annual Report gives the following figures for appointments made between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002:(a) 9 high court judges were appointed, of these (i) none were black and (ii) none were Asian; (b) 20 circuit judges were appointed, of these (i) none were black and (ii) none were Asian; (c) in total 12 district judges were appointed, broken down as follows: 4 district judges (civil) of whom (i) none were black and (ii) 1 was Asian; 8 district judges (magistrates' courts) of whom (i) none were black and (ii) none were Asian. In addition a total of 40 deputy district judges (civil) were appointed of whom (i) none were black and (ii) none were Asian; no deputy district judges (magistrates' courts) were appointed during this period; (d) 98 recorders were appointed, of whom (i) none were black and (ii) I was Asian; (e) the post of assistant recorder was abolished on 12 April 2000 and subsequent appointments were made direct to the office of recorder.

  The 2002–2003 Judicial Appointments Annual Report gives the following figures for appointments made between 1 April 2002 and 31 March 2003: (a) 6 high court judges were appointed, of these (i) none were black and (ii) none were Asian; (b) during this period no new general circuit judge competitions were held; (c) in total 15 district judges (civil) were approved for appointment, of whom (i) none were black and (ii) none were Asian; there was no new general competition for appointment as district judges (magistrates' courts), in addition a total of 69 deputy district judges were

  1063W
  appointed broken down as follows: 42 deputy district judges (civil) of whom (i) 1 was black and (ii) 2 were Asian; 27 deputy district judges (magistrates' courts) of which (i) 1 was black and (ii) 2 were Asian, (d) 93 recorders were appointed of whom (i) 2 were black and (ii) 2 were Asian; (e) the post of assistant recorder was abolished on 12 April 2000 and subsequent appointments were made direct to the office of recorder.

  Copies of both reports are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many magistrates in England and Wales were in post in the last month for which figures are available; and how many were (i) black and (ii) Asian. [138766]

  Mr. Leslie
  There were 28,344 active magistrates in England and Wales on 1 April 2003. Of that number, 609 classified themselves as of Black origin and 845 Asian.

  Magistrates' courts staff in post

  Figures as at 31 March 2003

  Post

  1Total

  Black

  Asian

  Other

  Mixed

  Not known

  Justices clerks

  97

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Senior legal manager

  374

  9

  8

  3

  4

  11

  Senior admin manager

  168

  1

  1

  1

  1

  5

  Court clerk

  1,408

  28

  51

  14

  10

  34

  Principal administrative division

  934

  34

  13

  3

  8

  27

  Administrative grades

  6,342

  198

  190

  45

  40

  212

  Clerical

  1,347

  15

  19

  1

  4

  29

  Total

  10,669

  285

  281

  67

  68

  318

  1 These are full time equivalent figures

  Justices of the Peace
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action the Lord Chancellor will take in respect of declarations by justices of the peace of their intention not to uphold the law; and if he will make a statement. [137853]

  Mr. Leslie
  On appointment, magistrates take the judicial oath and sign a written undertaking to administer justice according to the law and to resign from the Commission of the Peace if they are unable to perform their duties. If it appears to the Lord Chancellor, having considered advice from the local Advisory Committee, that a magistrate has failed to carry out his or her duties, he has powers under Section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 to counsel, caution, admonish, suspend or remove that person from office.

  Witness Suites
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will take steps to move the witness suite at Nottingham Crown Court from proximity to the main entrance used by defendants. [139279]

  Mr. Leslie
  Using funds made available from the Government's Street Crime Initiative, the Witness Suite on the Ground Floor was created in the summer of last year. The location of the suite was determined after consultation with the Witness Support Service and local Court Managers.
  1064W
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many magistrates were appointed in England and Wales in 2002; and how many were (i) black and (ii) Asian. [138767]

  Mr. Leslie
  1,474 new magistrates were appointed in England and Wales in 2002. Of these 40 classified themselves as of Black origin and 66 Asian.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) justices' clerks, (b) deputy clerks, (c) ushers and (d) administrative clerical and secretarial staff were in post in magistrates' courts in England and Wales in the last month for which figures are available; and how many were (i) black and (ii) Asian. [138768]

  Mr. Leslie
  The following table, using the current job titles, provides the information requested. The figures provided are drawn from the latest survey, which was conducted for magistrates' courts staff in post in England and Wales as at 31 March 2003.

  The new Witness Suite has been well received by the Witness Support Service. The facilities are a significant improvement on those previously provided. There are no current plans to change further the provisions for witnesses at the Crown Court in Nottingham.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel for agencies responsible to his Department and its predecessor in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement; [137889]

  (2) if he will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel in each year after 1997 by the Department of Social Security, stating in each case (a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [137735]

  Maria Eagle
  Neither the Department for Work and Pensions (formed in June 2001) nor its predecessors has had any contracts with Bechtel in each year since 1997.
  1065W 1070W

  Bechtel

    Benefits
    Mr. Lazarowicz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he will take to help(a) housebound and (b) disabled people access new systems for receiving benefits and tax credits. [139150]

    Mr. Pond
    The Department is committed to ensure that all people have access to their benefits and pensions; indeed, many housebound and disabled customers have been paid by Direct Payment for some time.

    All customers, including housebound and disabled people, are being provided with information on all of the account options suitable for Direct Payment. It is for customers themselves to decide which type of account they wish to have their money paid into. Once customers contact the Department they are able to talk to an advisor who can help them understand the options open to them.

    Third party access will continue to be available under Direct Payment for those customers who may need someone to collect their benefit or pension for them.

    However, we have always recognised that there will be a small group of people who we cannot pay directly into an account. We are developing an exceptions method of payment to pay this group.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 4 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Howarth (Fallows). [127746]

    Mr. Blunkett
    I have been asked to reply.

    A response was sent to my right hon. Friend on 16 July 2003.

    Measures

    December 1997

    Set up the Disability Rights Task Force to consider how best to secure our 1997 Manifesto commitment to look at comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people

    December 1998

    Employment provisions of Disability Discrimination Act extended to employers with 15 or more employees(previously 20 or more)

    January 1999

    All new rail vehicles to comply with Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations

    July 1999 Assent.

    Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 gains Royal Commission opens in April 2000

    October 1999

    Further DDA rights of access to goods and services came into force, meaning service providers have to alter a policy, practice or procedure which prevents a disabled person accessing a service, or to provide an auxiliary aid or service, or provide a service by a reasonably alternative means

    October 2000

    Government agrees the EU Article 13 Employment Directive to combat discrimination in employment and vocational training on grounds of disability, age, religion/belief, sexual orientation

    December 2000

    All new full size single deck buses over 7.5 tonnes and double deck buses to be fully accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users; new buses up to 7.5 tonnes and coaches to have improved access for ambulant and sensory impaired passengers

    May 2001

    Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 (SENDA) gains Royal Assent. The Act brings within scope of the DDA's discrimination provisions disabled pupils and students

    September 2002

    First duties of SENDA come into force in September 2002

    March 2003

    Regulations introduced to require taxi drivers to accept assistance dogs and to carry them free of charge

    April 2003

    The Disability Discrimination (Blind and Partially Sighted Persons) Regulations 2003 came into force. People who are certified as blind or partially sighted, or registered as blind or partially sighted by a local authority, automatically deemed disabled for DDA purposes

    July 2003

    DDA 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 approved by Parliament. These include significant measures that will bring over 1 million additional employers, and a further 7 million jobs, within the scope of the DDA.

    Measures come into effect in October 2004. They implement disability provisions of the Article 13 Employment Directive

    November 2003

    Began public consultation on setting an end date for rail vehicle accessibility and for refurbishment of rail vehicles

    November 2003

    Laid Regulations to give effect to the Article 13 Directive's requirements as they affect occupational pension schemes for disabled employees. Measures come into effect in October 2004

    Disability Discrimination
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) representations and (b) discussions he has had in the last 12 months on the viability of extending the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to protect people who have progressive illnesses with particular reference to cancer, multiple sclerosis and HIV/AIDS; and if he will make a statement. [139447]

    Maria Eagle
    In their legislative review published in April 2003 The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) reiterated our proposals in "Towards Inclusion" to extend the definition of disability to cover more people with HIV and cancer and recommended a further change that would benefit more people with multiple sclerosis. Since then officials have been involved in a number of discussions with the DRC about the proposals.

    Officials have received a range of other representations regarding the definition of disability from disabled people, civil rights groups and organisations that represent disabled people, urging change and supportive of the proposals in "Towards Inclusion". The majority of these have come from people concerned about HIV infection. This included a letter campaign earlier this year supporting the case for extending the DDA to cover HIV from point of diagnosis.

    Disabled People
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures have been taken by the Government since 1997 to advance civil rights legislation for disabled people.[139291]

    Maria Eagle
    Since 1997, we have introduced a wide range of significant measures to improve and broaden civil rights for disabled people, including:
    1067W
    Since 1997, we have also announced the following future measures to improve and broaden civil rights for disabled people.

    Measures

    October 2004

    Final rights of access to goods and services in DDA come into effect, which mean that service providers have to, where reasonable, remove, alter or avoid physical features which act as barriers to disabled people accessing their services

    September 2005

    SENDA duty to remove or alter physical features in post-16 education sector comes into force

    January 2005

    New buses up to 7.5 tonnes and coaches will have improved access for wheelchair users

    January 2015

    All buses up to 7.5 tonnes will be fully accessible

    January 2016

    All full size single deck buses over 7.5 tonnes will be fully accessible

    January 2017

    All double deck buses will be fully accessible

    January 2020

    All coaches will be fully accessible

    In addition, we will publish later this year a draft Disability Bill which will include measures to further extend disabled people's civil rights in respect of the public sector, transport, premises, private clubs, and the definition of disability.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the effects of the Local Housing Allowance Pathfinder scheme in Blackpool; [139583]

    (2) if he will make a statement on the Housing Benefit Pathfinder schemes; [139584]

    (3) what estimate he has made of the number of housing benefit recipients who will be affected by the introduction of the Local Housing Allowance Pathfinder scheme in Blackpool; [139585]

    (4) what guidance his Department has given to local authorities on consultation with local landlords during the operation of the Housing Benefit Pathfinder schemes. [139586]

    Mr. Pond
    The Local Housing Allowance (LHA) was launched in Blackpool on 17 November. Blackpool is the first of nine local authority Pathfinders that will operate the Local Housing Allowance over the next two years; the remaining eight authorities will go live between December and February.

    For de-regulated private rented sector tenants in Pathfinder areas, benefit will no longer depend on individual rents but will be based on a standard amount for the area and size of household. This will allow tenants to trade between the quality and price of their accommodation.

    The LHA will also provide a more transparent, efficient and fairer system. Most tenants will take responsibility for receiving their benefit and paying an appropriate amount of it as rent to their landlord. No claimant will be worse off when the LHA is introduced, and we estimate that in Blackpool around one in three Housing Benefit claimants in the de-regulated private rented sector will benefit financially.

    Pathfinder authorities have been encouraged to work closely with landlords and they have all held meetings with local landlords to explain how the LHA will work and the safeguards that have been put in place; however, we have not issued any specific guidance on consultation.
    1068W
    There will be a comprehensive evaluation of LHA Pathfinders, which will include interviews with claimants, landlords, local authority staff and stakeholder organisations, as well as an analysis of administrative data. This is already under way.

    Local Reference Rents
    Sir Archy Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what instructions he has issued to the Chief Rent Officer in London on the localities used in the determination of housing benefit local reference rents since the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2001. [139107]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked to reply.

    The post of "Chief Rent Officer" no longer exists. and both localities and local reference rents are a matter for the Rent Service, which is an Executive Agency of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. No instructions have been issued to the Rent Service on localities used in the determination of local reference rents since the laying of the 2001 Order.

    Sir Archy Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many localities were being used in the determination of housing benefit local reference rents in London in November(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [139108]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked to reply.

    There is no record of the numbers of localities used in the determination of local reference rents in these years. Localities are decided by the Rent Officer using definitions in the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order. Localities are influenced by residential property markets, which are fluid. Therefore, any statistical publication will only ever be able to provide a 'snap shot' at any given time.

    The Rent Service intends to begin publishing information about local reference rents for England in the late spring of 2004.

    Sir Archy Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent reports he has received on housing benefit shortfalls experienced by claimants arising from local reference rent restrictions in London. [139111]

    Mr. Pond
    The principle of rent restrictions in Housing Benefit is now well established. It ensures that claimants are able to afford reasonably priced rental
    1069W
    accommodation in the locality that they choose to live in, whilst ensuring that the cost to the taxpayer is kept at a reasonable level.

    We have not received recently any formal reports on this matter.

    Sir Archy Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many localities are currently being used by the Rent Service in England to determine local reference rents. [139112]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked to reply.

    There is no on-going record of the numbers of local reference rent localities in England. Localities are influenced by residential properties markets that are fluid. Any statistical publication will only ever be able to give a 'snap shot' at any given time.

    However, the Rent Service intends to publish information about local reference rents for England in the late spring of 2004.

    Sir Archy Kirkwood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 373W, to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), when the Rent Service will begin to publish information about local reference rents for different parts of the country. [139113]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Rent Service intends to publish information about local reference rents for England in the late spring of 2004.

    Occupational Pension Schemes
    Annabelle Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimates his Department has made of(a) the number of occupational pension schemes which have failed to meet their full obligations to employees since May 1997 and (b) the number of employees and pensioners who have been affected. [137580]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The information requested is not available.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on uptake of the pension credit in Wirral South. [139722]

    Malcolm Wicks
    As at 17 October, 2003 the number of people receiving Pension Credit in the Wirral, South constituency was 2,110. 1.97 million households in Great Britain (around 2.3 million individuals) are already receiving Pension Credit with 1.2 million households, (around 1.4 million individuals) receiving more money than they did before. The average award is £47.10 per week.

    Source:

    IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent sample

    Notes:

    1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest five.

    2. Figures are based on 100 per cent Generalised Matching Service (CMS) data.

    3. Parliamentary constituencies are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant ONS postcode directory.

    Pension Funds
    Mr. Best
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to protect the assets in the pension funds of former nationalised industries. [138373]

    Malcolm Wicks
    I refer the hon. member to the written answer I gave him on 17 November 2003,Official Report,Vol. 413,column 48W.

    Pensions
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) representations and (b) discussions he has had in the last 12 months on encouraging (i) employers and (ii) employees to contribute to stakeholder pensions; and if he will make a statement. [139442]

    Malcolm Wicks
    Ministers have received correspondence from, or had meetings with, a variety of interests including hon. Members, employer, employee and pension industry representatives about encouraging employers and employees to contribute to stakeholder pensions.

    The Employer Task Force, set up as a result of the Government's Green Paper on Pensions has recently discussed this important issue. The Task Force will be considering it further as part of its ongoing work to increase and extend occupational and private pension provision.

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what(a) representations and (b) discussions he has had in the last 12 months on the take-up of occupational pensions by part-time workers; and if he will make a statement. [139443]

    Malcolm Wicks
    The issue of lower occupational pension coverage by part-time compared to full-time workers was brought up for discussion during the Green Paper Consultation events by various different employers, women's lobby groups and other organisations with an interest in the Women and Pensions Agenda.

    The Government is seeking to address this inequality through the Informed Choice Programme. One example is the employer-based pilots we propose to introduce in spring next year. These pilots are aimed at those employers who do not contribute at least 3 per cent to a private pension for their employees and will require the employer to offer information or advice within the workplace to help employees make their own private pension arrangements.

    Making sure that all employees, including part-time workers, fully appreciate the value of employer contributions if these are offered, will also be an integral part of the Informed Choice programme.

    Mr. Caton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the effect on low income households of delaying commencement of paying state retirement pension until the beginning of the week following the birthday that brings entitlement to that pension; [139485]

    (2) to commence entitlement to state pension from the actual date of the (a)th birthday for men and (b) 60th birthday, for women. [139486]
    1071W
    Malcolm Wicks
    There are no plans to change the date from which entitlement to State Pension commences.

    The rule that entitlement begins on the payday on or following the day on which a man reaches his 65th birthday, or a woman her 60th birthday, derives from the

    Date

    Payment in Advance

    Payment in Arrears

    Thursday 4 December 2003

    Man becomes 65 years/woman becomes 60 years.

    Monday 8 December 2003

    Entitled to standard rate State Pension. Receives £77.45 full week's payment for the coming week

    Would receive £44.28 (4/7ths of £77.45) for the period 4.12.03 to 7.12.03

    Notes:

    In respect of the period up to Wednesday 3 December 2003 the individual from a low income household would typically receive one or more of the following, paid around this time:

    final earnings, monthly or weekly in arrears, with holiday pay, week in hand etc.

    incapacity benefit/jobseeker's allowance—paid fortnightly in arrears

    income support—paid weekly or at another period, in arrears

    Performance Monitoring
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [137944]

    Maria Eagle
    Performance targets for the department were agreed as part of Spending Review 2002. The monitoring and measurement of PSA 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 PSA targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the performance targets that(a) his Department and (b) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet; and if he will specify for each target(i)who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievement against it. [137960]

    Maria Eagle
    Key performance targets for the Department for Work and Pensions are agreed as part of the Spending Review and the latest set were published in Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreements 2003–2006 (Cm 5571). The department monitors progress towards the targets along with HM Treasury and progress is reported regularly.

    The department has four agencies:

    Jobcentre Plus

    The Pension Service

    The Child Support Agency

    The Appeals Service.

    The department also sponsors twelve non-departmental public bodies:

    Executive bodies:

    Health and Safety Commission

    Health and Safety Executive

    Disability Rights Commission

    Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

    1072W
    fact that State Pension is paid in advance. In practice any effect upon low income households is beneficial as the following chart shows. In the case of bereavement benefits, which are also paid in advance, there is no change upon reaching pension age, since the same payday is maintained.

    Pensions Compensation Board

    Remploy Ltd

    Tribunal body:

    Office of the Pensions Ombudsman

    Advisory bodies:

    Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

    Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

    Social Security Advisory Committee

    National Employment Panel

    Disability Employment Advisory Committee.

    Agency performance targets are set by the Secretary of State and are set out in the Business Plans of our Agencies and, where appropriate, in the Business Plans and Annual Performance Agreements of the Non Departmental Public Bodies. They are available in the Library.

    Achievement against the targets is monitored as part of the department's performance management, which is an integral part of the day to day running of the department. Monitoring of progress towards, and performance against, the targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation, and includes meetings between Ministers and Chief Executives or equivalent.

    Post Office Card Accounts
    Mr. Alan Reid
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners receive their state pension by means of(a) direct payment into a bank or building society account, (b) direct payment into a Post Office card account and (c) a pension book. [114677]

    Mr. Pond
    The information has been complied form data available on 6 September 2003.

    The number of live accounts in payment of State Pension (RP) at 6 September 2003 paid by:

    (a) Direct Payment into a Bank or Building Society Account:

    4,860,832

    (b)Direct Payment into a Post Office card account:

    10,476

    (c) a pension Book:

    4,327,440

    (d) Other (Payable Order, GIRO):

    49,630

    1073W
    The above table does not include Retirement Pension paid with another benefit, for which an analysis of the method of payment is not available.

    The numbers being paid by direct payment are expected to grow rapidly in the coming months as 20 week order books begin to expire and customers begin to receive payment into their chosen bank, building society and post office card accounts.

    Public Employees (Essex)
    Mr. Francois
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many full-time workers were employed by the Pensions Agency in Essex on 1 September. [139516]

    Maria Eagle
    At 1 September, 224 full time staff (permanent and temporary staff) were employed by The Pension Service in Essex.

    Social Exclusion
    Paul Holmes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department has conducted into the effect of benefit sanctions on claimants with reference to social exclusion; and if he will make a statement. [138754]

    Mr. Pond
    No research has been conducted by the Department into the effect of benefit sanctions on claimants with specific reference to social exclusion. Research on the effect of sanctions, though not specifically related to social exclusion, was carried out and published in 2001 under the title "The Impact of the 26 Sanctioning Regime" (Report number ESR100). A copy of this is available in the Library. Basic quarterly statistical reports on sanctions are available in the Library.

    Work-related Stress
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of work-related stress have been reported in his 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 he will make a statement. [136846]

    Maria Eagle
    Information is available only for 2002–03. In addition, where individuals indicate on their medical certificate that 'stress' is the reason for sickness absence, generally this will not differentiate between workplace stress and stress that might have been caused by other factors, for example domestic issues.

    For 2002–03, there were 7,576 reported cases of stress. (This will include individuals who might have had several periods of stress-related sickness absence.) That led to 162,814 working days being lost at a cost of around £8.5 million. We do not collect information on the amount of compensation (if appropriate)that might have been paid to individuals. This could only be provided at a disproportionate cost.

    The DWP takes seriously its obligation to provide a supportive working environment for its staff. One way in which this is discharged is through our Employee
    1074W
    Assistance provider, a confidential service which staff can call on 24 hours a day where the need arises. In addition, we will do all we reasonably can to address any workplace issues that might contribute to a person's stress levels. The Department is a key stakeholder in the Government's 'Revitalising Health and Safety' initiative and has signed up to the principle of the 'Government Setting an Example' agenda. The DWP is also participating in the HSE Management Standards pilot in five areas. The pilot is designed to combat workplace stress. If successful, we will look to introduce the Management Standards across the organisation.

  DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

    Permitted Development Rights
    Mrs. Calton
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress with the review of permitted development rights. [139313]

    Keith Hill
    As part of the planning reform agenda the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister undertook to review the permitted development rights granted by the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development Rights) Order 1995. As a first step, a research report commissioned from Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Ltd was published on 10 September.

    No decisions have been made about any changes to permitted development rights. Full public consultation will take place before any changes are made.

    Allotments
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to promote the wider(a) use and (b) provision of allotments. [139314]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister supports the development of green spaces, including allotments, parks, city farms and playgrounds. We have introduced higher restrictions on the disposal of allotments and distributed guidance on allotment management.

    Coalfield Regeneration Trust
    Jeff Ennis
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of the Coalfield Regeneration Trust on the former coalfield areas. [139315]

    Phil Hope
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has been pleased with the positive response of the coalfield communities to the work carried out by Coalfields Regeneration Trust since its launch in 1999. I am aware that the Trust is currently undertaking an independent evaluation of its work and I look forward to seeing the results of this shortly.

    Local Government Finance (Cheshire)
    Sir Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received about the impact on local councils in Cheshire of the formula funding arrangements. [139316]
    1075W
    Mr. Raynsford
    Since the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published proposals for formula grant in 2003–04, we have received 75 representations from the public, local MPs, councillors and local authorities, mostly about the impact on the education formula.

    Planning Policy/Pollution
    Mrs. Brooke
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent representations he has received about local planning policies and light pollution. [139318]

    Keith Hill
    In the last few months the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received approximately one letter per week from hon. Members and members of the public on the subject of light pollution and nuisance lighting. None has specifically addressed local planning policies and light pollution. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has also submitted its Night Blight report.

    Prefabricated Housing
    Dr. Naysmith
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is under his Department's Decent Homes guidance with regard to local authority decisions on whether to keep prefabricated housing. [139319]

    Keith Hill
    There are no types of building that are automatically considered to fail the decent homes standard just because of their construction. Prefabricated homes are as acceptable as other types of dwelling if they meet the requirements set out in the decent homes standard.

    The guidance on implementing the standard makes it clear that investment decisions should be made in the context of the local housing market and on the future demand for the stock.

    Neighbourhood Waldens
    Rob Marris
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that achievements of Neighbourhood Warden schemes are recognised by means of awards. [139320]

    Yvette Cooper
    An award scheme is already in operation. I presented the 2003 achievement awards at the wardens' annual conference held in Harrogate, last Friday, which included an award for Community Safety for Wolverhampton. Details of the award winners are available in the Library of the House.

    Arm's Length Management
    Mr. Purchase
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 496W, on arm's length management, what percentage of the additional £2 billion announced in the Sustainable Communities Plan will be invested directly in local authority arm's length management organisation managed housing stock. [139141]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects at least 95 per cent. of the £2 billion funding for arms length management organisations (ALMOs) announced in the Sustainable Communities Plan in February for the years 2003–04 to 2005–06 to be invested directly in bringing local authority housing stock up to the Decent Homes standard. ALMOs may 1076W
    devote up to 5 per cent. of their allocations to environmental or other works designed to enhance the sustainability of their investment in Decent Homes.

    Asbestos
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent by his Department and its agencies on(a) asbestos surveys and (b) the management and removal of asbestos since 1 January 2001; and what budget is available to (i) commission asbestos surveys and (ii) manage and remove asbestos from buildings in (A) 2003 and (B) 2004. [130915]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister came into existence in May 2002. The spend to date within those properties now under control of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is as follows:

    a. Asbestos surveys: £53,916.88

    b. Management and Removal of Asbestos: £149,496.72

    The budget available:

    (i) For commissioning asbestos surveys in 2003 is included in the figure at (a) above. Budgets for asbestos surveys in 2004 are being developed.

    (ii) For management and removal of asbestos in 2003 is £130,000 and in 2004 is £800,000.

    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2003,Official Report, column 287W, on asbestos, if he will list the buildings identified as containing asbestos. [130940]

    Yvette Cooper
    Asbestos surveys undertaken in accordance with the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 have revealed that the following Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's buildings contain asbestos-based materials:

    Fire Service College—Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire;

    Government Office for London—Riverwalk House, Westminster:

    HQ Building—Ashdown House—Victoria Street, Westminster; and

    Government Office for the North East—Wellbar House, Newcastle.

    Borrowing Guidelines
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister(1) if he will make a statement on the new prudential borrowing guidelines for local government; [139700]

    (2) what the estimated cost of repayments would be per million pounds borrowed and invested in capital schemes within the framework of the new prudential borrowing scheme. [139701]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The new capital finance system will start on 1 April 2004. The legislative framework is in the Local Government Act 2003. This is supplemended by a code of practice on prudential borrowing, published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, to which authorities are required by the Act to have regard.

    It is not possible to estimate future borrowing costs, which will reflect prevailing interest rates and the terms of loan agreements. However, authorities can currently obtain loans repayable after thirty years at a fixed annual interest rate of about 5 per cent.

    Council Reserves
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the financial value was of the reserves for(a) Shropshire County Council and (b) Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council in each year since 1997. [138884]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The reserves of Shropshire County Council and Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council at the beginning of each financial year since 1997–98 are tabled as follows:

    £000

    Shrewsbury and Atcham

    Shropshire

    1997–98

    5,969

    8,852

    1998–99

    6,516

    4,745

    1999–2000

    6,936

    7,944

    2000–01

    6,367

    8,490

    2001–02

    5,042

    4,562

    2002–03

    5,509

    n/a

    Source:

    1997–98 to 2002–03 Revenue Summary Returns.

    Figures include schools' reserves, other earmarked reserves and unallocated reserves. The 2002–03 figure for Shropshire is not yet available.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate the Government has made of the average level of council tax for the next financial year; and if he will make a statement.[138150]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Decisions on council tax levels are for local authorities to take after consulting with their local electorates and taxpayers. The Government does make projections of the council tax yield in future years for the purposes of managing the public finances. These projections are based on a number of assumptions about changes in council tax levels, the tax base, the collection rate and council tax benefit payments. The level is assumed to rise in line with past trend, and does not represent a value judgment about what local authorities may choose to do in the future. These figures are not a Government view as to what constitutes an acceptable rise in council tax, and simply represent an assumption for public expenditure planning purposes. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also makes a technical assumption in relation to the assumed national council tax which is used for the purposes of the formula which we use to make the annual grant distribution to all local authorities.

    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what the(a) band D council tax and (b) average council tax paid in (i) Plymouth, (ii) Torbay, (iii) Torridge, (iv) West Devon, (v) south Hams, (vi) Exeter, (vii) Teignbridge, (viii) mid Devon, (ix) east Devon and (x) north Devon were in financial year 2003–04, including all precepts. [139914]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The information requested is published on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/ctax/ctax034.htm. The requested figures can be found there at columns 1 and 5 of Table 2, "2003–04 council taxes (average per dwelling and Band D for two adults): individual local authorities". The information is 1078W
    also available in the Library, in Table 2 that accompanied the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister "News Release 2003/0050: 25 March 2003".

    Departmental Energy Use
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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.[135045]

    Yvette Cooper
    For parts(a) and (b) of the answer I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 3 November 2003, Official Report, column 404W.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in May 2002 and published its Greening Operations Policy Statement in October 2002. In this it states an objective to meet the cross-Government target of an ongoing 1 per cent. per annum reduction in greenhouse gas emissions against 1999–2000 levels (expressed in terms of carbon equivalent emissions).

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Greening Operations Policy Statement also identifies plans to reduce energy usage that include best practice advice to managers and staff, purchase of energy efficient equipment, introduction of more energy-efficient technologies and where possible increasing the proportion of energy obtained from embedded sources.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) staff expressed as a full-time equivalent and (b) press and public affairs staff were employed (i) in his Ministerial office, (ii) in other ministerial offices within his Department, (iii) by non-departmental bodies, (iv) by executive agencies and (v) by his Department in (A) 1996–97, (B) 1997–98 and (C) on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [138127]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002.

    Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service is collected from departments and agencies twice yearly, in April and October. The latest figures, for 1 April 2003, were published on 16 October 2003. These are available on the World Wide Web at www.civil-service.gov.uk/ statistics. Copies of these documents are also available in the Libraries of the House.

    Cabinet Office publishes information on non-departmental public bodies in its annual publication 'Public Bodies'. The information includes details of the number of staff employed by each Non Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) at 31 March each year. "Public Bodies 2003" is available on the Cabinet Office website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/agencies-publicbodies

    At 1 April 2003, six full-time equivalent staff were employed in the ministerial office of the Deputy Prime Minister. A further 22 staff were employed in other Office of the Deputy Prime Minister ministerial offices. The

    1079W
    press office provides a centralised media service on behalf of the Office as a whole. As at 1 April there were 21.8 full-time equivalent press officers. Information requested on the number of press office staff employed in the NDPBs and executive agencies is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

    Disabled Children (Play Areas)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what steps his Department is taking to promote good practice on making play areas more accessible for disabled children. [139674]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published Developing "Accessible Play Space"–"A Good Practice Guide" on 12 November 2003. Copies of these are available in the Libraries of the House. "Developing Accessible Play Space"–"A Good
    Practice Guide" gives practical advice to play space providers on how to make outdoor play areas more accessible for disabled children. It will help play space providers to understand the issues that disabled children and their families face when using play spaces, and provides good practice examples of how to improve existing space as well as issues to consider when creating new ones.

    Copies of the guide have been sent to all local authorities in England, as well as to housing associations and other play space providers. The guide is also available on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website www.odpm.gov.uk

    Emergency Night Shelters
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many people in each local authority were turned away from emergency night shelter accommodation in each year since 1997. [138885]

    Yvette Cooper
    This information is not collected centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

    Energy Performance
    Norman Baker
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement in respect of his policy on the labelling of buildings open to the public in terms of their energy performance.[139147]

    Phil Hope
    By January 2006, the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive requires the United Kingdom to oblige owners of larger buildings occupied by certain types of public authorities and institutions, to openly display energy performance labels. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering how best to implement these requirements in the next major revision of the Building Regulations.

    Energy Policy
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, if he will make a statement, in relation to his Office, on(a) the amount of energy consumed, (b) spending on (i) energy and (ii) energy efficiency measures, (c) the amount saved through energy efficiency measures and (d) energy policy in each of the last five years. [108855]
    1080W
    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in May 2002 and as such there have been no specific annual energy returns published to date. Energy figures for 2002–03 are being collected and will be published in due course.

    The energy policy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister includes compliance with cross-government targets and is as contained within the departmental Greening Operations Policy Statement as published in October 2002.

    Fire and Rescue Service
    Mr. Francois
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many support staff were employed by the Essex Fire and Rescue Service on 1 September 2003. [139663]

    Mr. Raynsford
    As at 31 March 2003 (the latest figures available), there were 179 (full-time equivalent) support staff employed by Essex Fire and Rescue Service. The actual headcount number of support staff employed was 197.

    Mr. Francois
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many community education vans were retained by the Essex Fire and Rescue Service on 1 September. [139665]

    Mr. Raynsford
    There are four dedicated community education vans retained by Essex Fire and Rescue Service as at 1 September 2003.

    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact he proposes regional assemblies will have on the structure of the Fire Service in North Yorkshire. [140168]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The Government made it clear in the White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808 June 2003) that in those parts of the country that choose to have an elected regional assembly one of its functions will be to oversee a regional fire and rescue service. This will mean fewer individual fire authorities. Day-to-day operational response, fire prevention and community fire safety work, however, will continue as now to be delivered at a local level.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reasons for introducing integrated personal development systems for the fire services in the South West Region. [140186]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Integrated Personal Development System (IPDS) is a national system which is being rolled out across the whole country. The reasons for introducing it are set out in the White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (June 2003).

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions he has had with individual fire authorities on integrated personal development systems. [140187]

    Mr. Raynsford
    I have had no such discussions. But fire and rescue authorities are represented by the Local Government Association on the project board taking forward the integrated personal development system (IDPS) within the Fire and Rescue Service Modernisation Programme.
    1081W
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated cost is of introducing integrated personal development systems for the fire service in the South West Region. [140188]

    Mr. Raynsford
    This is a matter for fire authorities in the South West.

    Green Belt (Development)
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how many applications have been received for development on green belt land since 1997; how many applications he approved for the development to proceed; and what the total size of the green belt area was on which he approved development. [138130]

    Keith Hill
    The information requested is not held centrally by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

    Homelessness (Older People)
    Linda Perham
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what plans he has to tackle homelessness among older people. [136656]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Government are determined to tackle all forms of homelessness including amongst older people and wants to prevent it occurring wherever possible. This was set out in the March 2002 report, "More than a roof, which focused on the problems homeless people face as much as on places where they live.

    Under current legislation vulnerability due to old age is a priority need category. This ensures that vulnerable older people who become unintentionally homeless, or threatened with homelessness, must be provided with suitable accommodation by the local authority.

    In addition, the Homelessness Act 2002 required each local authority in England to undertake a review of homelessness in their area and put a strategy in place by the end of July 2003 to ensure that accommodation and support is available within their districts for homeless people and those at risk of homelessness. The Homelessness Directorate within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also issued good practice guidance to assist local authorities in the development of their strategies including information on addressing the needs of older people who are homeless or vulnerable to homelessness.

    Houses in Multiple Occupation
    Mr Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many houses are in multiple occupation; how many of them are registered; and how many local authorities have registration schemes. [136902]

    Keith Hill
    According to the English House Condition Survey 2001, there are 638,000 houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in England, of which 338,140 are in the private rented sector (excluding those with resident landlords). According to the Housing Investment Programme Return 2003, 202 local authorities in England operate registration schemes and 14,902 HMOs are registered under them.

    Housing
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent by each local authority on(a) arm's length management organisations, (b) private finance initiative and (c) stock retention in relation to ownership of housing. [138681]

    Keith Hill
    A table showing figures for 2002–03 the capital spend by each local authority, management and maintenance expenditure and the amount that is Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) funding is available in the Library of the House. The first ALMOs qualified to start spending in the final quarter of 2002–03, with actual expenditure for 2002–03 recorded at £55.9million.

    It is not possible to provide information on spend for PFI schemes as the commercial position of schemes still in procurement must be protected. However, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has allocated a total of £760 million credits to 16 schemes. Two of those schemes are signed: Islington (£75million) and Manchester (£39 million). The other Pathfinders are Newham, Camden, NE Derbyshire, Sandwell, Leeds and Reading. The Round 2 schemes are Islington, Newham, Lewisham, NE Derbyshire, Manchester, Leeds, Oldham and Ashford.

    James Purnell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on investment in social housing. [139317]

    Keith Hill
    Under this Government, total housing investment has more than trebled, rising from £1.4 billion in 1997–98 to £4.9 billion in 2004–05. Amongst other positive developments, this investment has served to improve nearly one million social homes to the decent homes standard already, and we expect to bring another 500,000 social homes up to the standard by spring of next year. Meanwhile, we are investing £5 billion in more affordable housing over the next three years—that is double the level of investment we inherited in 1997.

    Andrew Selous
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is regarding owners of ex-local authority homes who wish to sell them back to the local authority. [139321]

    Keith Hill
    It is up to landlords to decide whether they wish to repurchase homes that they have previously sold, having regard to local housing needs. But we know that some people who have bought council homes, particularly flats, have subsequently found themselves in financial difficulties. So since April 1999 we have helped authorities to buy back such homes, by covering 35 per cent of the costs they incur if they spend £50,000 per year or more. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are ensuring that similar provisions continue to operate under the new local government capital finance system that starts on 1 April 2004.

    IT Projects
    Dr. Pugh
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much he spent on IT(a) licences, (b) maintenance, (c) software and (d) hardware in the last financial year. [125774]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. The information held by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its agencies differs in detail due to the different vote and trading account practices and different IT service supply arrangements. Some of the information requested is subsumed in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's strategic investment in IT. To provide accurate figures for the period and with the degree of breakdown requested is not possible without incurring disproportionate cost.

    Such information as is available indicates that in 2002–03 ODPM HQ, with DFT HQ, spent

    £2,100,000 on hardware

    £1,540,000 on software

    £1,018,000 on maintenance and consumables

    Large Scale Voluntary Transfers
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on how many occasions the Audit Commission has raised with him issues relating to individual ballots for large scale voluntary transfer in the last three years. [140122]

    Keith Hill
    None.

    Meeting Costs
    Norman Lamb
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times the(a) Urban Sounding Board, (b) Core Cities Working Group and (c) Arson Control Forum have met since they were established; how much each meeting cost; what the (i) annual budget since inception, (ii) projected budget for the next two years and (iii) current work programme of each body is; and if he will make a statement. [139783]

    Keith Hill
    (a) The Urban Sounding Board met 9 times between April 2001 and September 2002.

    Members were invited to join the Board in a voluntary capacity and received no remuneration. The estimated average costs of refreshments and travel and subsistence claims for each meeting were £900.

    (i) and (ii) There was no specific annual budget for the Urban Sounding Board. Meeting costs were paid for out of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Urban Policy Directorate's general running costs budget.

    (iii) The Sounding Board is to be replaced with smaller ad hoc working groups of external advisors and officials with specific time-limited remits focusing on key issues of concern to the Department, such as obstacles to physical regeneration and skills. Membership of these groups will be voluntary and non-remunerative.

    (b) The Core Cities Working Group has met 14 times since its inception in April 2002. Members of the Working Group, including officials from central government and the Regional Development Agencies and local government officers from the Core Cities, attend meetings as part of their normal duties. The
    1084W
    estimated average cost of refreshments for each meeting has been around £70. No other meeting costs have been incurred.

    (i) and ii) No annual budgets have been set for the Working Group as running costs are minimal. Organisations participating all bear their own costs.

    (iii) The Working Group is currently contributing to the evidence base supporting the government's Public Service Agreement target for regional economic performance. It is seeking to understand how competitive cities can contribute to improvements in regional economic growth through four sub groups focusing on: skills, innovation, better connectivity between cities and regions, and Strategic leadership, with a particular focus on key issues likely to make a difference. The group's work will feed into policy measures to be agreed as part of the Spending Review 2004.

    (c) Since it was set up in April 2001 the Arson Control Forum has met 5 times. The estimated average cost of the room, refreshments and travel and substance claims for each meeting was £650.

    (i) and (ii) The annual Arson Control Forum budget since its formal launch is:

    £ Million

    2001–02

    1.20

    2002–03

    1.36

    2003–04

    4.02 (projected)

    2004–05

    4.47 (projected)

    2005–06

    4.80 (projected)

    (iii) The Arson Control Forum's main activities in its current work programme are the partial funding of local arson reduction projects in England & Wales, supported by a research programme into various aspects of the arson problem (e.g. the relationship between car arson and other car crimes), and the publication of best practice guides on arson prevention.

    Pathfinders Programme
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evaluation of the Pathfinders programme has taken place. [139675]

    Keith Hill
    Individual schemes will be assessed by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and scrutinised independently by the Audit Commission before resources from the Housing Market Renewal Fund are allocated.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister shall be establishing monitoring systems that will enable us to see the effects of Pathfinder projects on both their own and neighbouring areas. In addition, we shall be evaluating the overall effectiveness of individual Pathfinders' approaches and the programme as a whole.

    An evaluation of the Housing PFI Pathfinder programme has begun. The first part identified a framework for the evaluation programme. This is now completed. Following on from this, work is now underway on a baseline evaluation—the first phase of which has been completed. The findings can be found on

    1085W
    the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_housing/ documents/page/odpm_house_609810.pdf.

    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister in what ways(a) the West Midlands and (b) Coventry have benefited from Pathfinders. [139676]

    Keith Hill
    Both the North Staffordshire and the Birmingham and Sandwell Market Renewal Pathfinders are situated in the West Midlands region. Both have currently received funding of £6.66 million. This money is being used to prepare the Pathfinder's scheme and to fund some early interventions. The two Pathfinders are now currently in the process of preparing their strategic schemes to bid for resources from the Housing Market Renewal fund.

    Coventry does not benefit from Housing Market Renewal activity because it lies outside of any of the nine Housing Market Renewal intervention areas.

    Performance Monitoring
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [137949]

    Yvette Cooper
    Performance targets for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister were agreed as part of Spending Review 2002. The monitoring and measurement of PSA targets forms part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's performance management systems. Performance management is an integral part of the day to day running of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and as such it is not possible to separate the specific costs out. The monitoring of progress towards and performance against the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's PSA targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

    Regional Assembly Elections
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, whether he plans to offer advice and guidance to local authorities in areas subject to regional assembly referendums on the extent to which they can publicise their own views on the recommendations of the Boundary Committee on the proposed new local government structure in their area. [139033]

    Mr. Raynsford
    No—the rules on such matters are clearly laid out in the Code of Practice on Local Authority Publicity.

    The Boundary Committee will be giving its recommendations wide publicity. Its reports will explain the views of those that made submissions or representations, including those of the local authorities affected.

    Local authorities may, within reason, make known their views on a preferred outcome in a referendum. These are matters for the judgement of the local authorities affected but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate for them to spend council tax payers' money on further publicity.

    Registered Social Housing
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what(a) guidance and (b) advice his Department published for tenants of registered social landlords, concerning (i) their rights in respect of consultation over demolition programmes and (ii) major policy changes; [139889]

    (2) what (a) guidance and (b) advice his Department has published for registered social landlords concerning their responsibilities towards tenants, with particular reference to their responsibilities to inform tenants of their rights when properties become earmarked for demolition; [139890]

    (3) what statutory procedures should be carried out by registered social housing landlords prior to determining demolition programmes. [139891]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not published guidance and advice to registered social landlords (RSLs) or their tenants in respect of consultation about demolition programmes and major policy changes. Section 105 of the Housing Act 1985 requires landlords to "maintain such arrangements" as they consider appropriate for informing secure tenants about any proposals for changes in housing management which will affect them "substantially". These "matters" should include maintenance, improvement and demolition. The Housing Corporation is regulator of RSLs and its regulatory code and guidance (published in "The Way Forward: Our approach to regulation" in January 2002) include requirements that RSLs must seek and be responsive to residents' views and priorities. RSLs are required, amongst other things, to enable residents to be involved in decision making and to provide information about its activities to residents. The regulatory code and guidance apply to all types of legal occupier, including occupants with assured and secure tenancies.

    RSLs do not require consent to demolish property. However, they do require the consent of the Housing Corporation under section 9 of the Housing Act 1996 if property is to be demolished and the land is to be disposed of. RSLs are required to consult the field offices of the Housing Corporation about the need for any grant payment or re-payment in these circumstances.

    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what resources in terms of(a) funding and (b) support are made available by the Government to registered social housing landlords to rectify housing stock in need of a major structural repair. [139892]

    Keith Hill
    The Housing Corporation has allocated £38.9 million in 2003–04 for works to Registered Social Landlords stock. This includes major repairs. The corporation, with the National Housing Federation, has issued guidance to associations covering all aspects of asset management, including how to deal with stock in need of major repair. They have also supported a number of seminars and other training events on this topic. Corporation regulators work with associations at risk of failing to meet the Decent Homes Standard on any of the criteria, including structural soundness, to ensure that all homes will meet the standard by 2010.
    1087W
    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the optimum size is of housing stock for stock transfers of local authority housing to a single trust or association. [139893]

    Keith Hill
    The Housing Transfer Manual 2003 makes clear that decisions of the number of dwellings transferring from a local authority to a new landlord will depend on local circumstances. A material consideration in deciding the number of dwellings transferring to a single landlord would be the number of dwellings remaining after any proposed demolitions. This supersedes the 12,000 dwelling guideline that existed previously.

    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is regarding housing trusts or associations created as a result of stock transfer ballots by tenants, in cases where they propose demolishing occupied properties without the consent of tenants. [139895]

    Keith Hill
    Tenants should be fully involved in all the stages of deciding how to deliver the decent home objective. This includes the option appraisal process, and, where transfer is the preferred option, the detailed development of the transfer proposal including the likely need for demolitions.

    Mr. George Howarth
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is regarding housing trusts or associations created as a result of stock transfer ballots, in cases where tenants demonstrate a desire to establish a new or alternative body to (a) manage, (b) own and (c) manage and own part of the trust's or association's housing stock. [139896]

    Keith Hill
    Increasing tenant participation is a priority for all housing transfers. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would expect any new landlord to be willing to consider any approach from its tenants to manage, own or own and manage their stock. However, in considering any request we would expect the landlord to consider the impact on other tenants, delivery of the transfer promises and the effect on the business plan.

    Rural Housing
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the exception site planning principle for the provision of housing in villages. [140280]

    Keith Hill
    Current policy on providing for rural exception housing is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3:Housing, Annex B. The policy allows local planning authorities to consider including a "rural exception policy" in their plans where there remains a lack of affordable housing to meet local needs. An exception policy enables a local planning authority to grant planning permission for small sites for affordable housing to meet local needs in perpetuity, within or adjoining existing villages, which may be subject to policies of restraint. The current policy advises that it is inappropriate for local planning authorities to allocate particular sites for affordable housing.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's consultation document "Influencing the size, type and affordability of housing" proposes that the current policy on providing for rural exception housing is replaced by a policy that enables local planning
    1088W
    authorities to identify sites solely for affordable housing, on land within or adjoining existing villages, which would not otherwise be released for housing. The consultation period officially closed on 31 October 2003, but responses after that date have been considered because of the postal dispute.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reasons the use of exception sites in rural areas is being replaced by a requirement for local authorities to provide a specified number of affordable units through application of planning gains. [140281]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's consultation document "Influencing the size, type and affordability of housing" proposes that the current policy on providing for rural exception housing set out in Annex B of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing" is replaced by a policy that enables local planning authorities to identify sites solely for affordable housing, on land within or adjoining existing villages which would not otherwise be released for housing.

    The proposal seeks to address concerns that the securing of affordable housing through the current rural exception policy takes too long. The proposed policy will provide affordable housing in a more considered way through the plan-making process. It is anticipated that it will deliver affordable housing where it is needed more effectively and more quickly than the current policy.

    Supermarkets (Planning)
    Mr. Clifton-Brown
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what investigations the Government have carried out into the extent to which existing planning applications for supermarkets have a condition stating the maximum retail floor space; and how many applications have had such conditions attached. [138746]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not collect information on the amount of floor space granted in planning permissions or what conditions were attached, because to do so would be an excessive burden on local authorities. Our policy is to minimise the data demands we place on local planning authorities.

    From the cases that my officials have seen, which are mainly the largest retail cases, and from advice they have sought, their assessment agreed with that of the hon. Member in Standing Committee that the vast majority of consents since 1996 have maximum floor space stipulated in conditions, whereas for those prior to 1996 it may have been less frequent.

    Tenancy Deposit Scheme
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evaluation his Department has made of the pilot Tenancy Deposit Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [140043]

    Keith Hill
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 10 November in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton),Official Report, column 164W.
    1089W
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the case for a statutory Tenancy Deposit Scheme; what plans he has to introduce legislation; and if he will make a statement. [140044]

    Keith Hill
    On the first part of the question I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on 10 November 2003,Official Report, column 164W.

    On the second part, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are currently considering the case for legislation in the context of the Law Commission's proposals for tenure reform.

    Traffic Noise (PPG 24)
    Mr. Heald
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will reduce the maximum noise thresholds in PPG 24 for aircraft noise to below those for other traffic noise sources; [139710]

    (2) if he will set lower maximum traffic noise thresholds for rural areas than for urban areas in PPG 24 when assessing new development areas; [139711]

    (3) if he will remove the two to three decibel allowance included in PPG 24 for aircraft noise; [139712]

    (4) if he will amend PPG 24 to bring the maximum recommended traffic noise levels for assessing new development areas into line with the recommendations of the World Health Organisation. [139713]

    Keith Hill
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: "Planning and Noise". The review will include a re-assessment of the Noise Exposure Categories (NECs) in the light of the World Health Organisation's guidelines and other recommendations and research.

    With regards to traffic noise thresholds for rural areas as compared with urban areas, the existing guidance already contains provision for local authorities, where appropriate, to vary the recommended levels contained in the NEC lables by up to three dB(A) (decibels of average weighted sound.

    Urban Landscapes Project
    Dr. Kumar
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on UK participation in the EU Sustainable and Accessible Urban Landscapes Project. [139424]

    Yvette Cooper
    SAUL(2) is a transnational project funded under the European INTERREG III initiative involving partners from the UK, Germany, Netherlands and Luxembourg.

    It is led by the UK partner 'Groundwork UK'. Its aim is to improve the public realm and public open space through a collaborative planning and design approach. It involves a range of urban landscape demonstration projects; development of regional strategies; a transnational programme to promote learning, knowledge and experience transfer and planning for new urban landscapes.

    Warrington Borough Council
    Helen Jones
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the rate of local income tax which would be necessary to fund services provided by Warrington Borough Council(a) if such a tax were levied on all those employed in Warrington and (b) if such a tax were levied on residents of Warrington. [140035]

    Phil Hope
    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no estimate of these matters. The Steering Group of the Balance of Funding Review, chaired by my rt. hon. Friend the member for Greenwich and Woolwich, has asked external organisations to give evidence on a number of issues put to it by consultees, which include the case for introducing some form of local income tax. We have made clear that the fact that the group is looking at the issues put to it does not mean that the Government endorses them.

    Website
    John Barrett
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent assessment he has made of the content and design of his Department's website. [139370]

    Yvette Cooper
    The current Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's web site went on line in July this year. It's design and content is consistent with Cabinet Office guidelines and the development process included usability testing, online user research and extensive content evaluation.

    The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be reviewing the content and design of the site on a regular basis.

    Wilson Marriage Centre, Colchester
    Bob Russell
    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 6 October 2003, if he will call in public inquiry Application CC/COL/03/1437 by Essex County Council in respect of land it owns at the Wilson Marriage Centre, Barrack Streeet, Colchester. [138142]

    Keith Hill
    The planning application in question represents a departure from the local development plan. Essex County Council have confirmed that the application, should they be minded to approve it, will be submitted to my rt. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in due course, so that he can consider whether the proposals raise any issues which would warrant his intervention.

    In considering whether his intervention may be justified, all representations received will be given very careful consideration.

TREASURY

  Suicide
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides there were in each month in(a) England and (b) each region in each of the last six years. [139867]
  1091W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 19 November 2003

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many suicides there were in each month in a) England and b) each region in each of the last six years. (139867)

  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2002. I will arrange for figures for each year from 1997 to 2002, by month and Government Office Region, to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many teenage pregnancies there were in(a) the UK, (b) coalfield communities and (c) Bassetlaw in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [140052]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to John Mann, dated 19 November 2003

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many teenage pregnancies there were in a) UK, b) Coalfield communities and c) Bassetlaw, for the last 12 months for which figures are available. (140052) Figures for the United Kingdom are not available because conception statistics are not calculated for Northern Ireland, and those for Scotland are not produced on a comparable basis to England and Wales. The information available for England and Wales is shown in the table below.

  The number of teenage pregnancies in England and Wales are compiled routinely by calendar years. The latest year for which figures are available is 2001*.

  Number of pregnancies among women aged under 18 in England and Wales, Coalfield communities and Bassetlaw, 2001

  Number of pregnancies

  England and Wales

  40,966

  Coalfield communities

  5,534

  Bassetlaw

  80

  *Provisional figures

  Unemployment Rates
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of(a) unemployment,(b) seasonally adjusted unemployment and (c) long-term unemployment for the Isle of Wight was for each month since 2000. [139977]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew Turner, dated 19 November 2003:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking for the level of (a) unemployment (b) seasonally adjusted unemployment and (c) long-term unemployment for the Isle of Wight each month since 2000. (139977)
  1092W
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition.

  However, the LFS sample size is too small to give reliable estimates of long-term unemployment for the Isle of Wight, or Parliamentary Constituency estimates on a monthly basis.

  ONS also compiles statistics of those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) for local areas including Parliamentary Constituencies. The attached table gives the number of JSA claimants and long-term claimants, those who have been claiming for at least 12 months, in the Isle of Wight Parliamentary Constituency for the period January 2000 to October 2003. Claimant count figures are not seasonally adjusted at Parliamentary Constituency level.

  Number of jobseeker's allowance claimants in the Isle of Wight parliamentary constituency from January 2000 to October 2003 (not seasonally adjusted)

  All claimants

  Claimants over 12 months

  2000

  January

  3,279

  906

  February

  3,596

  885

  March

  3,279

  840

  April

  2,892

  775

  May

  2,616

  753

  June

  2,433

  725

  July

  2,403

  722

  August

  2,325

  683

  September

  2,249

  679

  October

  2,347

  673

  November

  2,660

  662

  December

  2,945

  653

  2001

  January

  3,305

  646

  February

  3,189

  633

  March

  2,876

  610

  April

  2,419

  598

  May

  2,228

  594

  June

  2,039

  565

  July

  1,970

  544

  August

  1,940

  532

  September

  1,911

  513

  October

  2,059

  497

  November

  2,332

  488

  December

  2,622

  482

  2002

  January

  3,008

  481

  February

  2,867

  478

  March

  2,587

  452

  April

  2,359

  442

  May

  2,220

  439

  June

  1,973

  412

  July

  1,915

  379

  August

  1,874

  346

  September

  1,887

  331

  October

  1,927

  329

  November

  2,198

  309

  December

  2,451

  322

  2003

  January

  2,785

  325

  February

  2,741

  308

  March

  2,438

  298

  April

  2,125

  296

  May

  1,939

  291

  June

  1,775

  282

  July

  1,714

  282

  August

  1,662

  260

  September

  1,689

  279

  October

  1,709

  273

  Source

  Jobcenter Plus administrative system.

  Advertising Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the cost of advertising by(a) HM Treasury, (b) the Inland Revenue, (c) Customs and Excise, (d) the Office of National Statistics, (e) National Savings and (f) the Royal Mint in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [138802]

  Ruth Kelly
  For the years 1997 to 2002 in respect of HM Treasury, Inland Revenue, HM Customs and Excise and the Royal Mint, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 36W.

  The information relating to subsequent years is as follows:

  Inland Revenue

  2002–04: £19.9 million

  2003–04: £7.4 million

  HM Customs and Excise

  2002–03: £1,539,000

  2003–04: £1,557,000

  The figures for the Office for National Statistics and National Savings and Investments since 1997 are as follows:

  Office for National Statistics

  1997–2000: £3,000

  2000–01: £1,272,000

  2001–02: £1,770,000

  2002–03: None

  National Savings and Investments

  1997–98: £3,893,000

  1998–99: £1,532,000

  1999–2000: £7,011,500

  2000–01: £2,770,086

  2001–02: £3,279,000

  2002–03: £2,459,822

  2003–04: £1,900,000

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of pensioners with dependent children who are receiving Child Tax Credit. [135213]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that the Minister for Pensions gave him on 3 November 2003,Official Report, column 467W. Most of those who were not already receiving Child Tax Credit (CTC), who were expected to still have dependent children at the introduction of Pension Credit (PC) and who were expected to qualify for PC at that date, were automatically transferred to tax credits. They are now receiving the CTC, if still entitled.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of general government revenue was accounted for by council tax in each tax year between 1992–93 and 2001–02. [132563]
  1094W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures requested are given in the table:

  Council tax1 as percentage of general government total receipts

  Percentage

  1992–93

  3.8

  1993–94

  3.5

  1994–95

  3.4

  1995–96

  3.5

  1996–97

  3.6

  1997–98

  3.5

  1998–99

  3.6

  1999–2000

  3.7

  2000–01

  3.8

  2001–02

  4.0

  1Community charge in 1992–93

  Employment Statistics
  Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of jobs in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales were in the (i) public sector and (ii) voluntary sector in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [139943]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Denzil Davies, dated 19 November 2003

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about jobs in the public and voluntary sectors. (139943)

  Information about jobs in the public sector in the United Kingdom is compiled by ONS from returns made by public bodies. From this source, the latest estimate of jobs in the public sector in the UK is 5,298,000 in June 2002, representing 18.3 per cent. of all jobs in the UK. Comparable information is not available for England, Wales and Scotland, nor for the voluntary sector.

  However, information about people in employment is collected in the Labour Force Survey (LFS), and is classified by sector according to the details of their work supplied by respondents to the survey. Employment data covers only the main job of those employed and therefore omits second and subsequent jobs. The LFS definition of the voluntary sector includes all institutions holding charitable status, which would include, for example, employees in many private schools.

  The attached table shows the percentages of all people in employment that worked in the public and voluntary sectors in England, Scotland and Wales for the year to August 2003.

  Percentages of all people in employment working in the public and voluntary sectors—12 months to August 2003

  Percentage not seasonally adjusted

  Voluntary sector

  Public sector

  England

  2.0

  22.2

  Scotland

  2.4

  27.4

  Wales

  2.0

  28.5

  Source

  Labour Force Survey.

  Gold
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tonnes of gold from UK gold holdings were
  1095W
  sold in each year since 1997; at what price per ounce they were sold; and what the value of the sales per ounce was at the afternoon fix on 3 November. [139862]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 27 October 2003,Official Report, column 39W and to the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 3 November 2003, Official Report, column 457W, and for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) on 20 May 2002, Official Report, column 87W; and to the table in the Treasury document "Review of the sale of part of the UK Gold Reserves", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  At the afternoon fix on 3 November 2003, the total proceeds from the sales of gold was US$4,867 million.

  Household Wealth
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the stock of household wealth, net of debt, in(a) 1990, (b) 1997 and (c) the latest period for which figures are available; and what the shares of (i) housing and (ii) securities in the stock were in each case. [139344]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the savings that his Department will make through the introduction of a compulsory identity card. [138968]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has been involved in discussions on the benefits and costs of a national identity card scheme. The introduction of such a scheme is a long term undertaking, and my department will be involved with ongoing analysis of the benefits and costs. It is too early at present to attribute the scale of any savings to Treasury departments.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in income tax he estimates would be required to be levied on English taxpayers in order to generate an additional(a) £19 billion and (b) £22 billion. [139094]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are a number of ways income tax could be increased to generate revenue. I refer my hon. Friend to table 1.6 "Direct effects of illustrative tax changes" on the Inland Revenue website www.inland revenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_expenditures/g_t06_1.htm, which provides a ready reckoner of the effects of changing the rates of income tax in the UK.

  Ministerial Statements
  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his statement of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 420, what evidential basis he used to support his statement that 3 million jobs in the UK were dependent on the European Union. [129218]
  1096W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury estimates that 3 million jobs in the UK are linked, directly and indirectly, to the export of goods and services to the European Union. This figure is based on the assumption that the share of total UK employment associated with UK exports to the EU is equal to the share of total UK value added (GVA) generated by UK exports to the EU.

  Mobile Phone Contracts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the central mobile telecommunications contract managed by the Office of Government Commerce cost in each year since the scheme started, broken down by government department; how many mobile phone contracts are managed for each department under the contract; and if he will make a statement. [139553]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Year

  Aggregated central civil government expenditure through the framework contract

  Aggregated number of mobile phone contracts agreed through the framework

  2000–01

  3,168,282

  39,501

  2001–02

  5,504,891

  62,614

  2002–03

  10,852,269

  99,907

  The GTM framework provides a vehicle for Central Civil Government departments and the wider public sector to purchase mobile telephony, data and wide area paging services.

  The table shows the aggregated central civil government expenditure through the GTM framework contracts since the frameworks were available. A breakdown of expenditure by government department is not held centrally in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  The table also shows the aggregated number of mobile phone contracts agreed through the framework, this equates to the number of individual handsets obtained.

  National Insurance Fund
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which years the rate of Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund was 18 per cent.; and if he will estimate the amount of the supplement in the current year if it were paid at that rate. [139451]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury supplement was 18 per cent. for the years 1975–76 to 1980–81. It was abolished in 1988–89. If it still applied, and the rate was 18 per cent. it would amount to £12.4 billion for 2003–04.

  Official Residences
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [134700]
  1097W
  Ruth Kelly
  The details requested are set out as follows.

  Maintenance

  Renovation

  Council tax

  Running costs1

  1997–98

  0

  0

  304

  62,306

  1998–99

  0

  0

  325

  149,598

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  350

  166,841

  2000–01

  0

  0

  375

  124,456

  2001–02

  0

  0

  410

  139,814

  2002–03

  0

  0

  445

  156,570

  1These costs include the proportion of capital charge (rent), rates, service charges and utilities in respect of the No.10 flat.

  The increase in rent/rates from 1997–98 to 1998–99 is due to the introduction of capital charging to replace Property Repayment Service assessed rents as the method of accounting for Crown Freehold properties.

  Payroll Services
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures of performance and customer satisfaction were included in the framework agreement between Her Majesty's Treasury and CMG for the implementation and provision of payroll services; what assessment he has made of the outcomes against target in relation to this agreement to date; and if he will make a statement. [139562]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Principal Framework for the provision of payroll services was set up to enable HM Treasury or any other Department or Agency to enter into an individual service contract with the Supplier for payroll provision. The Framework Agreement lays down approved warranties, undertakings and representations for the Supplier.

  The Framework Agreement also provides for the termination of the Agreement.

  The Framework Agreement did not confer upon the Supplier any right to service the payroll requirements of HM Treasury or any Department or Agency other than as provided in any service contracts.

  Personal Tax/Benefits
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) pursuant to his statement of 13 November 2003,Official Report, column 403, on personal tax and benefit changes since 1997, if he will (a) list the personal tax and benefit changes since 1997 that have benefited householders and (b) state the net change in Government revenue resulting from each personal tax and benefit change for each applicable year since 1997; [140033]

  (2) pursuant to his statement of 13 November 2003, Official Report, column 403, on personal tax and benefit changes since 1997, what definition he used of householders; and how many householders there were in each year since 1997; [140034]

  (3) pursuant to his statement of 13 November 2003, Official Report, column 403, if he will (a) list the assumptions made and (b) set out the calculations used in coming to the conclusion on benefits to householders of personal tax and benefit changes since 1997. [140065]
  1098W
  John Healey
  The Government have introduced a number of personal tax and benefit measures since 1997 that have benefited households. As I said in my answer of 13 November 2003,Official Report, column 403, householders are, on average, £775 a year better off. Full details of these measures and their effect on Exchequer revenues are set out in the relevant Financial Statement and Budget reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. These measures include cutting the basic rate of income tax to 22 per cent. the lowest rate for 70 years, introducing the 10p starting rate of income tax, over-indexing age-related personal allowances and introducing the working and child tax credits to support families and tackle child poverty.

  The definition of a household can be found on page 173 of the 2002 edition of Family Spending a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Table 1.1 of this publication gives an estimate of the number of households in 2001–02; figures for earlier years are given in previous editions.

  An estimate of the average gain is calculated by comparing net household incomes after the operation of 2003–04 direct tax and benefit system with those after the operation of the 1997–98 direct tax and benefit system, uprating parameters to 2003–04 levels in line with changes in prices, and excluding the effect of the abolition of mortgage interest relief at source (MIRAS).

  Private Schools
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on value added tax revenue of the charitable status of private schools in the last year for which figures are available. [139693]

  John Healey
  No such estimate can be made. VAT reliefs for charities are general and available data on expenditure by charities and non-profit making bodies do not identify different sectors.

  Secondees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 November 2003,Official Report, column 620W, on secondees, which organisation is responsible for salaries and expenses of secondees out of the Treasury; and if he will make a statement. [139994]

  Ruth Kelly
  Of the 28 organisations mentioned in my earlier answer, the Treasury fully funds secondments to 6 of the organisations (with one of which we have a reciprocal arrangement). Secondments are partially funded by us to 6 other organisations, and the remaining 16 are fully funded by the organisation.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue cost of restructuring stamp duty on residential property sales so as to charge marginal rates of(a) 0 per cent. on property sales of £100,000 or less, (b) 2 per cent. on sales revenue of between £100,000 and £199,999, (c) 3 per cent. on sales revenue of between £200,000 and £299,999, (d) 4 per cent. In sales revenue of £300,000 to £399,999, (e) 5 per cent. on sales revenue of

  1099W
  £400,000 to £499,999, (f) 6 per cent. on sales revenue of £500,000 to £749,999 and (g) 7 per cent. on sales revenue of £750,000 and above. [135308]

  Ruth Kelly
  The revenue cost of restructuring stamp duty on residential property sales according to the scheme described above is estimated to be £700 million in 2004–05. This does not include any allowance for behavioural changes.

  Tax Credits (Overpayment)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether existing tax credit claimants will be expected to make contact with the Inland Revenue to request a form or give information regarding their earnings for the last tax year in preparation for a reconciliation of their tax credit status in April 2004; [135413]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that the Inland Revenue applies lessons learned from the first year of operation of the (a) working tax credit and (b) child tax credit to the administration of those credits in time for financial year 2004–05;[135414]

  (3) whether existing tax credit claimants will automatically be sent forms to complete regarding their earnings for the last tax year in preparation for a reconciliation of their tax credit status in April 2004; [135415]

  (4) when he expects existing tax credit claimants to provide information about their earnings over the last tax year in order to achieve a smooth reconciliation of individuals' entitlements in time for April 2004. [135416]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has reflected the lessons learned from the introduction of tax credits last April in the detailed design of the processes for finalising tax credits awards and renewing claims from April 2004.

  The Inland Revenue will be writing to all tax credits claimants early next year to explain how the finalisation and renewals processes will work, and to let them know what they can expect to receive from the Revenue and how and when they would be expected to respond.

  No claimant will need to initiate contact. The Inland Revenue will write to all tax credits claimants from April 2004 over a period of weeks explaining how they can finalise their award for 2003–04 and renew their claim for 2004–05, if appropriate.

  Once contacted by the Inland Revenue, we expect two-thirds of claimants will need to provide details of their income for the previous tax year (2003–04) and confirm their circumstances over the period of their award.

  The remaining third of claimants—families receiving only the family element of child tax credit—will not need to contact the Inland Revenue unless they have changes to report in their circumstances or income over the last tax year (2003–04). Because the level of their award would be affected only by a significant change in income, we expect that only a small minority of these claimants will need to report their 2003–04 income.
  1100W
  Claimants who need to provide information will have until 30 September 2004 in which to do so. During this renewal period, tax credits payments will continue. Once the information is provided, the Inland Revenue will finalise the previous tax year's award (2003–04) and, if appropriate, set up the award for 2004–05.

  If they do not have details of their actual income for 2003–04 by the deadline, claimants can provide an estimate by 30 September 2004. They will then have until 31 January 2005 to provide the details of their actual income.

  There will be a comprehensive publicity campaign throughout the period to ensure that claimants are fully aware of what they have to do.

  The Inland Revenue is also expanding the capacity of the Tax Credits Helpline to support the finalisation and renewals processes, with the addition of two new contact centres.

  As set out in my answers of 7 July 2003 to the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), Official Report, column 583W and for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), Official Report, column 584W, the Inland Revenue's compliance strategy for new tax credits has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints he has received about(a) child tax and (b) working tax credit; how much compensation has been paid for errors; and what the (i) range and (ii) average amount of compensation paid is. [135933]

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many compensation awards have been made by the Inland Revenue in respect of complaints about(a) child and (b) working tax credit; [136151]

  (2) how many complaints seeking compensation have been received in respect of (a) child and (b) working tax credit; [136152]

  (3) what the total value is of compensation awards made by the Inland Revenue in respect of complaints about (a) child and (b) working tax credits. [136449]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]To the end of September approximately 1,600 claims had been paid out. This represents about one thirtieth of one per cent of all claims received for tax credit awards. The average payment was £30.

  Taxation
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional revenue would be raised from the residents of(a) each of the borough councils in Hampshire and (b) the Southampton and Portsmouth unitary authorities for every penny increase in the basic rate of tax. [139714]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The requested information is given in the table.
  1101W

  Additional full-year yield (£ million) of increasing the basic rate of tax by 1p in 2000–01

  (a) Borough Councils in Hampshire

  Basingstoke and Deane

  10.4

  East Hampshire

  6.8

  Eastleigh

  8.4

  Fareham

  6.9

  Gosport

  4.3

  Hart

  6.1

  Havant

  5.8

  New Forest

  9.0

  Rushmoor

  4.4

  Test Valley

  6.7

  Winchester

  8.2

  (b) Portsmouth and Southampton unitary authorities

  22.1

  Estimates are based upon the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes. The effects of the illustrative changes can be scaled up or down over a reasonably wide range. The results exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  VAT Carousel Fraud
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the value of VAT carousel fraud was in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [139769]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of efforts to tackle VAT carousel fraud; [139770]

  (3) how many prosecutions there were in respect of VAT carousel fraud (a) in 2000, (b) in 2001, (c) in 2002 and (d) since 9 April; [139771]

  (4) how much money has been withheld in VAT repayments to companies trading in (a) mobile telephones and (b) computer chips in each of the last three years; how much was subsequently paid on to these companies; and if he will make a statement. [139773]

  John Healey
  There are no separate estimates for tax losses from the specific carousel variant of VAT Missing Trader Intra-Community (MTIC) fraud. However, estimates of revenue loss from all forms of MTIC fraud, which includes carousel fraud, for 1999–2000,2000–01 and 2001–02 were published in "Measuring Indirect Tax Losses" at the time of the pre-Budget report in November 2002, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. There are no estimates for earlier years.

  Details of Customs strategy and progress in tackling VAT MTIC fraud were set out in "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" (November 2001), "Protecting Indirect Tax Revenues" (November 2002), and Customs' Spring Report (May 2003), copies of which are also available in the Library of the House.

  Prosecution figures for VAT MTIC fraud for 2001–02 were published in Customs' Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02 in December 2002 (CM 5671). Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Customs does not maintain information in the format requested and it could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The levels of VAT repayments being withheld by Customs in any given sector at any
  1102W
  given time vary on a daily basis, and repayments may be made which are subsequently established to be wrongly paid, resulting in an assessment for VAT at a later date.

  Estimates of tax losses and the number of prosecutions for 2002–03, and an update on progress in tackling the fraud, will be published later this year.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to the European Union in respect of its rules on cross-border trade and VAT carousel fraud; and if he will make a statement. [139772]

  John Healey
  The UK Government has regular dialogue with the European Commission and other member states of the EU about the most effective way to counter carousel VAT fraud, including simplifying and modernising the current rules on cross-border trade and strengthening the arrangements for administrative co-operation and information exchange between member states' tax administrations. The UK has supported initiatives in this area such as the proposal for a new VAT Administrative Co-operation Regulation, which will come into force on 1 January 2004.

HEALTH

  Chlamydia
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what powers the testing of 11 to 16-year-olds for chlamydia in schools is carried out; and what recent discussions he has had on the testing of school children for other sexually-transmitted diseases. [131806]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The power and decision to provide a school based health service, and the content of that service, is for the individual governing body of the school in consultation with pupils, parents and the school community.

  GM Crops
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research(a) has been undertaken and (b) is planned by the Government into the effects of consuming GM crops on human gut flora. [138805]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency has not undertaken, and is not planning, any research into the effects of consuming genetically modified crops on human gut flora. The Government's Science Review on genetic modification has concluded that there is no evidence that transgenic DNA per se behaves differently from any other DNA with respect to its fate following consumption in food.

  Heroin Addicts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what estimate he has made of the number of heroin addicts in(a) Leeds and (b) the UK in each of the last 10 years. [139345]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  A and E Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many admissions to Accident and Emergency departments there were in each of the past 12 quarters, broken down by hospital.[133750]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Quarterly activity statistics for accident and emergency departments are available from April 2001 for each national health service trust on the Department of Health website at http://www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/. A copy of this information is also available in the Library. Information is not collected by individual hospital site.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates since 1 October 2002 changes were made to the criteria used by the NHS in collecting data about the four-hour accident and emergency waiting time target. [135419]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since October 2002 there has been one clarification to the criteria used by the national health service in collecting total time data. In addition monitoring has been extended beyond major accident and emergency (A&E) units to include all A&E and minor injuries units (MIU) services during this period.

  A clarification took effect from January 2003. This provided a definition of an inpatient ward type 2 and 3 A&Es (specialist A&Es, MIU and walk in centres) were included in total time monitoring on a voluntary basis from the same month. Monitoring of total time in type 2 and 3 A&Es became mandatory from April 2003.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Frontline ambulances in fleet (including spares)

  109

  109

  109

  112

  112

  112

  Patient Transport Service vehicles in fleet (including spare)

  172

  172

  178

  178

  178

  178

  Solo Rapid Response Cars in fleet (including spare)

  0

  0

  12

  13

  13

  18

  Motorcycles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cycles

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Special Baby Care Unit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Source

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department has issued to those who have been in contact with animals infected with bovine tuberculosis. [132628]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Guidance on the management of the public health consequences of tuberculosis in cattle was issued to all consultants in Communicable Disease Control in June 2000.

  BUPA
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost to the NHS has been of(a) hip replacements, (b) knee replacements and (c) cataract operations carried out at the BUPA hospital in Redhill. [134950]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As the release of this information would entail disclosing a third party's commercial confidences, exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Open Government applies.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average length of time ambulances took to reach(a) the patient and (b) the hospital to which the patient needed to be taken in (i) the North West region, (ii) Merseyside and (iii) St. Helens in the last 12 months; [137989]

  (2) in what proportion of 999 calls made to the Merseyside Ambulance Service in the most recently measured 12 months for which figures are available an ambulance was unnecessary. [138007]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available. The latest published performance data held by the Department is for 2002–03. This can be found on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313.pdf. This includes response by category of call by national health service trust.

  Information relating to inappropriate calls is not available.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) frontline ambulances, (b) patient transport vehicles, (c) fast response cars, (d) medical motorbikes, (e) medical cycles and (f) special baby care units were available in Merseyside in each year since 1997. [138009]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in trialling cannabis for medicinal use; and if he will make a statement. [137563]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department supports the evaluation of the therapeutic use of cannabis by clinical trials, and is working with organisations able to conduct high quality clinical trials that will put this research onto a scientific footing. A Medical Research Council supported clinical trial to attempt to measure the therapeutic effects of cannabis extract in people with multiple sclerosis was recently completed by Dr. John Zajicek, a Consultant Neurologist at Derriford Hospital in Plymouth. Further information on the trial can be accessed at http://www.cannabis-trial.plymouth.ac.uk/

  A programme to develop a medicine derived from cannabis has been ongoing in the United Kingdom. The work is led by Dr Guy of GW Pharmaceuticals Limited. Current details about the clinical trials being sponsored

  1105W
  by GW Pharmaceuticals Limited may be obtained from the Company's website at http://www.gwpharm.com/rese clin index.html.

  If the benefits of a cannabis-based medicine are scientifically demonstrated, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will move to seek Parliament's agreement to any necessary changes to the misuse of drugs legislation. It would be premature to take such a step before the quality, safety and efficacy of the medicine have been fully established.

  Consumers for Health Choice
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the outcome was of his discussions with the representative of Consumers for Health Choice on Tuesday 7 October. [138204]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On Tuesday 7 October, I met with representatives of Consumers for Health Choice, the Health Food Manufacturers' Association, the Proprietary Association of Great Britain and the National Association of Health Stores to hear these groups' concerns about the implications of the Food Supplements Directive.

  I restated the Government's commitment to pressing for European Union maximum permitted limits of vitamins and minerals in food supplements to be set on a safety basis and to this end, using its influence in both scientific and political forums. I will raise this issue with Ministers in other member states as and when appropriate. I am also seeking to arrange a meeting with Commissioner David Byrne at the earliest practical opportunity.

  Contaminated Blood
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffering from haemophilia have(a) died and (b) suffered illness as a result of contaminated blood products from the NHS in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.[138790]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of haemophilia patients registered with the Macfarlane Trust who have died in the last five years, after infection with HIV from infected national health service blood products, is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths

  1998

  22

  1999

  19

  2000

  24

  2001

  13

  2002

  12

  Information on the number of haemophilia patients with HIV who have suffered illness is not available.

  The latest information from the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation show 212 patients with haemophilia have died from liver disease. The number of haemophilia patients with hepatitis C who are demonstrating signs of serious liver disease is 2,645, from a total 2,829 patients who are living with hepatitis C, as at January 2000.
  1106W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to compensate(a) the dependants of those who have died from hepatitis due to infected blood products and (b) those who contracted hepatitis by such means, but recovered after treatment. [138791]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The details of the hepatitis C ex gratia payment scheme are still being worked out. We expect to announce the scheme's eligibility criteria and payment structure shortly.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department(a) has commissioned and (b) is evaluating in order to determine the level of compensation for people infected with hepatitis C due to infected blood products; and if he will make a statement. [138792]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The following independent resources are being considered as part of the on-going deliberations to determine the level of payments made under the proposed hepatitis C ex gratia payment scheme:the scheme of payments implemented by the Macfarlane Trust;
  the scheme of payments implemented by the Eileen Trust;
  the report of the Hepatitis C Working Party to the Haemophilia Society; and
  the report of the Scottish Executive's Expert Group on Financial and Other Support chaired by Lord Ross.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the steps that he is taking to ensure that contaminants are not present in NHS blood products. [138793]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The safety of blood and blood products used in the national health service is of paramount importance. Every reasonable step has been taken to minimise any risks during blood transfusion. The current high levels of safety are achieved by screening out potential high risk donors and then further testing of every unit of donated blood for HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and syphilis before it is released to hospitals.

  As a precautionary measure against the theoritical risk that vCJD can be transmitted through blood, since 31 October 1999 all blood used for transfusion has had the white cells removed (a process called leucodepletion), and in 1998, we stopped using United Kingdom plasma in the manufacture of blood products.

  New blood safety initiatives, including technologies to remove pathogens in blood, are kept under review by the National Blood Service's Blood and Tissue Safety Assurance Group and the Department's Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation.

  Coronary Disease
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether his Department has met milestones one to four for primary care management of heart failure in the national service framework for coronary heart disease; whether he has plans to set further milestones; and if he will make a statement; [138188]
  1107W
  (2) whether his Department has met milestones one to three for hospitals admitting patients for the management of heart failure in the heart failure section of the national service framework for coronary heart disease; whether he has plans to set further milestones; and if he will make a statement. [138189]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The national health service has made good progress on meeting the heart failure milestones set out in the national service frameworks. This has been supported further this year through the publication of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guideline on the management of heart failure. The Department has set a target for improved management of heart failure in the Planning and Priorities Framework for the next three years and has supported delivery of this target through publication of a toolkit of best practice for the NHS in October of this year.

  The quality and outcome framework in the new general medical services contract will support further progress in this important area.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many national health service dentists there were in each year between 1997 and 2003. [135370]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the number of national health service dentists on a head count basis in England at September each year from 1997 to 2002. Information for 2003 is not yet available.

  Information is not available on a whole time equivalent (wte) basis because dentists working in the general dental service dentists (CDS) are self employed dentists who are not required to work standard hours and who are free to vary their working time if they wish.

  NHS dentists cover dentists working in the GDS, hospital dental service, community dental service, personal dental service (PDS) and salaried dentists working in the GDS. Dentists working in more than one dental service are included in each service, apart from dentists working in both the PDS and the GDS, who are counted in the GDS only.

  align="centr"NHS Dental Services: Number of dentists in England

  September each year

  Number of dentists

  1997

  20,393

  1998

  20,887

  1999

  21,435

  2000

  21,728

  2001

  22,321

  2002

  23,183

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) what plans he has to increase spending on the provision of dentures; and what discussions he has had with the General Dental Council on the provision of dentures; [136753]

  (2) what plans he has to prevent the illegal (a) production and (b) fitting of dentures; and what estimate he has made of the level of illegal (i) production and (ii) fitting of dentures. [136754]
  1108W
  (3) if he will introduce an agreed qualification in denturism to permit clinical dental technicians to deal directly with the public. [136755]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Dental appliances are manufactured to the prescription of a registered dentist, mostly in privately owned laboratories, which have to be registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulation Agency (MHRA) under the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. We are working with the General Dental Council and the profession to provide for the registration of dental technicians including clinical dental technician (CDTs). As a result, members of both professions will need to be appropriately trained and qualified. The registration of CDTs will enable suitably qualified members of the profession to both supply and fit dental appliances thereby legalising the practice of denturism.

  No prosecutions have been undertaken against dental laboratories which have failed to register under the Medical Devices Regulations. The vast majority of breaches of the Regulations are resolved with the co-operation of the manufacturer in line with the Government's Concordat on Enforcement without the need for prosecution. The MHRA investigates and resolves all potential breaches that are drawn to their attention. Information on the illegal fitting of dentures is not held centrally.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state(a) the reasons for compulsory retirement in dentistry and (b) the age limit for this retirement. [138196]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Health Service (General Dental Services Supplementary List) and (General Dental Services) Amendment Regulations 2003 amend the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992 by changing the age at which a dentist must be removed from a dental list from 65 to 70 years of age. A dentist so removed may continue to assist in the provision of general dental services after the age of 70 years.

  The NHS Pension Scheme's current normal retirement pension age is 60. Members may stay in the scheme until age 70 but from age 60 they may retire and take a pension voluntarily without reduction.

  Any member still employed at age 70 may take their retirement pension and continue working in the NHS.

  Dentists, along with all other NHS Pension Scheme members are able to retire with benefits from age 50 on a voluntary basis. The voluntary early retirement from age 50 is payable with actuarially reduced benefits.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the European Union on regulations on services that may be provided by dental technicians within the European Union. [138221]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Working practices and any legislative controls for dental technicians vary across the countries of the European Union. We intend that the General Dental Council's proposals for registration should aid the development of common standards to assist freedom of movement within Europe.
  1109W
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent discussions he has had with representatives of dental technicians regarding regulations relating to their position in providing dental services; [138223]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the (a) Scottish Executive and (b) Welsh Assembly regarding regulations on the provision of dental services within the UK by dental technicians; [138224]

  (3) what recent discussions he has had with the General Dental Council on the role of dental technicians in providing dental services. [138225]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Dental technicians are key members of the dental team. All the Health Departments in the United Kingdom have indicated their support for the General Dental Council's proposals for the registration of dental technicians. This will ensure that they are properly trained and acquire registrable qualifications, which have been identified in consultation with the profession. We plan to put the necessary legislative changes in place during 2004 and intend that registration arrangements should give new impetus to the training and recruitment of dental technicians.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time before dentists qualified overseas can take the qualifying examinations to practise in the UK has been over the last five years. [135917]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 10 November 2003]The International Qualifying Examination (IQE), which is the General Dental Council's (GDC) statutory examination for the purpose of gaining admission to the United Kingdom dentists register, was introduced on 1 January 2001. Since then, the number of dentists applying to take the examination has increased from some 150 to nearly 200. Average waiting times for the three parts of the IQE since that date are shown in the table.

  Months

  Part A

  Part B

  Part C

  2001

  2.75

  4.5

  7.4

  2002

  4.25

  5.5

  10

  2003

  5.75

  7.5

  10

  The figures exclude candidates who have asked for the timing of the examination to be delayed. Information for the years prior to the introduction of the IQE is not available. The GDC has increased Part C capacity for 2004 and waiting times should be shortened significantly, with some candidates given only three months wait to sit Part C.

  Diagnosis and Treatment Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) has been and (b) is intended to be spent on capital costs in the new diagnosis and treatment centres.[134952]

  Mr. Hutton
  Independent sector treatment centres (IS-TCs) are being procured in accordance with strict Official Journal of the European Commission (OJEC) rules. The advertisements published in the OJEC in December 2002 were for the provision of health services 1110W
  only and not capital build. The IS-TC programme was design to ensure that additional capacity is available as soon as possible to treat National Health Service patients.

  The 47 NHS treatment centre schemes have been allocated a total capital spend of over £370 million.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what the location will be of the diagnostics centre in Southend-on-Sea; and if he will make a statement. [139808]

  Mr. Hutton
  The proposed location of the treatment centre in Southend-on-Sea is expected to be at Fossetts Farm, on the outskirts of Southend-on-Sea. This is subject to receipt of planning permission.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on the availability of NHS digital hearing aids in Wirral South. [139546]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Wirral Hospitals National Health Service Trust manages the provision of digital hearing aids across the Wirral, including Wirral South. Funding has been made available for the years 2003–04 and 2004–05 to ensure that a modernised service, providing digital hearing aids, will be available from all NHS hearing aids services in England by 2005.

  Elective Admissions
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many patients have waited more than(a) three months, (b) six months and (c) 12 months for an elective finished in year admission in each of the last five years for which figures are available for each NHS Trust in London; and if he will make a statement. [135155]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the national misdiagnosis rates for epilepsy were in(a) adults and (b) children in the last year for which figures are available; [139786]

  (2) what percentage of patients with epilepsy are seizure free. [139787]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We do not collect information on the misdiagnosis rates for epilepsy. However, recent reports from the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, "Services for patients with epilepsy (2000)", and the Chief Medical Officer, "On the State of the Public Health (2001)", showed that around 20 per cent. of people referred to epilepsy clinics may be misdiagnosed and receive inappropriate and unnecessary treatment. In May 2002, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) made its report of the National Clinical Audit of Epilepsy Related Death available to local national health service clinicians and organisations to help them establish or review policies for the management of epilepsy and epilepsy-related death. NICE is also developing a clinical guideline for the diagnosis,
  1111W

  management and treatment of epilepsy, which is currently due to be published in June 2004 and which will help address any shortfalls in current practice.

  The new general medical services contract includes clinical quality standards for the management of epilepsy in primary care. Under the quality and outcomes framework being introduced from 1 April 2004 as part of the contract general practitioner practices will be rewarded for monitoring and managing people with epilepsy. This will include recording the percentage of patients aged 16 and over receiving drug treatment for epilepsy who have been seizure free for the last 12 months. The Joint Epilepsy Council's "National Statement of Good Practice" shows that around 70 per cent. of people with epilepsy have the potential to become seizure free.

  Flu Vaccinations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate the NHS has made of potential savings derived from sending only one copy of the influenza vaccination reminder letter to a household, even if more than one resident in the household is affected. [132774]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Although no official cost effectiveness assessment has been carried out, general practitioner practices usually ask their primary care trust to write to patients on their behalf. It is thought that this approach is quicker, more cost effective than individual practices writing out and preserves patient confidentiality.

  Fluoridation
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what peer presented research his Department has examined in assessing the potential benefit in the proposed addition of fluoride to drinking water; [136406]

  (2) what other countries' drinking water supply systems were (a) investigated and (b) visited by his Department when preparing proposals to add fluoride to drinking water. [136407]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 1999, the Department commissioned the University of York to carry out an up to date expert scientific review of fluoride and health. "A Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation" published in September 2000, reported that fluoridating water reduces the number of children with tooth decay by 15 per cent. The review identified 3,246 research studies from 30 different countries, but was critical of the quality of the research available. Accordingly, the Department asked the Medical Research Council (MRC) how the evidence base could be strengthened and the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Dental Officer are advising Ministers on the implementation of the MRCs recommendations. We have already commissioned a study on the absorption of fluoride, which has now been completed and is subject to peer review.

  Food Advertising
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions he has had with other Ministers on extending regulations on food advertising aimed at children. [139624]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government is concerned about the levels of childhood obesity and is taking and considering a number of actions to tackle the problem. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has recently published a discussion paper on possible options for action on the promotion and advertising of foods that could improve children's diets and health, and is expected to advise Ministers of its analysis of these options early next year. It would not be appropriate to discuss specific options before receiving the FSA's advice.

  Food Labelling
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that recommended daily amounts for nutrients are carried on food labels. [139481]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is no legislative requirement for guideline daily amounts of nutrients to be included on food labels. However, the Food Standards Agency recommends that this information should be given and a number of food manufacturers already include such information on their products. In the next few months, the European Commission is expected to make a proposal to amend the current nutrition labelling directive. The Government are pressing for mandatory nutrition labelling on all foods, and for the labelling to indicate whether the product is high, medium or low in key nutrients, that is fat, sugar and salt.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps he has taken to promote to other European Union member states the methodology for establishing safe levels of nutrient intake adopted by the Expert Advisory Group on vitamins and minerals; and what further plans he has for promoting his policies of case by case reviews of published literature on nutrient safety. [136626]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Article 5 of the Food Supplements Directive lays out a framework for the future setting of maximum permitted levels of vitamins and minerals in food supplements. The United Kingdom continues to press for European Union maximum permitted limits to be set on a safety basis, and in doing so, is using its influence in both scientific and political forums. I intend to raise this issue with Ministers in other Member States as and when appropriate. I am also seeking to arrange a meeting with Commissioner David Byrne at the earliest practicable opportunity.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to issue further advice to
  1113W
  putative NHS foundation trusts on the use of existing databases of (a) patients and (b) staff names for the purposes of creating a membership register; [139715]

  (2) when he expects to issue advice on the implications of the (a) Data Protection Act 1998 and (b) Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the (i) compilation and (ii) use of membership registers of NHS foundation trusts. [139716]

  Mr. Hutton
  Subject to Parliament, it is the Government's intention that national health service foundation trusts will be required to have a members register. Officials are working with the first wave of applicants and organisations with expertise in maintaining membership organisations with a view to developing practical advice to be incorporated into an updated edition of "NHS Foundation Trusts: A guide to the governance arrangements".

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will issue advice to putative NHS foundation trusts on the nature of the questions they may ask prospective members concerning their(a) ethnicity, (b) faith and (c) disability. [139717]

  Mr. Hutton
  Department of Health officials are working with the first wave of applicants and organisations with expertise in maintaining membership organisations on the sorts of information that national health service foundation trusts would need to collect to ensure their membership is representative of those eligible for membership. The Department will develop practical advice on these matters to be incorporated into an updated edition of "NHS Foundation Trusts: A Guide to the Governance Arrangements".

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fundholders there are in(a) the North West and (b) England. [134892]

  General Medical Practitioners1 for Somerset and Taunton

  1999

  2000

  2001

  March 2002

  2002

  March 2003

  June 2003

  Somerset Coast PCG

  4AR01

  101

  109

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Somerset

  4AY29

  71

  75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bath and North East Somerset PCT

  5FL

  —

  —

  142

  143

  136

  154

  144

  Somerset Coast PCT

  5FW

  —

  —

  107

  107

  112

  106

  103

  South Somerset PCT

  5K1

  —

  —

  75

  69

  108

  109

  112

  North Somerset PCT

  5M8

  —

  —

  140

  121

  134

  140

  137

  Taunton and Area PCT

  4XM98

  100

  105

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Taunton Deane PCT

  5K2

  —

  —

  111

  108

  78

  81

  81

  Total

  272

  289

  575

  548

  568

  590

  577

  1 All Practioners include QMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other, GP Retainers and Flexible Career Scheme Gps

  Note

  Data as at 1 October 1999, 30 September 2000–02, March 2002–03 and 30 June 2003.

  Source

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.
  1114W
  Mr. Hutton
  General practice fundholding was abolished on 1 October 1999. There are no general practitioner practices in the North West nor in England operating as GP fundholders.

  Genetic Research
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to determine the ethical framework applied to genetic research in receipt of financial support from the Government. [137528]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Genetic research commissioned by the Government and carried out within the national health service is subject to oversight by the appropriate NHS Research Ethics Committee. Gene therapy research will continue to be subject to the approval of, and ongoing supervision by, the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who has been consulted on the ethical dimensions of the Biobank project; and where it is possible to inspect the comments of consultees. [137529]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Consultations on the ethical dimensions of UK Biobank have involved key public and professional stakeholders ranging from patients' and civil society groups, scientists and health care professionals, to ethicists, lawyers and social scientists, as well as members of the public. These consultations have informed the discussions of the Interim Advisory Group on Ethics and Governance and the development of the ethics and governance framework. Reports of the consultations can be accessed on the UK Biobank website at www.ukbiobank.ac.uk.

  GPs
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners there were in(a) Taunton Deane and (b) West Somerset in each year since 1992. [137384]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested on the number of general practitioners is shown in the tables.
  1115W

  General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers)1 for Somerset and Taunton

  Numbers (headcount)

  Numbers (headcount)

  1999

  2000

  2001

  March 2002

  2002

  March 2003

  June 2003

  Somerset Coast PCT

  4AR01

  101

  105

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South Somerset PCT

  4AY29

  71

  72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bath and North East Somerset PCT

  5FL

  —

  —

  135

  136

  128

  144

  144

  Somerset Coast PCT

  5FW

  —

  —

  105

  103

  108

  103

  100

  South Somerset PCT

  5K1

  —

  —

  69

  69

  103

  104

  107

  North Somerset PCT

  5M8

  —

  —

  127

  121

  124

  132

  137

  Taunton and Area PCT

  4XM98

  100

  101

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Taunton Deane PCT

  5K2

  —

  —

  105

  104

  78

  78

  79

  Total

  272

  278

  541

  533

  541

  561

  567

  1All practioners (excluding GP retainers) include PMS unrestricted principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other, and Flexible Career Scheme Gps

  Note

  Data as at 1 October 1999, 30 September 2000–02, 31 March 2002–03 and 30 June 2003.

  Source

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers)1 for Somerset health authority

  Number (headcount)

  Somerset HA

  1992

  294

  1993

  308

  1994

  322

  1995

  326

  1996

  331

  1997

  330

  1998

  338

  1999

  346

  2000

  350

  2001

  356

  1All Practitioners include GMS Unrestricted Principals. PMS
  Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals,
  Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA), PMS Other and Flexible Career Scheme Gps

  Note

  Data as at 1 October 1992–99 and 30 September 2000–01.

  Source

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services
  Statistics.

  Health Care (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) outpatient consultations and (b) in-patient treatments there were in each clinical specialty provided by (i) York NHS Trust and (ii) York Primary Care Trust for those services recently transferred from the trust to the PCT, in each year since 1992. [135951]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not available.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) hospital and (b) community full-time equivalent nurses were employed by (i) York NHS Trust and (ii) York Primary Care Trust in each year since 1992. [135954]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1116W

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff by hospital or community-based in the specified organisations as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalent

  All qualified nurses

  Community

  Hospital

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  2002

  915

  24

  891

  2001

  1,132

  50

  1,082

  2000

  1,375

  240

  1,136

  1999

  1,268

  200

  1,068

  1998

  1,235

  161

  1,074

  1997

  1,362

  193

  1,169

  1996

  1,310

  193

  1,117

  1995

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1994

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1993

  1,230

  132

  1,098

  1992

  1,129

  123

  1,007

  Selby and York PCT

  2002

  492

  234

  258

  2001

  262

  183

  79

  1 A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995 and as a result reliable data at organizational level is not available for 1994 and 1995. Maternity nurse figures for 1995 onwards have been included within hospital as they cannot be separately identified between community and hospital.

  Notes

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Source

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action is being taken to improve the(a) detection and (b) treatment rates of hepatitis C; and what the (i) detection and (ii) treatment rates are in the Northern health region in the last year for which Figures are available; [139402]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of the Hepatitis C Action Plan. [139403]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department published its consultation document, "Hepatitis C Strategy for England", in August 2002, which set out proposals to improve the effectiveness of prevention, diagnosis and treatment services for hepatitis C. The Department intends to publish an action plan to implement this strategy in the next few months.
  1117W
  Detection and treatment rates for the Northern health region are currently being collated and will be placed in the Library when available.

  Hospital Projects
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many hospital projects with a value of over £50m initiated since 1997 he estimates will be completed by the end of 2005. [136894]

  Mr. Hutton
  Of the schemes with a capital value over £50 million given the go-ahead since 1997, we anticipate that 22 private finance initiative schemes and two publicly funded schemes will he completed and operational by the end of 2005.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what control NHS hospital trusts have over the volume of patients being referred to hospitals. [133403]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for commissioning sufficient activity from national health service trusts and other providers to meet the needs of their local population. The levels of activity required from NHS trusts should be specified in service agreements (SAs) and will represent a ceiling to the Trusts contractual obligations.

  Where either there are no SAs in place or the activity levels specified in a SA have already been met by the trust, the PCT is responsible for commissioning additional activity to meet the needs of its patients.

  HSC 2002/007 (Securing Service Delivery: Commissioning Freedoms of Primary Care Trusts) and HSC 1998/198 (Commissioning in the new NHS) provide further information. Copies are available in the Library.

  Information Technology
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the National Audit Office regarding the correspondence they have had about the national programme for information technology. [133926]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department routinely has discussion with the National Audit Office (NAO) as part of its remit to monitor the work of Government departments. A senior member of the NAO has a seat on the national programme board for the National Health Service information management and technology strategy.

  Joint Working
  Mr. Barry Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will make a statement on joint working between primary health care trusts and citizen advice bureaux; and how much funding primary health care trusts contributed to citizens advice bureaux in each of the past three years. [135873]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for individual primary care trusts to determine joint working arrangements with local stakeholders and to allocate funds accordingly. The information requested on funding is not available centrally.

  King George's Hospital (Redbridge)
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which private healthcare companies expressed an interest in running the treatment centre at King George's Hospital, Redbridge; and what the criteria were used to award the contract; [133273]

  (2) if he will estimate how many patients will be treated at the treatment centre based at King George's Hospital, Redbridge; and if he will make a statement. [133274]

  Mr. Hutton
  Anglo Canadian was announced as preferred bidder for the proposed treatment centre at King George's Hospital, Redbridge on 12 September. Their appointment is subject to final contract negotiation and agreements Because of the commercial in confidence status of the procurement, it is not possible to list the other companies that expressed an interest in this scheme.

  The selection of the preferred bidders followed detailed evaluation of the submitted tenders. The evaluation criteria included clinical quality, building proposals, human resources, speed of mobilisation and delivery, affordability, value for money, bidders corporate structure and price. There was a structured scoring mechanism against each of these criteria and total scores assessed between bidders.

  It is expected that the treatment centre based at King George's Hospital will complete 11,800 procedures on average per year of the contract in ophthalmology, general surgery and trauma and orthopaedics. These are indicative activity levels and are subject to the possibility that it may make sense for the national health service and the preferred bidder to shift activity between different centres.

  Macular Degeneration
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of patients with wet age-related macular degeneration who were treated privately with photodynamic therapy in NHS hospitals in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [138048]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department does not collect data on the number of patients treated privately with photodynamic therapy in national health service hospitals.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations(a) he and (b) his ministerial colleagues has received from (i) the Royal College of Ophthalmology, (ii) the AMD Alliance and (iii) the RNIB on the implementation of NICE guidance for wet age-related macular degeneration; and if he will make a statement. [138049]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have recently received representations from the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Macular Disease Society raising concerns about the extended implementation period from three to nine months. They were concerned that primary care trusts would delay paying for photodynamic therapy (PDT) until the latest possible time. Specialised commissioning groups are leading the implementation of PDT and at a meeting held on
  1119W
  4 November, departmental officials made clear that funding should not delay implementation of the guidance. The Department is also working closely with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists on the implementation of the guidance.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether reading centres assessing patients with wet age-related macular degeneration for treatment with photodynamic therapy will be required to make a diagnosis before patients are treated; and if he will make a statement. [138050]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Reading centres assessing patients with wet age-related macular degeneration for treatment with photodynamic therapy (PDT) will not be required to make a diagnosis before patients are treated. For the moment, reporting on the same day, in real time, by the reading centres service is not feasible. Consequently to avoid delay, PDT will be offered on the basis of the initial judgement of the clinician at the PDT centre, with confirmation of the diagnosis by the reading centres service being made after the first PDT treatment has occurred.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the annual cost to the NHS of providing photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration(a) by primary care trusts, (b) by hospital trusts and (c) in total; and if he will make a statement. [138051]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has estimated that the cost of providing photodynamic therapy (PDT) to 1000 patients per year would be in the region of £4 million in the first year, rising to £8.3 million by the third year and remaining constant thereafter. PDT is a specialised service and we would expect up to 50 centres to be supported. Therefore, every primary care trust (PCT) or hospital trust is not expected to provide this service. Initially, specialised commissioners will fund the service and PCTs will need to consider longer term funding arrangements.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of patients with classic no occult wet age-related macular degeneration who are unable to receive photodynamic therapy on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [138052]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  On the basis of limited epidemiological data, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) estimated that each year in England and Wales there may be 5000 to 7500 new cases of predominantly classic subfoveal choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) associated with wet age-related macular degeneration. However, they noted there is a high degree of uncertainty about this estimate. We have asked the National Health Service to ensure that patients with suspected CNV are treated wherever capacity exists to do so. By July 2004, the NICE guidance will have been implemented fully across the country and capacity will build between now and then.
  1120W
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have equipment and trained professionals in place to provide photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration; and if he will make a statement. [138053]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are approximately 30 centres providing photodynamic therapy. Some are well established, others are coming on stream. We expect that up to 50 centres will be set up to deliver the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's recommendations. As a specialised service, we expect commissioners to plan for centres to serve a population of not less than a million.

  Meat Fraud
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up an inquiry into the lessons to be learnt from the prosecutions relating to meat fraud(a) at Denby Poultry Products and (b) in Rotherham. [137587]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Following the prosecutions for fraudulent diversion of unfit meat in the Rotherham case, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) set up the independent Waste Food Task Force. The Task Force, which was made up of experts from enforcement, industry and consumer backgrounds, advised the FSA on additional action that could be taken to prevent the illegal diversion of unfit meat into the food chain. The Task Force also included enforcers involved in the Denby Poultry Products prosecutions. The board of the FSA, at its September meeting, adopted an action plan to implement the recommendations of the Task Force. In addition to this, the FSA has called a seminar on 26 November to discuss the lessons to be learned from the Denby prosecutions. The seminar will involve those who were involved both in the Denby prosecutions and in other similar cases, including local authority enforcers, the Meat Hygiene Service, the police and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as well as industry and consumer representatives.

  Medicines and Health Care Products Agency
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 15 September 2003,Official Report, column 616W, on Medicines and Health Care Products Agency, what the value was of each of the contracts listed; and if he will make a statement. [134119]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The value of each of the contracts currently being used by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency are:Accenture, design and build of information technology applications—£12.3 million
  Charles Mackenzie, enhancements to website applications—£20,902
  Hay Group, design of personal development and performance management system—£50,000
  Oxford Group, delivery of management and leadership training programme—£130,000
  RedAnt Design, general practice research database (GPRD) marketing and customer interface—£15,000

  1121W
  TK Consultancy, design and build of medicines enforcement case investigation system—£30,000
  Turner & Townsend, post merger co-location project—£8,000
  Unipart advanced learning systems, enhancements to device adverse incidents tracking system—£7,500
  Winton Nightingale, management of staff restaurant contract–£8,150

  The fees an additional contract with Accenture to manage the GPRD accelerator project are currently under negotiation.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) children and adolescents, (b) adults and (c) pensioners were treated by mental health trusts in west Sussex in each of the last six years. [134773]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total number of admissions of patients with learning disabilities or mental illness resident in the west Sussex local authority is shown in the table.

  Number of admissions of patients under mental illness specialities and learning disabilities in west Sussex

  Age group

  0–14

  15–59

  60–74

  75 Plus

  Unknown

  Total

  1996–97

  67

  1,244

  392

  837

  6

  2,546

  1997–98

  51

  1,158

  346

  726

  0

  2,281

  1998–99

  45

  603

  190

  393

  1

  1,232

  1999–2000

  48

  1,852

  532

  798

  4

  3,234

  2000–01

  312

  1,765

  483

  645

  10

  3,215

  2000–02

  429

  1,247

  292

  353

  0

  2,321

  Average waiting times for application to reach hearing stage

  Regional Office

  Number of applications received in office

  Number of hearings heard

  Ratio of applications that reach hearing stage (percentage)

  Section 2 (days)

  Non-restricted (weeks)

  Restricted (weeks)

  London North

  4,879

  2,823

  58

  6.8

  6.2

  15.4

  London South

  4,245

  2,256

  53

  6.9

  7.6

  17.9

  Liverpool

  3,718

  1,997

  54

  5.8

  6.3

  15.5

  Nottingham

  3,286

  2,277

  69

  6

  7

  16

  Notes

  1. Section 2 applications have a statutory requirement to be heard within seven days of receipt in the MHRT office.

  2. All other applications must be heard as soon as possible, with regard to the receiving of reports and evidence.

  Factors affecting regional efficiency are:

  the volume of applications received in any one office;

  and the ratio of work to medical members.

  Regional office

  Number of medical members

  London North

  55

  London South

  52

  Liverpool

  52

  Nottingham

  48

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the statement by the National Director of Mental Health on 31 July on the draft Mental Health
  1122W
  Notes:

  1 From April 2002 a new trust called West Sussex Health and Social Care Trust came into existence, in the main this trust treats mental health patients in the West Sussex area. This was formed by the merger of three other trusts, or parts of them, namely Worthing Priority Healthcare, Sussex Weald and Downs NHS Trust (previously Chichester Priority Care Services) and Mid Sussex NHS Trust.

  2 The figures shown are the numbers of admissions under mental health specialities and learning disabilities in these three trusts, over the years 1996–2002. This does not, however, guarantee that the patients being admitted are from the west Sussex area.

  3 Admissions are defined as the first period of patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.

  Source

  Hospital Episode Statistics

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answers of 3 November 2003.Official Report, column 518W, on mental health, if he will place copies of the (a) Robert Lee Review and (b) review by Sir Andrew Leggatt in the Library; [138023]

  (2) if he will set out details of the regional variations in efficiency and practice of the Mental Health Review Tribunal offices. [138024]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Copies of the Robert Lee review of the Mental Health Review Tribunal Administration will be placed in the Library. Sir Andrew Leggatt's Review of Tribunals was carried out at the request of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and copies will be placed in the Library.

  The following details demonstrate the regional variations in efficiency and practice of the Mental Health Review Tribunal offices and is based on up to date statistical information between January and September 2003.

  Bill represents Government policy; whether he intends to make significant changes to the draft Bill before it is laid before Parliament; what assessment he has made of responses received during the consultation on the draft Bill; and what the timetable is for publishing the responses. [138474]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Director for Mental Health expressed his personal views to the Parliamentary Health Forum on 4 June 2003. The Government have considered carefully the need for changes to the draft Bill, following responses to consultation and on-going meetings with key stakeholders. Any changes to the draft Bill will be
  1123W
  indicated when the Government publish their response to consultation prior to the introduction of the Bill to Parliament.

  Mental Health Trusts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the backlog maintenance cost was to reach(a) estate code condition B, (b) fire safety standards and (c) health and safety standards for all mental health trusts in England, broken down by trust. [133847]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figures provided do not indicate levels of risk to patients and staff. Trusts make every effort to

  £

  Trust

  Cost to achieve Physical Condition B 2002–03

  Cost to achieve Statutory Health and Safety Compliance Standard B 2002–03

  Cost to achieve Fire Safety Compliance Standard B 2002–03

  Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  21,188,485

  1,760,499

  10,900

  Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust

  7,045,600

  1,202,070

  284,000

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  2,950,950

  190,286

  202,536

  Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust

  3,674,996

  0

  0

  County Durham and Darlington Priority Services NHS Trust

  3,021,910

  50,000

  16,000

  East London and The City Mental Health NHS Trust

  4,010,993

  3,017,895

  334,045

  Gloucestershire Partnership NHS Trust

  143,000

  0

  0

  Lancashire Care NHS Trust

  4,164,544

  772,674

  267,200

  Mental Health Services Of Salford NHS Trust

  4,175,110

  0

  0

  Mersey Care NHS Trust

  7,661,919

  85,000

  5,000

  Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland Mental Health NHS Trust

  6,965,000

  479,000

  4,495,000

  Norfolk Mental Health Care NHS Trust

  4,162,000

  0

  0

  North Cumbria Mental Health and Learning Disabilities NHS Trust

  2,446,100

  303,800

  320,000

  North East London Mental Health NHS Trust

  3,120,550

  1,807,469

  126,330

  North Essex Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust

  6,613,600

  76,100

  100,400

  North West Surrey Mental Health NHS Trust

  50,000

  0

  0

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust

  2,883,159

  171,000

  47,000

  Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,979,784

  743,000

  32,000

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust

  3,028,550

  161,120

  86,986

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  6,000,000

  550,000

  250,000

  Somerset Partnership NHS and Social Care Trust

  683,000

  0

  0

  South Birmingham Mental Health NHS Trust

  1,950,625

  40,000

  30,000

  South London and Maudsley NHS Trust

  19,172,610

  3,995,080

  661,189

  South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trust

  73,234,000

  533,000

  958,000

  South West Yorkshire Mental Health NHS Trust

  13,619,673

  337,220

  459,135

  Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust

  1,170,800

  2,000

  16,000

  West Hampshire NHS Trust

  536,000

  305,300

  0

  West London Mental Health NHS Trust

  10,752,770

  4,125,000

  1,050,540

  West Sussex Health and Social Care NHS Trust

  1,151,981

  713,569

  116,255

  Total

  219,557,709

  21,421,082

  9,868,516

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual maintenance budget for each NHS mental health trust in England was in each of the last five years. [133848]

  Mr. Hutton
  The annual maintenance budgets for national health service mental health trusts is not centrally collected.

  Data for the last five years on the annual spend on maintenance costs (including engineering, building and grounds and garden maintenance costs) has been placed in the Library. Validation of the data given for 2002–03 remains subject to amendment.

  These figures include:
  Costs associated with the provision of engineering, building and ground and gardens maintenance.
  1124W
  remedy significant concerns 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 national health service hospitals in England, despite the very high numbers of people who use healthcare premises.

  Spending on routine maintenance by mental health trusts reached £41 million in 2002–03 with an additional £60 million having been spent between 1998 and 2001. Improvements to health and safety and fire safety will result from the current priorities and planning framework targets for reducing the backlog of maintenance.

  Labour costs for directly employed and contract staff including contract support costs, fees, materials, and;
  Pay elements for senior managers and all associated staff where involved in maintenance;
  Expenditure relating to the employment of staff belonging to an external organisation (including private finance initiative work);
  Capital works involving adaptations, improvements and/or alterations are not included.

  The trusts listed in the table are those defined as mental health and exclude any trusts where only a minority of services relate to mental health.

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many times during the past six months the Mersey
  1125W
  Regional Ambulance Service has been contacted by BT expressing concern about the way in which the service deals with emergency calls. [136789]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  British Telecom has contacted the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust once in the last six months to discuss how the trust can improve the handling of emergency calls.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service(a) failed to answer within two minutes and (b) took more than five minutes to answer in each of the past 12 months. [136790]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Merseyside Ambulance Control Centre has recently updated its call routing system and therefore information prior to August is not available.

  The number of calls with a delay in excess of two minutes is shown in the table.

  2003

  Number of calls

  August

  195

  September

  236

  October

  332

  Note

  The number of calls has been supplied directly from the Mersey Ambulance Service NHS Trust and is not validated Department of Health data.

  Mersey Regional Ambulance Service do not routinely collect data that follows the format of calls that took more than five minutes to answer.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps have been taken by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service to develop an education and training strategy as recommended by the Commission for Health Improvement; and if he will place a copy of the strategy in the Library. [138434]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust has incorporated its training and education strategy into the human resources strategy. This is in line with the national human resources agenda and has received endorsement from the trust's executive team and the human resources committee.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service to improve the patient transport service. [138436]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust has developed an improvement and modernisation programme in consultation with staff and trade unions for its patient transport service (PTS) operation. The PTS operation is performance managed and progress is reported regularly to the trust board and the performance management committee.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures have been put in place by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service to ensure that all staff are trained in infection control. [138438]
  1126W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  All staff employed in the emergency and paramedic service at Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust receive training in infection control as part of their basic training and education. Training in infection control also forms part of the standard induction programme for all operational staff, which includes staff within the patient transport service.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the action plan agreed between the Mersey Regional Ambulance NHS Trust and the central commissioning group for its area. [138449]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The action plan has not yet been agreed by the relevant parties. A copy will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps have been taken by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service to ensure that all staff(a) are aware of and (b) act upon their Guidelines for the Management of Infection in the Pre-Hospital Setting. [138711]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]I am advised by Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority that the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust has a detailed infection control policy. All staff receive copies of the policy and are required to confirm in writing that they have read and understood its content and their responsibilities.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps have been taken by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service Trust(a) to assess the implementation of the Community Paramedic Scheme and to (b) ensure it has the confidence of the public following the publication of the report by the Commission for Health Improvement on the Trust. [138712]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]I am advised by the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority that, following the report of the Commission for Health Improvement, the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust has introduced a policy together with procedures for "first responders" within the region. The policy has been approved by the trust board.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service has taken to implement an action plan for the use of the decontamination unit; and on what date the unit was brought back into use. [138713]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]I am informed by the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority that the plan for ensuring that the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust has an effective decontamination facility was written in April 2003. The decontamination unit was brought back into use during August 2003.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what procedures have been introduced by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service Trust for the safe storage and custody of drugs in ambulances following the report on the Trust by the Commission for Health Improvement. [138715]
  1127W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 November 2003]I am advised by the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority that, following the report of the Commission for Health Improvement, the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust's existing procedures were reinforced to ensure consistency of approach for the storage of drugs.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps have been taking by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service to ensure that all patients' report forms are treated as confidential documents. [139070]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The patient report forms used within the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust are stored on ambulances in a safe box, they are not accessible by members of the public. Within the ambulance stations, patient report forms are stored in locked cabinets. Only staff responsible for checking, auditing or completing the patient report forms are able to view them.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures have been put in place by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service to improve access to(a) research literature and (b) the internet at ambulance stations. [139071]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust has installed computers in all work areas. This allows access to email, the internet and research literature.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what action has been taken by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service Trust to ensure that all staff are aware of the Trust's whistle-blowing policy; and what training managers have received on the implementation of this policy. [139072]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust reviewed and amended its existing whistle blowing policy in line with Department of Health guidance in September 2003. Managers were provided with details of the changes and copies of the policy and the associated guidance were issued. All remaining staff at the trust will receive the updated guidance before the end of November 2003.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many staff grievances have been lodged with the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service since March 2002. [139073]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust has received 66 grievances since March 2002.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps have been taken by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service to introduce more effective clinical and monitoring support for paramedics. [139075]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust has undergone a significant restructuring of the management team. This includes the introduction of clinical managers who supervise and monitor staff and provide effective clinical supervision and support for paramedics.
  1128W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps have been taken by the Mersey Regional Ambulance Service Trust to ensure that all staff working in the Patient Transport Service receive life support skills training; and how many staff have undergone such training since the last Commission for Health Improvement report on the Trust. [139076]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  All staff working within the patient transport service at Mersey Regional Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust receive life support training upon commencement of employment. Since April 2003, 33 new starters have undergone the training and 60 staff have undergone refresher training.

  National School Fruit Scheme
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much the Government has spent centrally on the National School Fruit Scheme in the last five years for which figures are available; and what central allocations have been made for this in this year and future years; [128229]

  (2) what central funding sources other than the National Lottery New Opportunities Fund are used to fund the Five-a-Day healthy eating programmes; and how much has been allocated through these other funding sources in (a) the last three years, (b) the current year and (c) future years. [128230]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Over the three years 2000–01, 2001–02 and 2002–03 the Department of Health made available £3.3 million of central funds to support its Five-A-Day programme, comprising £1.8 million for the National School Fruit Scheme and £1.5 million for community pilots. Department of Health support in 2003–04 and future years will be from central resources for cardiovascular disease and cancer prevention overall, which are not allocated to specific programmes.

  NHS Consultants
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what procedure he has established to ensure that where a patient is removed from the UK waiting list of a NHS consultant, the consultant is(a) kept informed of the clinical outcomes and (b) involved in their postoperative care. [136742]

  Mr. Hutton
  Any patient referred from the National Health Service to an independent provider (including an overseas provider) will have a discharge letter completed by the independent provider. This is forwarded to their NHS consultant and general practitioner. Where orthopaedic patients are treated abroad, there is support and agreement to register these patients on the United Kingdom national joint registry.

  Care and follow-up arrangements are arranged according to individual needs. Patients who are sent abroad for treatment will remain in the care of the overseas consultant for a period of two to three weeks depending on the treatment they receive. The patient is formally discharged following a post-operative assessment carried out usually between six and eight weeks post-treatment. If the patient requires treatment in the interim, he or she is entitled to seek a referral to NHS provision through the usual routes by GP or

  1129W
  emergency admission, should this be required. Overseas consultants are happy to discuss the clinical care of NHS patients by telephone should the patients UK consultant wish to do so.

  NHS Expenditure
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, to what extent the National Health Service spending has been(a) over and (b) under planned levels in (i) financial year 2001–02 and (ii) the first half of this financial year; and if he will make a statement. [136870]

  Mr. Hutton
  The resource underspend for the Department, which includes National Health Service spending, in 2001–02 was £526 million. The Department plans to spend all available resources in the current financial year. To ensure that best use is made of resources in year, end-year flexibility arrangements allow expenditure to be carried forward into the next financial year.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what per capita expenditure was on the NHS in 1997–98; what it was in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in future years for which plans have been made. [137681]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows total net national health service expenditure per head of population in England for 1997–98 and for the period 2002–03 to 2007–08.

  £ million

  Spend per head1,2,3

  Cash

  1997–98

  Outturn

  710

  Stage 2

  2002–03

  Plan

  1,130

  2003–04

  Plan

  1,240

  2004–05

  Plan

  1,360

  2005–06

  Plan

  1,490

  2006–07

  Plan

  1,640

  2007–08

  Plan

  1,800

  1 For 1997–98, figures are on a cash basis, whereas figures for the period 2002–03 to 2007–08 are on a stage 2 resource budgeting basis. As a result, figures are not comparable across the period.

  2 Figures are calculated using population projections provided by ONS.

  3 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the distance from target in cash terms for each primary care trust in England for each year of the current spending round. [138936]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trust distances from targets for 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06 have been placed in the Library.

  NHS Records (Electronic System)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how the transfer of NHS records to an electronic system will be funded. [135630]
  1130W
  Mr. Hutton
  The integrated care records service (ICRS) is one element of the national programme for information technology (NpfIT) in the National Health Service. Central funding for the NPfIT in the NHS is to be made available from the Spending Review 2002 as follows—£370 million in 2003–04, £730 million in 2004–05 and £1.2 billion in 2005£06.

  The costs for the ICRS are being calculated as part of the ongoing procurement and financial management processes within the Spending Review 2002 envelope.

  Exact costs are subject to current procurement negotiations. Due to commercial confidentiality and sensitivity it would not be in the public interest to reveal the details of the negotiations and the potential costs.

  The content of the ICRS databases will be generated initially from information already held within NHS systems. This process will be undertaken by local service providers as part of the initial implementation phase during 2004. Over the course of time, the ICRS will build up a summary of relevant health episodes for patients.

  The ICRS is not about re-entering all of the historical data held on existing systems or paper records but about improving patient care through the capture, use and availability of accurate and up-to-date quality data.

  NHS Reference Costs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the formula and(b) calculations on which the NHS reference costs are based. [134951]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Reference Costs collection entails collecting unit cost and activity data from all National Health Service providers in England, for each financial year.

  Various appropriate activity currencies are used for a range of services and treatments provided by the NHS, which form part of the scope of the Reference Costs collection. Unit cost data is produced by submitting NHS organisations in accordance with the rules detailed in the NHS Costing Manual, to ensure that both cost and activity data are calculated on a consistent and comparable basis.

  The Department of Health collates such data, and produces national average unit cost figures, by calculating, for each service/treatment area, the total national cost for the service, and then dividing this by the total reported activity for that service, at national level.

  All national average costs are published in the National Schedule of Reference Costs, at service level, in conjunction with national activity levels, and interquartile ranges, detailing the ranges between which the middle 50 per cent. of NHS provider costs lie.

  To calculate National Reference Cost Index scores at individual organisation level, the individual NHS providers' activity is multiplied by the national average unit costs for each service/treatment category, undertaken by that NHS provider. This produces a total expected cost for each service/treatment area for each provider. When added together, this establishes an

  1131W
  expected cost that each provider would be expected to incur if they were operating at the national average cost per treatment, procedure, etc.

  An Index score of 100 signifies that on average, a provider is operating at national average cost levels. A score higher than 100 indicates that for their current level of activity, on average, an NHS provider is operating at costs higher than would be expected for this level of activity. Conversely, a score of less than 100 indicates that the organisation is operating at costs less than would be expected, were they to be operating at national average unit cost levels, for a particular financial year.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, on which NHS equipment his Department holds information of the numbers in service. [136907]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There is no central point in the Department of Health that collates information on numbers of the equipment that is in service within the National Health Service.

  Non-smoking Areas
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what plans he has to make it compulsory for restaurants and cafes to have non-smoking areas. [135656]

  Mean body mass index (BMI) by survey year, Government office region, age and sex BMI (kg/m2) 1998–2001

  Government office regions

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  East of England

  London

  South East

  South West

  England

  Aged 16 and over

  Men

  1998

  26.2

  26.5

  26.6

  27.1

  26.4

  26.6

  26.1

  26.6

  26.5

  26.5

  1999

  27.3

  26.7

  26.6

  26.6

  26.6

  26.5

  26.2

  25.9

  26.2

  26.5

  2000

  27.2

  26.8

  26.8

  27.0

  26.8

  27.0

  26.4

  26.8

  26.9

  26.8

  2001

  27.4

  26.8

  27.1

  27.3

  27.1

  27.0

  26.6

  27.0

  26.9

  27.0

  Women

  1998

  26.6

  26.4

  26.4

  26.7

  26.8

  26.4

  25.9

  26.1

  26.5

  26.4

  1999

  25.8

  26.4

  26.3

  27.2

  26.5

  26.1

  25.9

  25.9

  26.9

  26.4

  2000

  26.7

  26.9

  26.1

  27.4

  27.0

  26.3

  26.3

  26.4

  26.2

  26.6

  Aged 0–15

  Boys

  1998

  17.9

  17.8

  17.4

  18.3

  17.2

  17.9

  17.5

  17.7

  18.0

  17.7

  1999

  18.1

  18.2

  18.1

  18.0

  17.2

  17.7

  18.2

  18.8

  17.8

  18.1

  2000

  18.2

  17.9

  17.5

  17.9

  17.8

  18.0

  18.2

  17.9

  17.5

  17.9

  2001

  18.3

  18.0

  17.9

  18.0

  17.9

  18.3

  18.0

  17.6

  17.8

  18.0

  Girls

  1998

  18.1

  18.1

  18.0

  18.8

  18.0

  18.3

  18.6

  17.9

  18.4

  18.2

  1999

  17.6

  18.0

  17.8

  19.1

  17.8

  18.0

  18.5

  17.6

  18.4

  18.2

  2000

  18.2

  18.4

  17.7

  19.4

  18.4

  18.0

  18.2

  18.2

  18.8

  18.4

  2001

  18.8

  18.8

  18.0

  18.1

  18.7

  18.2

  18.1

  17.7

  18.3

  18.3

  Bases

  Men

  1998

  410

  936

  705

  639

  592

  743

  797

  991

  743

  6,556

  1999

  173

  506

  331

  348

  303

  400

  323

  492

  327

  3,203

  2000

  192

  489

  376

  348

  304

  383

  367

  452

  348

  3,250

  2001

  437

  840

  662

  700

  611

  764

  665

  889

  694

  6,262

  Women

  1998

  484

  1,082

  819

  763

  671

  862

  960

  1,216

  826

  7,683

  1999

  225

  530

  401

  401

  381

  433

  395

  551

  381

  3,698

  2000

  245

  519

  437

  416

  327

  414

  440

  536

  368

  3,702

  2001

  494

  1,001

  800

  800

  703

  865

  800

  1,132

  814

  7,409

  1132W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have no plans to make it compulsory for restaurants and cafes to have non-smoking areas.

  We will continue to work with partners to encourage smoke-free policies across the country, whilst at the same time increasing support for smokers who want to quit.

  I am encouraged by the responsible attitude of many restaurant owners to speed up this process and am optimistic that many venues will become smoke-free. However I recognise that we still have some way to go and I encourage all businesses to respond to the levels of actual public and customer demand for more smoke-free places.

  Obesity
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average body mass index in(a) England, (b) each region and (c) each strategic health authority for each of the last 10 years. [138191]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures available from the Health Survey for England are set out in the table. For those respondents with a valid height and weight measurement from which the body mass index could be calculated, it gives the average body mass index by Government Office Region for the period 1998–2001. Figures prior to 1998 are not available by Government Office Region. Care should be taken in interpreting trends in children's body mass index because of small sample sizes.
  1133W

  Mean body mass index (BMI) by survey year, Government office region, age and sex BMI (kg/m2) 1998–2001

  Government office regions

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  West Midlands

  East Midlands

  East of England

  London

  South East

  South West

  England

  Boys

  1998

  87

  267

  161

  175

  154

  186

  210

  250

  178

  1,668

  1999

  57

  123

  83

  76

  74

  105

  103

  130

  76

  827

  2000

  58

  106

  115

  98

  65

  107

  87

  117

  86

  839

  2001

  124

  216

  155

  193

  155

  180

  145

  207

  157

  1,532

  Girls

  1998

  86

  264

  190

  139

  151

  185

  187

  234

  151

  1,587

  1999

  41

  110

  66

  100

  82

  85

  85

  113

  83

  765

  2000

  47

  111

  94

  111

  73

  89

  101

  120

  72

  818

  2001

  111

  214

  157

  192

  170

  188

  179

  215

  166

  1,592

  Note

  Figures prior to 1998 not available by Government office region.

  Source

  Health Survey for England, Department of Health.

  Paramedics (Data Link Schemes)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will provide financial assistance to the setting up(a) in England and (b) in Brent of Data Link schemes for paramedics to obtain details of a person's medical history. [136640]

  Mr. Hutton
  Access by paramedics to patients' medical history (subject to appropriate security and confidentiality safeguards) will be included in the core functionality of the integrated care records service (ICRS) that will be implemented across the National Health Service, beginning in 2004 as part of the national programme for information technology in the NHS. Local service providers are being appointed to work with local health communities to deliver solutions tailored to specific local needs.

  Central funding for the National Programme for IT in the NHS, of which the ICRS is one component, is to be made available as follows—£370 million in 2003–04, £730 million in 2004–05 and £1.2 billion in 2005–06.

  There is also some £850 million per annum provided in local baseline allocations that must be used to support investment in IT infrastructure or particular local priorities. If there is specific functionality required in Brent or elsewhere, and local circumstances or priorities dictate that it will be required sooner than ICRS will be rolling it out nationally, then local funds should be used to procure and provide that application, system or service.

  Funding for local initiatives is a matter for the relevant strategic health authority and primary care trusts.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the questions regarding chiropody services tabled on 14 October 2003 by the hon. Member for Billericay, reference numbers 131565 to 131568. [139788]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I replied to the hon. Member on Monday 17 November 2003,Official Report, column 578W.

  Patient Referrals
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many patients have been referred by each(a) Strategic Health Authority and (b) NHS Trust in London in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [135154]

  Mr. Hutton
  It has not been possible to respond to the specific question raised. Strategic health authorities do not refer patients. However, if the hon. Member requires specific waiting time information by commissioner and provider, he can visit the following website, www.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes.

  Pneumococcal Disease
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recorded incidence of pneumococcal disease infection by health authorities was in the last year for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of unreported pneumococcal disease infection by health authority. [139482]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the incidence of pneumococcal disease infection by health authority (HA) is not available. Notifications are for pneumococcal meningitis only and these are listed by health authority in the table. No estimate has been made of unreported pneumococcal disease infection by HA.

  Statutory notifications of pneumococcal meningitis England and Wales—2002

  Health authority name

  Number

  Avon

  3

  Barking and Havering

  2

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  2

  Barnsley

  2

  Bedfordshire

  —

  Berkshire

  9

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  2

  Birmingham

  9

  Bradford

  5

  Brent and Harrow

  1

  Bro Taf

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  3

  Bury and Rochdale

  1

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  Camden and Islington

  1

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  —

  1135W

  Statutory notifications of pneumococcal meningitis England and Wales—2002

  Health authority name

  Number

  County Durham

  —

  Coventry

  2

  Croydon

  —

  Doncaster

  1

  Dorset

  4

  Dudley

  2

  Dyfed Powys

  4

  Baling, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  2

  East Kent

  2

  East Lancashire

  —

  East London and The City

  1

  East Riding

  4

  East Surrey

  —

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove

  —

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  Gwent

  2

  Herefordshire

  —

  Hertfordshire

  3

  Hillington

  —

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1

  Kensington & Chelsea and Westminster

  —

  Kingston and Richmond

  —

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  2

  Leeds

  3

  Leicestershire

  3

  Lincolnshire

  2

  Liverpool

  —

  Mancesther

  3

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  —

  Morecambe Bay

  —

  Morgannwg

  —

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  3

  Norfolk

  11

  North and East Devon

  —

  North and Mid Hampshire

  2

  North Cheshire

  2

  North Cumbria

  2

  North Derbyshire

  —

  North Essex

  —

  North Nottinghamshire

  1

  North Staffordshire

  —

  North Wales

  4

  North West Lancashire

  2

  North Yorkshire

  —

  Northamptonshire

  3

  Northumberland

  1

  Nottingham

  7

  Oxfordshire

  1

  Port Health Authority

  —

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  —

  Rotherham

  1

  Salford and Trafford

  3

  Sandwell

  —

  Sefton

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  Shropshire

  1

  Solihull

  —

  Somerset

  —

  South and West Devon

  4

  South Cheshire

  1

  South Essex

  1

  South Number

  —

  South Lancashire

  —

  South Staffordshire

  —

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  3

  Southern Derbyshire

  1

  St Helens and Knowsley

  4

  Stockport

  —

  Suffolk

  1

  Sunderland

  —

  Tees

  —

  1136W

  Statutory notifications of pneumococcal meningitis England and Wales—2002

  Health authority name

  Number

  Wakefield

  —

  Walsall

  —

  Warwickshire

  1

  West Kent

  5

  West Pennine

  1

  West Surrey

  1

  West Sussex

  4

  Wigand and Bolton

  2

  Wiltshire

  2

  Wirral

  6

  Wolverhampton

  1

  Worcestershire

  —

  Total

  166

  Source

  Health Protection Agency, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.

  Poultry Waste
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Food Standards Agency has to provide guidance to those involved in the meat trade to(a) improve self-regulation and (b) assist the trade in identifying criminal activity in the distribution of poultry waste. [137585]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has assisted meat trade organisations in preparing and publicising the Industry Code of Practice on the Production, Handling and Processing of Animal By-Products. The FSA will also in December be discussing with other food trade organisations what further action can be taken to identify and prevent fraudulent diversion of unfit meat into the food chain. In addition, the FSA is commissioning a study into the possible use of a marker in low risk animal by-products, which will enable both industry and enforcers to detect meat which is unfit or not intended for human consumption, but does not prevent the legitimate use of such material, for example, in pet food.

  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is planned to ensure effective policing of the segregation of high and low risk waste at poultry slaughterhouses and its distribution from slaughterhouses; and what plans he has to provide extra resources to the Meat Hygiene Service for this purpose. [137586]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has revised its instructions to the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) on the enforcement of animal by-products legislation, and the FSA is auditing the MHS's performance against those instructions. In addition, as part of the FSA's action plan to implement the recommendations of the Waste Food Task Force, the Agency is working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the MHS to produce a new, joint, risk-based regime for enforcement of animal by-products legislation in licensed premises. This will make best use of existing enforcement expenditure. In addition to this, the FSA is currently considering the case for extra expenditure for animal by-products enforcement in licensed premises as part of its review of MHS functions.

  Prostate Cancer
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress the Government has made in reducing the incidence of prostate cancer in the last five years; [133863]

  (2) what his Department's strategy is for tackling prostate cancer. [133882]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Good progress has been made since the National Health Service Prostate Cancer Programme was launched on 6 September 2000, setting out the Government's approach to improving prostate cancer services in England and Wales.

  As part of the Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme (PCRMP), evidence-based primary care resource packs were sent to all general practitioners in England from 23 September 2002 to aid them in counselling men who are worried about prostate cancer, ensuring the men make an informed choice about whether or not to have a prostate specific antigen (PSA) test.

  Other elements of the PCRMP include ensuring that a systematic and standardised follow up pathway is available for individuals whose test result is above the PSA threshold and action to improve the quality of laboratory testing of PSA samples. Primary care and laboratories were informed of the related recommendations from the scientific reference group, which supports the PCRMP, in September 2002.

  In 2003–04 the Department will be directly funding £4.2 million of research a year on prostate cancer. This compares with just £98,000 in 1996–97. Two National Cancer Research Institute prostate cancer research collaboratives have been established in Newcastle and London. Funded research includes studies on various treatments for prostate cancer, improving the PSA test and ethnic differences in prostate cancer incidence. The National Cancer Research Institute considered prostate cancer as part of its strategic analysis in 2002, but made no specific recommendations.

  The Department has funded the following regarding public awareness:
  Section 64 grant to the Prostate Cancer Charity to increase further information about prostate cancer.
  Section 64 grant to the Prostate Cancer Charity to improve awareness of the risks and symptoms of prostate cancer in African and Afro-Caribbean men in Britain.
  The database of individual patient experiences in prostate cancer. 97.5 per cent. of patients with suspected urological cancers (including prostate) were seen for their first out-patient appointment within two weeks of their general practitioner deciding they should be urgently referred, and the hospital receiving the referral within 24 hours, between April and July 2003.

  The cancer services collaborative is modernising cancer care, including prostate cancer, by reducing unnecessary delays in the system for patients throughout the cancer journey.

  There has been an increase in the number of consultant urologists from 427 in 2001 to 466 to 2002, and is set to grow to 504 in 2005.
  1138W
  The incidence of prostate cancer has risen over the last five years. Much of this increase is thought to be due to an increased use of the PSA test and a lengthening of life expectancy.

  Much has been achieved on prostate cancer since the Prostate Cancer Programme was launched, but we recognise that there is still much to be done. That is why we welcomed the launch of the Prostate Cancer Charter for Action on 29 January 2003, and set up the Prostate Cancer Advisory Group (PCAG) to ensure better collaboration and communication between the charter members and Government. PCAG is already taking forward work on information for prostate cancer patients, public awareness and a national prostate cancer resource website.

  School Sport
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 10 November 2003,Official Report, column 64W, on school sport, what assessment has been made of the percentage of school children who (a) were offered and (b) took up two hours per week of high quality physical education and school sport in the last year for which figures are available. [139031]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government is investing more than £1 billion in England to transform physical education, school sport and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared by the Departments for Education and Skills and for Culture, Media and Sport, to increase the percentage of 5 to 16-year-olds 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. Data collected during the autumn term 2002 suggested that about a third of schools provided this entitlement at Key Stage 1, two fifths at Key Stage 2 and a third at Key Stages 3 and 4. Data are now being collected for the first time—for publication in April 2004—on the number of pupils who choose to take up this entitlement.

  Sexual Health
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated for sexually transmitted infections, broken down by(a) type of infection, (b) sex of patient and (c) age of patient in (i) Eastleigh and Test Valley South, (ii) Southampton City and (iii) Mid-Hants Primary Care Trust, in each of the last 10 years.[138153]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is not possible to break down the information into the areas requested in the time frame requested. However, the figures for the old Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority area are shown in the tables.
  1139W

  Primary diagnosis (1CD-10 A50-A64, B20-B24) STDs, HIV/AIDS QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire HA of residence— count of finished in year admission episodes by primary diagnosis—NHS hospitals England 1996–97 to 2001–02

  Primary diagnosis

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  A52 Late Syphilis

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  A53 Other and unspecified syphilis

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  A54 Gonococcal Infection

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  A56 Other sexually transmitted chlamydial diseases

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  AGO Anogenital herpesviral (herpes simplex) infection

  2

  1

  —

  2

  1

  1

  A63 Other predominantly sexually transmitted diseases NEC

  4

  5

  5

  5

  4

  5

  B20 Human immunodef virus disease resulting in infectious parasitic diseases

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  B21 Human immunodef virus disease resulting in malignant neoplasms

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  1

  B22 Human immunodef virus disease resulting in other specified diseases

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  B23 Human immunodeficiency virus disease resulting in other conditions

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  B24 Unspecified human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease

  1

  2

  1

  3

  2

  3

  Grand total

  11

  10

  9

  12

  12

  13

  Primary Diagnosis (ICD-10 A50-A64, B20-B24) STDs, HIV/ AIDS QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire HA of residence—count of finished in year admission episodes by sex—NHS hospitals England 1996–97 to 2001–02

  Sex

  Female

  Male

  Grand total

  1996–97

  3

  8

  11

  1997–98

  4

  6

  10

  1998–99

  4

  5

  9

  1999–2000

  5

  7

  12

  2000–01

  5

  7

  12

  2001–02

  7

  6

  13

  Primary Diagnosis (1CD-10 A50-A64, B20-B24) STDs, HIV/ AIDS QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire HA of residence—count of finished in year admission episodes by age grouping—NHS Hospitals England 1996–97 to 2001–02

  Age group

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  0–4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5–14

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  15–44

  8

  5

  6

  5

  6

  8

  45–64

  1

  4

  2

  5

  5

  3

  65–74

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  75–84

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grand total

  11

  10

  9

  12

  12

  13

  Notes

  1. Admissions—admissions are defined as the first period of in patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of inpatients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. Diagnosis (primary diagnosis)—the primary diagnosis is the
  first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main
  reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Grossing—figures have not (yet) been adjusted for shortfalls in data (ie the data are ungrossed).

  4. Since data is residency based, figures between one and six do not need to be suppressed as authorised by the Security and Confidentiality Group (SCAG).

  5. Prior to 1996–97 there were differences in organizational formation and/or how diagnosis data was collected meaning that data would not be comparable with those years given.

  Source

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Sight Loss
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to(a) the NHS, (b) individuals, (c) families and carers, (d) local authorities and (e) taxpayers of 3,000 people losing their sight; and if he will make a statement. [138055]
  1140W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have not made any assessment of these costs. The costs of blindness will differ according to who becomes blind and when. It is not possible to separate the costs of blindness and partial sight given current information.

  The latest estimates of the costs of blindness and visual impairment are from a study commissioned for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association in July this year.1

  The report's estimates of the annual non-treatment costs for people registered blind or partially sighted in England in various groupings are shown in table 1.

  Table 1: Estimate of annual non-treatment costs for people with blindness/partial sight

  £

  Estimate per person

  Children

  1,123

  Working age

  19,841

  Elderly

  4,980

  Total

  7,561

  Notes:

  1 These costs make assumptions, based on expert opinion and judgments from the literature, about typical income received from: disability living allowance, carer's allowance, vision rehabilitation services, income support, job seeker's allowance, tax allowances; the provision of community based healthcare and the numbers of blind and partially sighted people unemployed.

  2 The major costs are for those of working age which may be overstated since the report makes assumptions about the lost productivity to the economy related to unemployment among the
  blind and visually impaired and assumes that this can be represented by average earnings. If there are flexible labour markets and non-negligible unemployment then some portion of this "lost" productivity will be recovered through other workers.

  3 Costs could be overestimates since it is not clear from the research whether these are the costs incurred by an average blind or partially sighted person, or the costs that are directly attributable to their blindness or partial sight, for example, some of those who are unemployed and blind or partially sighted would have been unemployed if they were not blind or partially sighted.

  It is not possible to identify treatment costs specifically for those who are blind (or as a result of blindness) from NHS data sources. It is possible to identify the costs of treatment for glaucoma and cataracts, which are both conditions that are associated with low vision and can lead to blindness. The costs shown in table 2 are from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association report.
  1141W

  Table 2: Estimate of treatment costs for cataracts and glaucoma

  £

  Estimate per person

  Glaucoma

  1,016

  Cataracts

  688

  Finally, the literature on the "out-of-pocket costs" for blind patients has been reviewed by the Royal National Institute for the Blind. At 2000 prices, these are estimated to be around £52 per person per week.

  1"The costs of blindness: An analysis of the costs of visual impairment and blindness in the United Kingdom". July 2003, Ethical Strategies Limited. The report can be downloaded free of charge from http://www.healthyeyes.org.uk/index.php?id=25.

  Social Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what discussions he has had with west Sussex Social Services Department regarding the provision of central funding for the social care of residents of the Chagos Islands arriving in west Sussex. [134770]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Officials in the Department of Work and Pensions and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are considering, with the Department of Health, the situation of destitute Chagosians in the United Kingdom and specifically in west Sussex. Ministers at the Department of Health have had no direct contact with west Sussex County Council on this matter. Departmental officials, however, have maintained close contact with officers of west Sussex County Council.

  South Woodham Ferrers Health Clinic
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to expand services at the South Woodham Ferrers Health Clinic; and if he will make a statement. [139677]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I have no plans to expand South Woodham Ferrers Health Clinic.

  However, I am informed that Maldon and South Chelmsford Primary Care Trust's bid to Chelmsford borough council's Jubilee fund was successful and they received £75,000 from that fund which it intends to use to redesign South Woodham Ferrers Health Clinic. The PCT has secured planning permission but has revised its original plan which will result in the addition of three further outpatient suites. The PCT is currently awaiting the decision of the borough council's planning committee on the revised plans.

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which strategic health authority has the highest deficit; what guidance he will give Avon, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire Strategic Health Authority about its deficit; how much the Avon, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire Strategic Health Authority received from the Government in financial year 2002–03; how much the(a) Bristol, (b) Bath, (c) Wiltshire and (d) Gloucestershire regions received of that sum; and if he will make it his policy when making allocations within strategic health authority areas to award greater
  1142W
  sums to regions which (i) have a higher population and (ii) have demonstrated higher standards of performance. [134548]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2002–03, the last year for which we have audited accounts, the Avon, Wiltshire and Wiltshire and Gloucestershire Strategic Health Authority area reported the highest overall deficit. The Avon, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire SHA economy received a total resource allocation of £1.989 billion. The table shows distribution of the allocation across its primary care trusts.

  The Department has asked the Avon, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire SHA to ensure that each National Health Service body within the health economy plans for and achieves financial balance and delivers its key targets.

  From 2003–04 revenue resources have been allocated to primary care trusts on the basis of the relative needs of their populations. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine each primary care trust's target share of available resources.

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA Revenue Allocations to Primary Care Trusts 2002–03

  £ Thousand

  Organisation code

  Organisation name

  Revenue Resource Limit allocated

  5FL

  Bath and North east Somerset PCT

  156,601

  5JF

  Bristol North PCT

  211,930

  5JG

  Bristol South and West PCT

  183,161

  5KW

  Cheltenham and Tewkesbury PCT

  120,921

  5KY

  Cotswold and Vale PCT

  155,152

  5K4

  Kennet ande North Wiltshire PCT

  158,080

  5M8

  North Somerset PCT

  161,638

  5A3

  South Gloucestershire PCT

  190,965

  5DJ

  South Wiltshire PCT

  100,038

  5K3

  Swindon PCT

  164,870

  5KX

  West Gloucestershire PCT

  186,743

  5DH

  West Wiltshire PCT

  93,620

  Total PCT Allocation

  1,883,719

  Q20

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA

  105,366

  Total AGW Patch Position

  1,989,085

  Source

  Strategic Health Authority summarisation forms 2002–03 Primary Care Trust Summarisation Schedules 2002–03

  Stroke Treatment
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of stroke patients are being treated in specialist stroke units; [139784]

  (2) what percentage of stroke patients he plans will be treated in specialist stroke units by April 2004. [139785]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We do not collect the information requested centrally. However, stroke is one of the condition specific standards (Standard 5) incorporated into the national service framework for older people. The target is that by April 2004, 100 per cent. of all general hospitals which care for people with stroke will have a specialised stroke service as described in the stroke service model, and that all people who are thought to have had a stroke will have access to diagnostic services and access to specialist stroke services as appropriate.
  1143W
  The most comprehensive source of information on stroke is the National Sentinel Stroke Audit, carried out by the Royal College of Physicians. The audit was commissioned by the National Health Service in 1998 and was last updated in 2002. The results can be found at http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/strokeaudit01–02.pdf. There will be a further update of these figures in 2004.

  Transgenes Research
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what published research he has assessed on the effects of transgenes on cellular processes other than the intended function of the gene; and what research he has commissioned on this subject. [136062]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]Department of Health research funding is largely focused on research to bring the benefits of new medicines into the national health service. The Department of Health has not commissioned research on this subject. Basic scientific research of this nature is mainly funded by the research councils.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the latest available(a) inpatient waiting list figures and (b) outpatient quarterly figures for the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area. [139469]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Inpatient waiting list figures for Mid-Essex Hospital Trust for quarter 2, 2003–04 are shown in the table.
  1144W

  Inpatient Waiting List Figures

  Q2 September 2003–04

  Total waiting

  8,123

  Less than 3 months

  4,195

  3–5 months

  2,137

  6–8 months

  1,354

  9–11 months

  436

  12–14 months

  1

  There are no reported waits for the 15 to 24 month periods.

  Outpatient quarterly figures for Mid-Essex Hospital Trust are shown in the table.

  Outpatient quarterly figures

  September Q2 2002–04

  Number of referral requests for first outpatient appointments

  GP written

  14,687

  Other

  11,878

  Effective length of wait from receipt of GP written referral request to first outpatient attendance (weeks)

  0 to ã4

  3,964

  4 to ã13

  5,985

  13 to ã17

  1,294

  17 to ã21

  457

  21 to ã26

  12

  26 and over

  0

  Not yet seen at end of quarter who have been waiting (weeks)

  13 to ã17

  871

  17 to ã21

  148

  21 to ã26

  0

  26 and over

  0

  Source

  Department of Health quarterly figures for Mid Essex Hospital Trust area

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Funding (Allocations of Grant)
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the Home Secretary's proposals for allocation of police grant for England and Wales in 2004–05. The Home Secretary and I intend to implement the proposals subject to consideration of any representations we receive about them, and to the approval of the House.

  Funding the police properly remains a top priority for this Government. The settlement for 2004–05 builds on significant extra resources for policing in England and Wales over the last three years. Since 2000–01 total provision for policing to be supported by grant or spent centrally on services for the police has risen by over £2.3 billion or over 30 per cent.

  Total provision for policing to be supported by grant in 2004–05 will be £10,086 million. This is a cash rise of £403 million or 4.2 per cent. over the provision for 2003–04. This includes principal formula police grant, specific grants, capital related grants, direct Home Office spending and the formula spending on which revenue support grant is based.

  I have decided, exceptionally this year, to provide a standard general grant increase of 3.25 per cent. for each police authority in England and Wales. I recognise the financial pressures on police authorities and I am concerned to avoid excessive burdens on local taxpayers. My approach should help ensure that precepts are kept at a sustainable level and that policing services continue to improve. The grant increase is sufficient to cover inflation, in particular the pay increases announced for next year.

  In order to do this, I have added £140 million from wider Home Office resources and I have transferred into general police grant provision amounting to £100 million from existing and planned specific grants and central spending. These transfers will give police authorities greater scope to determine their own spending. We launched the National Policing Plan 2004–07 earlier this month. The overarching aim of the plan is to deliver enhanced police performance and public reassurance. Particular regard is given to the Home Secretary's priorities to provide a citizen focused service and to tackle the crimes that blight the lives of many. Other key priorities include tackling anti-social behaviour and disorder; continuing to reduce burglary, vehicle crime, robbery and drug-related crime and combating serious and organised crime. This settlement will support the priorities outlined in the National Policing Plan and continue to support our reform and modernisation process.
  32WS
  There is continuation funding for recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund and Community Support Officers who are playing an important role reassuring the public on our streets; more funding from the Street Crime Initiative that has seen street crime reduce by an estimated 7 per cent. in England and Wales in April—June 2003 compared with the same period last year; Basic Command Unit funding to deal with policing problems most effectively at local level; continuation of the Rural Policing Fund to improve policing for communities with the most widespread populations; funding from the DNA Expansion Programme and other schemes to allow forces to make the most of new technology.

  In this statement, I want to outline the wider provision for support for the police service in England and Wales.

  THE POLICE GRANT SETTLEMENT

  We propose to distribute the settlement as follows:

  Table 1: Police funding settlement for 20040–05 compared to 2003–04

  £million1

  2003–04

  Provision Variance 2004–05

  £million

  Per cent

  1. Direct funding for police authorities:

  Home Office Police grant

  4,288

  4,380

  92

  2.1

  Formula spending share2

  3,776

  3,988

  212

  5.6

  Specific grants for police authorities

  663

  657

  -6

  -0.9

  2. Capital Grants and Support

  333

  355

  22

  6.6

  3. Central spending on policing3

  623

  706

  83

  13.3

  Grand total

  9,683

  10,086

  403

  4.2

  1 Rounded to £ million

  2 Includes Revenue Support Grant/National Non Domestic Rates grants and product of assumed national council tax precept. Both years' figures exclude technical adjustment for resource equalisation (£600 million).

  3 Includes provision for NCS/NCIS and Airwave core service charges.

  Police funding proposals within the Local Government finance system are being announced by my right hon. Friend Ministerial title the member for Greenwich and Woolwich today, and by the Welsh Assembly Government.

  Provisional general policing grants (ie Home Office Police Grant, Revenue Support Grant and National Non Domestic Rates) for English and Welsh police authorities in 2004–05 compared with 2003–04 are given in Table 2.
  33WS
  METROPOLITAN POLICE FUNDING

  Grant for the MPA will increase from £1,764.1 million to £1,822.3 million; a cash increase of 3.25 per cent. in line with all other police authorities. I have increased the formula provision for the MPA national and capital city functions from £202 million to £207 million to keep the formula up to date so that the MPA will receive appropriate benefit in future years. The MPA will receive separately provision for counter-terrorism, continuing funding made available this year. Details will be announced at a later stage. £15 million will also be made available to fund 750 CSOs recruited since 2002. The MPA will be eligible for specific grants from the Crime Fighting Fund, the Basic Command Unit Fund and the Street Crime Initiative.

  SPECIFIC GRANTS FOR POLICE AUTHORITIES

  In addition to increased general grant, police authorities will continue to receive extra funding through several specific grants for particular schemes. Targeted grants were introduced as a direct response to what the police service and the public told us they wanted. Specific grants enable us to target funds to the areas where they are particularly needed.

  The measure of the success of specific funding is now clear. We have record police numbers helped by the Crime Fighting Fund; increased support for those living in rural areas; the Street Crime Initiative has helped reduce street crime; recruitment problems in London and the South East have been tackled through increased or new allowances for officers; the presence on our streets of Community Support Officers is providing the public with reassurance.

  Provision for specific grants in 2004–05 will be £657 million, a little lower than in 2003–04. This has enabled us to maximise general grant which may be spent at the discretion of police authorities.

  THE MAIN SPECIFIC GRANTS ARE:

  Crime Fighting Fund: £277 million will be provided to forces in 2004–05. This Fund has been a remarkable success. With the help of this Fund the Home Secretary's target of 132,500 officers by March 2004 was exceeded by nearly 4,000 this August. We will continue to pay for the 9,000 police officers recruited between April 2000 and March 2003 through the Crime Fighting Fund. I intend to pay for 60 per cent of the cost of the further 650 officers recruited under the Fund in 2003–04. The scheme will not be expanded further in 2004–05.

  Counter Terrorism: As last year, we will continue to provide additional funding to the Police Service to enable it to respond to the increased threat from international terrorism. This funding will be provided to both the Metropolitan Police Service and provincial forces in England and Wales and is in addition to existing funding streams for Counter Terrorism and Security.

  Basic Command Unit (BCU) funds: £50 million will be provided for BCUs. These are at the forefront of local policing. The grant is targeted towards forces with BCUs in high crime areas to help reduce crime in partnership with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, The money is directed so that all forces in England and Wales receive a proportion of the pot.

  Special Priority Payments: The pay and conditions package agreed by the PNB in May 2002 introduced new elements into police pay such as payments for the most experienced officers who can demonstrate a high level of professional competence and extra rewards for officers in
  34WS
  the most difficult and demanding posts. I have split the allocation for 2004–05. £50 million will be available as a specific grant for special priority payments in 2004–05. A further £9 million has been rolled back into general grant.

  Community Support Officers (CSOs): £41 million funding will be available to support the costs of CSOs who free up police officer time, play a crucial role in providing reassurance and who have some powers to deal with low level crime and anti-social behaviour. The provision will continue to fund CSOs recruited in 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Rural Policing Fund: £30 million is again provided for the particular needs of the 31 forces with the most widespread populations.

  Street Crime Initiative: Additional funding of around £25 million is being made available to support continued police operations against street crime. Distribution will be determined in December 2003.

  We will, as well, make available funding for the following:

  Seventy five per cent. of the cost of the London and South East Allowances (£49 million).

  Funding support for the cost of free travel for Metropolitan and City of London officers (£3.2 million).

  Promotion of volunteering within the Police Service (£7 million).

  Workforce Modernisation Implementation Fund. We have allocated £5 million in 2004–05 to support forces in developing an effective skills mix of police staff and police officers.

  The Home Secretary is committed to the DNA Expansion Programme and the benefits that it is delivering. Funding is provided for the continuation Programme.

  POLICE AUTHORITY CAPITAL

  The Home Secretary and I intend to allocate provision of capital grant for 2004–05 in December.

  In addition capital grants for the introduction of Airwave will be made available to those authorities taking up the radio communications service in 2004–05.

  There will be capital provision for the case and custody project of the Criminal Justice IT system. This will be supported by resource funding.

  £40 million is being provided for the capital costs of developing the Metropolitan Police Authority's Command Control and Communications Information (C3i) System. In total £140 million is being provided towards this project.

  CENTRAL SPENDING ON POLICING

  Central spending on policing will total £706 million. The main specific items are the DNA expansion programme, the National Strategy for Police Information Systems and the Airwave contractor's core charges. In addition, provision is made for the costs of organisations supporting policing, mainly the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), Centrex (the Central Police Training and Development Authority), National Criminal Intelligence Service/ National Crime Squad and scientific and technical facilities.
  35WS
  EFFICIENCY

  The settlement continues to take account of the Home Secretary's commitment to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the police service. Guidance on efficiency plans for 2004–05 will be issued shortly. Future Police Grant allocations will be considered in the light of police authorities meeting the current target for 2 per cent. efficiency improvements. The efficiency target will be examined during the Spending Review 2004. Targets reflecting each authority's circumstances may be more appropriate than a universal one. We shall also be considering the balance between cash releasing efficiencies and those which are the result of service improvements.

  CONCLUSION

  We are continuing to invest substantially in the police service to ensure delivery of an effective and efficient police service that has the support and confidence of all communities. We have listened carefully to the concerns of police authorities in determining this settlement. We have ensured that all forces will receive an increase of 3.25 per cent. in general grant which is well above general inflation of 2.6 per cent. This settlement provides the resources to help the police do their job more effectively, building on a strong platform of record police officer numbers, a growing policing community and reduced levels of crime.

  Table 2: Police grant allocations by English and Welsh police authority

  Police Authority

  2003–2004 Allocation1

  2004–2005 Allocation1

  %Change4

  £m

  £m

  English Shire forces

  Avon & Somerest

  157.1

  162.2

  3.3%

  Bedfordshire

  60.1

  62.1

  3.3%

  Cambridgeshire

  71.1

  73.4

  3.3%

  Cheshire

  103.9

  107.2

  3.3%

  Cleveland

  84.1

  86.8

  3.3%

  Crumbria

  57.7

  59.6

  3.3%

  Derbyshire

  97.9

  101.2

  3.3%

  Devon & Cornwall

  161.5

  166.7

  3.3%

  Dorset

  61.6

  63.6

  3.3%

  Durham

  81.5

  84.2

  3.3%

  Essex

  155.9

  160.9

  3.3%

  Gloucestershire

  57.0

  58.9

  3.3%

  Hampshire

  184.5

  190.5

  3.3%

  Hertfordshire

  101.5

  104.8

  3.3%

  Humberside

  110.9

  114.6

  3.3%

  Kent

  176.8

  182.6

  3.3%

  Lancashire

  177.1

  182.9

  3.3%

  Leicestershire

  98.8

  102.0

  3.3%

  Lincolnshire

  58.7

  60.6

  3.3%

  Norfolk

  79.6

  82.2

  3.3%

  North Yorkshire

  70.40

  72.7

  3.3%

  Northamptonshire

  62.2

  64.3

  3.3%

  Nottinghamshire

  123.6

  127.6

  3.3%

  Staffordshire

  105.8

  109.2

  3.3%

  Suffolk

  63.9

  66.0

  3.3%

  Surrey

  85.4

  88.2

  3.3%

  Sussex

  153.1

  158.1

  3.3%

  Thames Valley

  205.9

  212.6

  3.3%

  Watwickshire

  48.2

  49.8

  3.3%

  West Mercia

  104.4

  107.7

  3.3%

  Wilstshire

  58.7

  60.6

  3.3%

  English Metropolitan forces2

  Greater Manchester

  380.8

  393.3

  3.3%

  Merseyside

  240.5

  248.4

  3.3%

  Northumbria

  214.3

  221.4

  3.3%

  South Yorkshire

  172.3

  178.0

  3.3%

  West Midlands

  386.5

  399.4

  3.3%

  West Yorkshire

  289.4

  298.9

  3.3%

  36WS

  Table 2: Police grant allocations by English and Welsh police authority

  Police Authority

  2003–2004 Allocation1

  2004–2005 Allocation1

  %Change4

  £m

  £m

  London forces

  GLA-Police

  1764.1

  1822.3

  3.3%

  City of London

  32.5

  32.7

  N/A

  English Total

  6,699.2

  6918.2

  3.3%

  Welsh forces3

  Dyfed-Powys

  49.3

  50.9

  3.3%

  Gwent

  69.6

  71.8

  3.3%

  North Wales

  73.3

  75.7

  3.3%

  South Wales

  162.9

  168.2

  3.3%

  Welsh total

  355.1

  366.6

  3.3%

  Total

  7,054.3

  7,284.9

  3.3%

  Notes:

  1. Rounded to the nearest £100,000. Grant as calculated under the Local Government Finance Report (England) and Local Government Finance Report (Wales). This includes the Metropolitan Police special payment, and the effects of floors and ceilings.

  2 Figures for the City of London are Police Grant only. RSG is allocated to the City of London in respect of all functions and is unhypothecated. The City of London is grouped with education authorities for the calculation of grant floors and ceilings and receives an increase of 10.57 per cent.

  3 Figures for Welsh exclude any adjustments for capital financing. In addition to the general grant increase, North Wales will receive support for a new PFI project.

  4 A "Floor" increase of 3.25 per cent. has been applied to all police authorities. Minor variations from 3.25 per cent. in the increase in grant occur mainly due to capital financing adjustments. Percentage increases are rounded to one decimal place.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Draft Gambling Bill
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  I have today published the major sections of the draft Gambling Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.

  The Bill will make major changes to the way in which gambling is regulated and controlled in Great Britain. It will build on the work undertaken by Sir Alan Budd and the Gambling Review Body that he led.

  It is based on the three key principles:

  First, the principle that the system of gambling law and regulation must keep the gambling industry free of crime. Our industry has a high international reputation for integrity, which must not be put at risk;

  Second, the law must ensure that gambling is conducted fairly, so that players know what to expect; and

  Third, there must be effective protection for children and the vulnerable.

  The current laws on gambling dating back to the 1960s have failed to keep pace with rapid technological change. Attitudes to gambling have changed too. The law needs to be modernised but we must make sure that it is flexible enough to cope with further change.
  37WS
  However, modernisation does not mean a gambling free for all and reform must not be allowed to generate an upsurge in problem gambling. The provisions published today combine a managed relaxation of outdated restrictions with the strongest protections for children and the vulnerable. Following reform, there will be greater choice for adults but there will remain important limitations on what types of gambling are available and where they can be located.

  INVESTOR IN PEOPLE

  In A Safe Bet for Success (published in March 2002, Cm 5397) we accepted the vast majority of the Gambling Review's recommendations. Since then, we have been working closely with the interested industries, representatives of groups encouraging responsible gambling, local authorities, consumer groups, other Government Departments and the devolved administrations to prepare draft legislation that would give effect to this new system of regulation.

  The proposals published today build on and subsume the draft clauses published in July 2003. They will simplify regulation by establishing a single regulator for commercial gambling. The Gambling Commission will have wider functions, greater flexibility to act and stronger enforcement powers than the Gaming board that it will replace. Local authorities will license all types of gambling premises, to ensure that local people have a say in where gambling outlets are sited. The draft Bill will keep crime out of gambling and protect the industry's reputation for integrity and excellence. The Gambling Commission will be a strong, effective regulator and will root out illegal gambling; its staff will have statutory powers of entry, search and seizure.

  The draft Bill also removes unnecessary restrictions on the ability of business to meet consumers' wishes. The rule allowing casinos to be established only in designated parts of the country will be abolished, as will the rule requiring membership of a casino or bingo club at least 24 hours before playing. Remote gambling, for example on the Internet, interactive TV and through mobile telephones, will be licensed and regulated effectively in Great Britain for the first time.

  The published clauses also strengthen safeguards protecting children and the vulnerable. The current minimum age limits for access to gambling products will be retained and enforced strongly. The draft Bill also includes reserve powers for a statutory levy on gambling operators. These powers will be used if the gambling industry does not keep its promises to contribute to a charitable trust funding research, prevention and treatment programmes for problem gambling.

  A Joint Committee of both Houses has been convened to examine the Government's draft proposals. I am confident that what they will scrutinise is a set of mature proposals that will achieve a sensible reform of the law on gambling. Such scrutiny will improve the legislation and build parliamentary understanding and public confidence, enabling us to strike the right balance between deregulation and the protection of young and vulnerable people.

  I intend to publish the remaining sections of the draft Bill early next year.

DEFENCE

  Medical Supply Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the MSA for Financial Year 2003–04. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in March 1996 and are as follows:

  KEY TARGET 1

  Meeting Operational Medical Equipment and Materiel Requirements

  To build and deliver, to schedule and within budget, all modules on the Operational Build programme as agreed with our key customers, the Defence Medical Services Department (DMSD), and to meet all authorised operational requirements for equipment, medical consumables and blood products.

  KEY TARGET 2

  Meeting the Medical Equipment and Materiel Requirements for the in-vear Exercise and Training Programme

  To build and deliver, to schedule and within budget, all modules on the Exercise and Training Build Programme as agreed with DMSD, and to meet all authorised requirements for equipment, medical consumables and blood products.

  KEY TARGET 3

  Meeting Customer Requirements

  To meet demands for Category B items (commonly used items with a unit cost of less than £100 and approved by DMSD) from units and authorised demanders in the UK and overseas within the MSA Charter Response Times (Next Day, 3 Days), as follows:

  Per cent

  (a) Top 250 by value

  Within Charter Response Time

  95

  Follow up (within 5 days)

  97

  (b) Overall

  Within Charter Response Time

  90

  Follow up (within 5 days)

  97

  KEY TARGET 4

  Procurement of Medical Equipment

  Develop and implement a strategy to improve medical equipment and materiel Whole Life Management with our customers.

  KEY TARGET 5

  MS A Change Programme

  To work with our customers and stakeholders with the objective of delivering the key elements of the MS A Change Programme which will deliver significant

  39WS
  improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency of the medical supply chain, contribute to CDL's strategic objectives, and improve delivery to our customers.

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  After the introduction of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) in 1973, the Royal Air Force has, for the purposes of awarding pensions, been reviewing War Pension Scheme decisions on whether injuries, ill-health or deaths were due to service using the normal civil standard of proof ("balance of probabilities"). The War Pension Scheme uses a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard in favour of the claimant for the first seven years after leaving service. This interpretation of AFPS scheme regulations was challenged in a complaint to the Pensions Ombudsman who found in favour of the claimant, Mrs Hulme. The Ombudsman's decision was upheld on appeal in the High Court and has today been further upheld in the Court of Appeal on the basis that the relevant regulations required AFPS administrators to accept the decision on attributability taken under the War Pension Scheme. I have decided that the Ministry of Defence will not seek leave to appeal the Court of Appeal judgement further to the House of Lords.

  Following this decision, the Department will now review previous decisions on entitlement to attributable pensions for those conditions that led to invaliding or to death-in-service where AFPS administrators have previously not accepted War Pension Scheme decisions on attributability. Awards will be backdated and the Department will consider compensation to reflect the effect of inflation on the value of pensions over the period of non-payment. I expect to make a further announcement on this matter early in the New Year.
  40WS
  Initial research indicates that the incorrect interpretation of the regulations is likely to have affected Royal Air Force compensation payments since soon after 1973, and Army and perhaps some Royal Navy claims since 2000.

  We do not know how many pensioners are likely to have been affected or the likely cost. However, a substantial number of pension award decisions will need to be reviewed to ensure that all those at risk are identified. At present, we expect it to take around a year to complete this review. Payments will be made as soon as possible. We will also be using appropriate advertising to publicise to the ex-Service community those categories of pensioner who might be affected and how claims can he lodged. We will consider these as quickly as possible. The judgement does not affect the benefits paid under the War Pension Scheme.

  The Department will abide fully by the Court of Appeal decision with respect to claims from the past or where a decision is still pending. However, I have decided that, for the future, as soon as the relevant changes can be made to secondary legislation, the Department should establish the right of AFPS administrators to take a second decision on attributability, using the balance of probabilities standard of proof. This is the standard of proof used for other public service occupational schemes, as well as for decisions in the civil courts and for the recently proposed new Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Autumn Performance Report
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The 2003 Autumn Performance Report, which highlights my Department's progress against all its outstanding Public Service Agreement targets, will be published on 21 November. Copies will he placed both Libraries of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

World Trade Priorities
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are now their world trade priorities following the collapse of the conference in Cancún.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government's priority remains to ensure a successful conclusion to the Doha round of the World Trade Organisation negotiations, which would provide a freer and fairer international trading system that addresses the interests of developing countries. The Government are continuing to work with EU partners, the European Commission and other WTO members to get the WTO negotiations back on track.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the present situation is grotesque, in which the richest countries, with only 14 per cent of the world's population, enjoy 75 per cent of the world's exports, while the poorest countries, with 40 Per cent of the world's population, account for only 3 per cent of world trade? Does he further agree that that provides no basis for world stability and security? Will the Government now ensure that development invariably becomes central to trade policy, that non-reciprocity and differentials favouring poor countries will be promoted, and that the common agricultural policy—which positively harms agriculture in the poorest countries—is fundamentally reformed? Above all, can my noble friend assure us that, in future, the Government will treat as a priority the needs of the poorest countries of the world rather than the preoccupations of the rich?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that the distribution of wealth in the world is greatly distorted and leads to poverty, which is to be deplored. The most important issue in regard to the Doha negotiations is the question of getting rid of agricultural subsidies. That must be a major focus because, more than anything else, their removal would help the poorer countries. Further, right from the start it has been recognised that the needs of the poorest countries are central to the Doha negotiations.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what meetings have taken place in the run-up to the senior officials' meeting to be held on 15th December in Geneva—only three weeks away? Have representatives from the United Kingdom attended those preliminary meetings?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Cancún conference agreed a new deadline of 15th December to resolve those issues which could not be agreed. Negotiations, undertaken in restricted groups, are now continuing in Geneva. The atmosphere in those negotiations is positive, but substantial progress has not yet been made.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the highest priority must be to ensure that the European Union should, at a very early stage, resolve any ambiguity in its attitude and make it absolutely clear at the summit to be held in Brussels in December that it favours a resumption of the Doha round to take place as early as possible?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is no question of the fact that we believe that the Doha Round should continue. While the collapse of the Cancún conference was disappointing, along with all other countries we are quite clear that it should not be allowed to become a fatal setback and that we need to get the discussions back on track as soon as possible. I do not think that there has ever been any question about that; it is a common position taken by other countries.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are using their special relationship with the United States to persuade the Americans to drop not only their own tariffs on steel imports, but also to engage in multilateral talks on trade rather than bilateral talks, which benefit the stronger rather than the weaker countries?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is well known that the Government are taking a strong line on the question of the US steel tariffs, which the World Trade Organisation has now rejected, declaring them to be illegal. Of course we are keen to ensure, so far as any country is concerned, that this whole round should not degenerate into any form of bilateral deal as opposed to continuing with multilateral agreements.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, given that my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned in his first response the imperative of ensuring agricultural reform, can he tell us with some precision the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government in the recent budget round to reduce the proportion of the European budget spent on agriculture? Further, can he say whether he deems that agricultural reform is anything like approaching satisfaction?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as part of the run-up to the discussions in Cancún, the European Union agreed to significant reforms of the common agricultural policy that will mean substantial cuts in trade-distorting support and export subsidies which do so much damage to the whole cause of the developing world. That marked an important start in the negotiations, but no doubt there is further room to continue with the work.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the current imbalance in world trade is unacceptable not only on the grounds of compassion, but also unsafe in terms of ensuring the security of this country in a stable world? Does he further agree that any measures to effect a change to that imbalance would be so big that they will affect our own living standards? Have the Government given any thought to talking to the other parties about an agreed policy so that this issue does not become a casualty of successive election campaigns?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are discussing trade. It is clear from all the studies undertaken by the World Bank, the European Union and others that if there could be a substantial reduction of, say, 50 per cent in protectionist measures, that could boost the incomes of developing countries by around 150 billion dollars; that is, by three times the level of current aid flows. However, that would not mean that there would be any adverse effect on the position of the developed world in the sense that one of the benefits of free trade is that by reducing tariff barriers, it is possible to increase the total wealth of the world. That is the basis of free trade and it is the basis on which we are negotiating.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the position of the European Union at Cancún contributed to the breakdown of the talks? Can he give an assurance that the EU now has an agreed position which takes account of the failure of the negotiations at Cancún and which will be a positive basis for the talks to be held during December in Geneva?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, while the trigger for the breakdown of the negotiations at Cancún was the question of the "Singapore issues", a number of other matters were still on the table, the main one being the demands made by the developing world for a further reduction in agricultural tariffs. Obviously we shall be moving forward from the current position. I think that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it clear on 17th September in the other place that we would be operating on the basis of the concessions that had already been made, rather than seeking to go back to earlier positions. That means that the WTO agreements on investment and competition are now off the European Union agenda.

Parliament Square: Displays
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will have discussions with the relevant authorities with a view to the removal of the displays in Parliament Square.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my officials have had discussions with the Metropolitan Police, the Greater London Authority and the City of Westminster about the displays in Parliament Square. The nature and location of these displays means that there is no immediate action that can be taken. The Procedure Committee in the other place has examined the Sessional Orders and Resolutions, including the Sessional Order designed to keep the access to Parliament open. The committee published its report this morning and we will consider its findings most carefully.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, we shall be interested to see the result of that consideration. Is the Minister aware that the dirty and untidy encampment has now become a permanent feature of Parliament Square? Most of the time it is left empty for any protester to take over and use as they will. Is not planning permission necessary for camping arrangements in that area? If so, who gave that permission? If planning permission is not required, can any member of the public park their mobile homes, vans or cars there? Does not the Minister agree that tourists come from all the four corners of the earth to see Westminster? Does he not think that this eyesore is defiling the most beautiful parliament building in the world?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that what I am about to say will be the most popular of words uttered in your Lordships' House. While I might agree with much of what the noble Baroness has said, we have to respect the democratic right of people to make their protests and views felt. The Baroness makes a very important point. We shall of course consider the implications of the report issued today.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, who owns the square? Would it not be worth while for the Government to purchase Parliament Square? They could then take action themselves when it is vandalised in this way.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the square is the responsibility of the Greater London Authority. Policing it is a matter for the Metropolitan Police. They obviously keep the situation under careful review

1929
but, as long as there is no obstruction to the Houses of Parliament, those who choose to use the square for the purposes of protest can do so.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that demonstration placards and pamphlets in Parliament Square are an expression of our tolerance and democratic values? Should we not protect the rights of those who wish to protest in this way? All the visitors that I have met have marvelled at the patience of the British people in tolerating the situation in Parliament Square.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, with all deference to what the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has said, whose democratic rights are we talking about? Is it reasonable to protect the rights of one individual to the detriment of the well-being of the community at large? Is there not an enormous difference between exercising democratic rights in a spontaneous way—we must all protect freedom of speech—and the quasi-permanent residential situation that we all have to endure at the moment?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had thought that the noble Baroness was a member of the more tolerant part of the Conservative Party opposite. While she may find it disagreeable to look upon protesters—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is how it sounds to noble Lords on these Benches.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why should we feel embarrassed to show the world that a vibrant democracy can manifest itself in inconvenient and ugly ways? The exhibits of the demonstrators are not manned overnight. If we want a little order on the site, all we have to do is to ensure that if they cannot be manned they are taken away. This would mean that the site would then remain for demonstrating radical opinions and we would preserve the very democratic nature of the ongoing debate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a sensible way to address the issue. Perhaps it would be a better way of doing things. But it is not for us to determine. The land is not ours. Responsibility for it rests with the Greater London Authority. Westminster Council has sought action on this and has failed so far.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the situation has arisen, in part, because two police forces are involved and neither wishes to take responsibility?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as far as I am aware, that is not the issue.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while I support my noble friend's proposal, is the Minister aware that
1930
posters with the message that "The end of the world is nigh" have been allowed in prominent places in London in the past, although the passage of time has proved the message to be inaccurate at the least?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure that that requires a ministerial response.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, seems to have the answer. It is not people protesting that is objectionable but the permanent camp, which is unoccupied at night. I cannot see any reason why the impedimenta should not be removed when abandoned in the evening, either by the people who have got it, by the police or by other authorities. Is the Minister aware that the report of the House of Commons Procedure Committee, published this morning, recommends that the Government should introduce appropriate legislation to prohibit long-term demonstrations? There may be one or two of us on this side of the House who would support such legislation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I made plain earlier, I am aware of the report. I also made plain that we will keep the situation under review. We have not had long to absorb the full import of the report. We have recently addressed some of the issues raised by passing the anti-social behaviour legislation, certain features of which will enable action to be taken when a static demonstration becomes a nuisance. So there are statutes and statutory opportunities available should they be required.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, why could not a public-spirited citizen, of his own accord, go to the site when it is unmanned and remove the litter? Would he not be performing a service for the public rather than committing an offence?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, these matters are best dealt with in a quiet and sober manner. While the noble Lord's suggestion may have some attraction, it could create further difficulties.

Student Loans
2.47 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What public financial assistance is available to students applying for admission to university.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, eligible students receive means-tested student loans which in 2003–04 range from £3,165 for students living at home to £4,000for those living elsewhere and £4,930 for those living away from home in London. From September 2004 around 30 per cent of students will be entitled to a grant of

1931
£1,000 per year. In addition, grants and bursaries are available for part-time students, student parents and those with disabilities.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I appreciate the Government's attempts in this difficult matter, but does my noble friend agree that having to borrow money from the state to undertake a degree course, which is the present situation, is a considerable deterrent to poorer families? That is one of the most important aspects. Have the Government given any thought to changing the system? Are they giving full consideration to the objections that have been made, and are being made, by the National Union of Students in this matter?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we do not consider this a difficult matter. There has been a wide-ranging debate, over many months, involving many Members of your Lordships' House who have a real interest in higher education, as well as those outside, to enable the Government to bring forward firm proposals and conclusions on what we might do. The present situation does not deter people from coming to university; numbers are increasing. We are committed to ensuring that there is an increase in student numbers of those who are able to go to university and benefit from it. We have made clear the system we plan to put in place. We have dialogue and discussions with the National Union of Students. It has its views and we have ours.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the increase in those going into higher education has fundamentally, over the past 15 years, consisted of middle-class girls catching up with the proportion of middle-class men and that there is still a major deficit from the working classes? Now that the Government are taking over so many aspects of the education policy of the previous Conservative government, could they not consider an assisted places scheme targeted on the more disadvantaged to help them go to university?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am delighted that girls are catching up with and—dare I say it?—overtaking some of the boys in many situations in our society. The system we are proposing is a very good one. It is about ensuring that our higher education institutions play their part—which many are willing to do—in ensuring that the communications they give to our young people about the benefits of university life, graduation and entering the labour market as a graduate are well known. That is the way we should go within an education system that we are striving to make excellent for all children in all schools at all times.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, is it not the case that according to the department's own figures, average student debt levels increased two and a half times between 1998–99 and 2002–03 to nearly £9,000? Is it not also the case that the poorest undergraduates
1932
are saddled with the greatest debt? Indeed, the figures suggest that they carry 44 per cent more debt than those better placed.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware of the income and expenditure survey which we published yesterday. I think it says very clearly that we are right to abolish upfront fees because of their impact. Too many students are having to find £700 in upfront fees each year because their parents are not paying the assessed contribution themselves. That is very important.
We believe that students' standard of living has risen over the past four years. Noble Lords will know from the survey that that is an important aspect. We believe the student loan generally does what it should, although we will of course look very carefully at the survey's findings. We need to make sure that we get away from the idea that it is okay to borrow for the purposes of consumption but not for investment.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does not the report published yesterday from Professor Callender of South Bank University, showing that it is the poorest students who leave universities with the highest debts, underline very strongly the point that if we are moving to higher tuition fees there has to be a system of bursaries which enables the better-off parents effectively to subsidise the education of the less well off? Only in that way will it be possible to achieve proper access to our great universities.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend would accept that the combination of the abolition of upfront fees—which will have an impact on all students—the addition of a grant available to students from low-income backgrounds and a bursary scheme which we are currently discussing, through Universities UK and other means, will provide very generous support to those students whom we are trying to attract, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, quite rightly indicated. This combination is a fundamental part of ensuring a university system that is well funded and able to provide good, high-quality higher education for all students, and that those who are able to go to university are encouraged to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the Minister concerned about the rise in drop-out rates of students? Does the department believe there is any correlation between that and levels of debt?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not have the detailed information on that. The noble Baroness, as always, raises an important point. I will, if I may, write to her with information on drop-out rates. We have been looking at this. It is my understanding that we do not see a correlation, but I will write to her and put a copy of my letter in the Library.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-dean of the University of Wales College

1933
of Medicine. Across all the healthcare courses in our university, 50 per cent of students are graduating with debts of more than £17,000. The students are concerned that recruitment to some courses such as radiography will become increasingly difficult again with the size of debt. Is this of concern to the Government, and how are they planning to monitor the supply of healthcare professionals?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Department of Health is of course very concerned to ensure that it has the right quality and number of healthcare professionals coming through courses. I know that it will take a great interest in that. Part of the issue for variable fees is to allow institutions to be able to lower fees as well as increase them, thereby looking at where shortages occur in our economic life and with regard to students entering courses. This may well be an area which the department would consider. I remind noble Lords that that is different from traditional debt. This is about investment in one's future as a student and a graduate. Students will not pay back anything until they are earning a minimum off £15,000, and then they will pay back only what they have borrowed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, are the Government concerned that a lower proportion of students are going away from home to university and are instead going to the university next to their home to save money? Of course, while many will always do that, many have also had the increased benefit of going to a different university somewhere else. Are the Government concerned that that proportion is dropping?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is important that families, particularly students, have the right kind of choice about where they move. I accept the noble Baroness's point that a proportion of students have always gone to university close to home.
We will be looking very carefully at what impact all our proposals are having, as will the higher education institutions. However, we have to be wary of making an assumption that one factor leads on to another and that what we are seeing is a direct result of the strategy we have in place.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as a result of a bursary scheme that is already in place, established by the colleges of Cambridge, for someone from a financially disadvantaged background, the University of Cambridge is now the cheapest university in Britain to attend?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to what the University of Cambridge has done, as, indeed, have many other universities. But we still have to look very carefully at the percentage of students who are applying to universities and the barriers to their application, and remove those barriers. I think noble Lords would accept that that is a key concern. Higher education institutions have a very
1934
important role in ensuring that the numbers of students from varying backgrounds who are able to go to university because they have the qualifications and ability are doing so in the right proportions, and then the universities can accept them.

Jewish Communities: Security
2.56 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional steps they will take to protect Jewish and other communities in view of the attacks on the synagogues in Istanbul and other recent terrorist attacks.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Metropolitan Police report that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Istanbul, a senior Metropolitan Police officer met members of the Jewish community. Generally, advice is issued, when appropriate, to regional police chief officers in response to security assessment and in consideration of current events. All forces are encouraged to work closely with community contacts on security issues. Community involvement is a key strand to the police counter-terrorism effort.
The Community Security Trust meets with the police to address concerns and promote a co-ordinated response to anti-semitic incidents.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Does he recognise the very great and sad recent change in the nature of racist attacks? They tend no longer to be simply racist or anti-semitic shouts or attacks on individuals. Indeed, in the past week they have included the attacks on the synagogues in Istanbul, to which my noble friend referred, resulting in murders and injuries, as well as the attack on the Jewish school in Paris. There is very great concern among the smaller communities in this country at the growth of this sort of terrorism.
Has my noble friend seen the lead article on the front page of The Times today that a terrorist suspect in custody told detectives of a 15 to 20-strong cell of Algerian supporters of Al'Qaeda, ready to launch a terrorist attack? Their intended targets are understood to be synagogues in London and Manchester. What steps are Her Majesty's Government proposing to take to meet what is regarded as a very serious and growing concern?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we recognise that this is a very serious and growing concern. Anti-semitic attacks have, sadly, increased over the last few years. We are aware of the article in The Times. Only yesterday, a special meeting took place involving police officers from the specialist departments, ACPO and Jewish communities to discuss security issues, particularly in the light of recent events. Obviously we

1935
will be ever vigilant because of the very real and profound concerns which understandably exist within the Jewish community.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Does the Minister agree that the current anti-American "stop the war" demonstrations could be better directed at those who are actually perpetrating warlike acts? In Iraq, for instance, there are attacks on the soldiers and the citizens, there have been attacks on synagogues, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, especially in Turkey, and there is also the threat that something will be done in this country.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we all abhor anti-Americanism and recognise the strength of the special relationship. Of course, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that we should direct as much attention as possible to dealing with, tackling and preventing the various very serious threats to the Jewish community and other ethnic minority communities in our country.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for raising the matter. There is a serious concern among minorities to the extent that religious premises fail to receive adequate police protection. Is the Minister aware that only 10 days ago, in a temple in Ealing Road, two people entered while worship was going on, broke the statue of worship and shouted anti-Indian slogans? If we fail to protect those communities, they will take the law into their own hands, which would damage community relations. Is it not about time that the police provided adequate protection, not only to the temples, gurdwaras and mosques but to any of the places of worship that are so precious to minorities in this country?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we are obviously aware of that attack. The police are vigilant in these matters—they have been exceptionally vigilant. Special meetings take place regularly, and all police services in the United Kingdom are particularly aware of the issues that the noble Lord raises. I dispute the suggestion that the police lack vigilance; clearly, they care greatly and deeply, as we all do, about these matters. I add my congratulations to the general congratulations to the police service on tackling them.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, given the fight against terrorism, to which we are all committed, and after the penetration of Buckingham Palace by a Daily Mirror reporter, does that not underline the necessity for a biometric national identity card? Members opposite complain about the police not doing their job, but it might help if they supported the police request for such a measure.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is a little wide of the original Question. However, this is part of
1936
an ongoing debate. Yes, being able properly to identify people will make a very positive contribution to law enforcement.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the knock-on effect on other communities from what has happened in the synagogues is a danger? Will he ensure that the same welcome liaison that the police are making with the Jewish community will be extended to all other communities and their places of worship?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am entirely at one with the noble Viscount. There are regular meetings between the various ethnic communities, who experience and feel threats most regularly. There is a general encouragement in the police service to ensure that racist attacks are dealt with and dealt with promptly. It is perhaps worth saying that, over the past couple of years, there has been a big increase in the number of cases brought forward by the police for prosecution with regard to racially motivated crime, and a very welcome increase in the number of defendants prosecuted and brought to justice.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, in the discussions that the Government have had with the security authorities, will they draw attention to the fact that each day, when children are at school, cars are pulling up and dropping off in a very short space of time? Could extra vigilance be given to those groups who have used the method of suicide bombing in the weekend atrocities in Turkey and other places? It is the most natural thing to see cars pulling up outside schools. Could schools, especially schools with Jewish children, have some special attention in that regard?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is one of the issues that was discussed recently when the Jewish community met the Metropolitan Police Service. I know that the issue is being dealt with with the greatest seriousness.

Iraq: Reconstruction Contracts
3.3 p.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the United States administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer, as to whether British companies can compete with American companies for primary contracts authorised for the rebuilding of Iraq.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the £18.6 billion additional spending to be used on the reconstruction of Iraq will be administered by a new organisation, the Iraq Infrastructure Reconstruction Office. There is no clear agreement on what procurement rules will apply, but it is likely that the office will follow those of the US Department of Defense, whose procurement rules are more flexible than those used by US AID, which by law must give prime contracts to US companies.

1937
The Minister for International Trade and Investment visited Washington on 3rd November to discuss with senior members of the administration the disbursement of the supplemental budget and the role that the British private sector might play.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank Minister for that Answer. I assume, incidentally, that he made a slip of the tongue and that 18.5 billion dollars, not pounds, have been allocated.
Will the Minister say whether he regards it as acceptable that, of the top 10 contracts to be let so far, all of them have been granted to American companies? Many have been granted to companies that were former employers of members of the administration, including Vice-President Cheney. Many have been awarded to companies that gave substantial donations to President Bush's election campaign. Do Her Majesty's Government regard that as acceptable behaviour, or as behaviour that would make even Lloyd George look parsimonious?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is difficult to see what proportion of contracts has been awarded to different countries, because no comprehensive list has been made. For the contracts given by a whole range of bodies, including the Coalition Provisional Authority, US AID and the US Army Corps, the last figures that we have seen are very out of date—they date back to August. The figures produced by Bechtel suggest that British companies have got a very reasonable proportion of the total number of contracts.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, what effect does the Minister believe that the demonstrations in London and around the country against the President of the United States of America may have on any decisions that are taken by the American administrator in Iraq on the very question that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, has asked?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Mr Paul Bremer made it clear in a recent interview that he would welcome more British contracts. British companies are looking for those contracts to be given fairly and properly. When the Minister for International Trade and Investment went to Washington, he was warmly received and encouraged to put forward more bids.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, even under more flexible rules, the probability is that no contracts will be awarded other than to foreign companies in joint venture agreements with US companies? If that is the case, where does that leave possible British contractors? Just as importantly, as the Government today confirmed, unemployment in Iraq is at 50 per cent. What are the chances for Iraqi companies to play any part in the reconstruction of their own country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, under Department of Defense procurement rules, foreign
1938
firms are eligible to bid on prime contracts, although there is a presumption of giving preference to US firms that are able to carry out the work. In practice, most UK companies are either looking to bid on prime contracts in joint ventures with US partners or to bid for sub-contracts.
Iraqi companies are playing a very large part in the process. I mentioned the last figures that we have on the Bechtel situation, which showed that a higher percentage of the contracts were going to Iraqi companies than to American companies.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the Minister say who pays for the contracts? Presumably it is not the Iraqis. Is it only the Americans, or does it go further than that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the money that we are talking about in this case is provided by the American Government.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is there any requirement on those who get the contracts to see that some of the benefit, in the form of labour and jobs, goes to local people in Iraq, and that the whole benefit does not accrue to the United States?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I have pointed out, a large number of the companies involved are Iraqi companies, which in many cases have been chosen for just that reason—because they will be using labour in Iraq. Clearly, that is very important to the reconstruction efforts and to the attempts to get the economy going again. Furthermore, given that the work is by and large infrastructure work, a great deal of it must by definition take place in the country.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, many of us are concerned about the American situation regarding steel. Will my noble friend comment on where we are with the American Administration regarding steel? To what extent does it involve our commitment and position regarding the restructuring of Iraq?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, they are two quite separate situations. Our views are well known on steel. The matter has gone to the WTO, which has made it clear that the subsidies for the tariffs on American steel are illegal. It is for the EU to take further action in due course, but that is a separate situation from the Iraq situation.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, would it not have been more helpful to UK companies if before hostilities commenced DfID had been more closely involved in the planning of the reconstruction of Iraq?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think it is very difficult to see how that would have taken place in practice. Clearly, it would have been desirable if more

1939
planning had taken place. However, I do not think that the particular issue of how contracts are allocated would have been deeply affected by that.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, what is the position with Turkey? Do the Administration have the same misgivings about its commercial operations as they do about its defence forces?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thought that this Question was on Iraq contracts. I cannot see any connection between that and the Turkish situation.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, if American money is funding these contracts, why should the Americans not favour their own contractors as prime contractors?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, a large amount of the money so far allocated has been allocated by US AID. One of its legal requirements is that the prime contracts go to American companies, which seems not unreasonable. On the other hand, in the award of other contracts and where there is open competition, I think it very important that that should be on a fair and open basis.

Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, by the leave of the House, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a Statement on the projected business for today. This afternoon we shall receive the Commons amendments to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. We will consider those amendments after consideration of Commons amendments on the Criminal Justice Bill but not earlier than 9.45 p.m.
The Commons amendments will be available in the Printed Paper Office from 6.45 p.m. Peers who want to table amendments to the Commons amendments can do so in the Public Bill Office from 6.45 p.m. until 8.45 p.m. At 9.15 p.m., a Marshalled List of amendments will be available in the Printed Paper Office.
I will make sure that these events are indicated on the annunciators. If there are any complications that affect this plan I shall come back to the House to explain what is happening. I will also update the House on timings for further rounds of ping-pong on both the Criminal Justice Bill and the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.12 p.m.
A message was brought from the Commons, That they agree to certain amendments made by your Lordships to the Criminal Justice Bill without amendment; they disagree to certain other amendments
1940
but have made amendments to the words so restored to the Bill to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships; they disagree to a certain amendment but have made amendments in lieu thereof to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships; and they disagree to the remaining amendments for which they assign reasons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons message be considered forthwith.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS DISAGREEMENT TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS SO RESTORED TO THE BILL, AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF A CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENT DISAGREED TO
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 69 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 4, Leave out Clause 4
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason—
2A Because it is appropriate to extend the circumstances in which the telephone may be used in connection with the review of police detention.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 4A and 8A. I shall speak first to Amendment No. 2.
The deletion of this clause from the Bill places an unnecessary restriction on a practical and efficient way of overcoming some of the resource and logistical problems of arranging reviews. The clause will maintain the application of these important safeguards but broaden the capacity so that telephone reviews can be used where they are considered the most practical and efficient approach. It will provide the review officer with a straightforward alternative of reviewing in person or by telephone. In so doing, however, he must consider each case individually and decide the most appropriate way to conduct the review.
We have made it clear in guidance that specific consideration must be given in the case of vulnerable suspects, including juveniles. The clause follows the recommendation of the joint Home Office and Cabinet Office review of PACE that allowing the use of telephone reviews in a wider set of circumstances would better serve the needs of the police and the rights of suspects.
I shall speak now to Amendment No. 4. At present the law allows the police the discretion to retain the fingerprints and non-intimate samples taken by them during the investigation of an offence of persons suspected of having committed a recordable offence.

1941
This amendment as drafted would not only require the police to destroy the fingerprints and samples taken from persons arrested for a recordable offence and not subsequently charged; it would also put the law back to the position prior to the changes made in 2001. That change to the law has proven to be extremely important.
The custodian of the National DNA Database tells us that there are now approximately 103,000 DNA profiles on the database which would have previously been removed under PACE. Of those, approximately 4,600 profiles of individuals have been linked with crime scene stains involving 4,760 offences. Those offences include 26 murders, 15 attempted murders, 27 rapes, 13 sexual offences, 14 aggravated burglaries and six of the supply of controlled drugs. Those are all offences which were committed after the person had been acquitted of an earlier charge. We therefore ask whether we really want to revert to a situation where the police would be denied this type of crucial intelligence in the investigation of crime.
I turn to Amendment No. 8. As originally drafted, this clause provided for the Secretary of State to alter, by order made by statutory instrument, the minimum age at which persons in police detention may be tested for specified class A drugs—that is, heroin, crack and cocaine. The clause also provided for the order to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This delegation and level of scrutiny was considered to be appropriate by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. These provisions are to be introduced in limited areas on a pilot basis initially. We maintain that it is important that the Secretary of State should have the ability to change the minimum age, either up or down. It is our intention that any decision to change the minimum age for drug testing will be made only after full consideration of all the available evidence and will take account of the views of relevant bodies. I therefore urge your Lordships not to insist on your Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 8.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
4 After Clause 8, Insert the following new Clause—
"Destruction of fingerprints and samples

(1)Section 64 of the 1984 Act (destruction of fingerprints and samples) is amended as follows.

(2)In subsection (3), the words ", except as provided in the following provisions of this section," are omitted.

(3)Subsections (3AA), (3AB) and (3AC) are omitted."

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
4A Because it is appropriate to ensure the exclusion in certain cases of the duty under section 64(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to destroy fingerprints and samples.
8 Clause 12, page 7, line 35, leave out paragraph (c)
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
8A Because it may prove desirable in the light of experience to vary the minimum age above which a test for Class A drugs may be required under section 63B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 and 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A and 8A. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 4 and 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 4A and 8A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ORDS AMENDMENT
32 Clause 41, Leave out Clause 41
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason—
32A Because it should be possible for a defendant to apply for a trial to be conducted without a jury.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 32 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 32A.
These amendments deal with the issue of jury trial. I shall come in a moment to the amendments to Clause 42 which the Government made in another place yesterday and which respond to concerns raised by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and those sitting opposite. First, however, I should like to set the wider context of this provision by explaining why it is in the Bill and why it is important that it stays there.
Fraud is on the increase. Technological advance, the growing sophistication of the market and the proliferation of financial instruments and products have created new opportunities for fraud. Its economic impact is huge. On latest statistics, fraud is costing the country about £ 14 billion per year, as against £1 billion in 1985. Therefore, I think your Lordships will agree that fraud harms us all. It affects individual savings, pensions, investments and jobs. It also has direct costs that impact ultimately on the whole of society.
Clause 42 addresses a particular problem within the wider fraud arena. It recognises and seeks to deal with a small—I repeat "small"—number of fraud and other financial cases where there are clear difficulties in conducting a trial by jury. Those difficulties are not abstract and theoretical but have been encountered in practice. The courts themselves have expressed the gravest concerns about the threat to justice inherent in making these kinds of case manageable for juries. That has long been recognised, as I think even those who oppose Clause 42 would acknowledge. The Roskill report on serious fraud in 1986, the establishment of the Serious Fraud Office and Lord Justice Auld's

1943
independent review are all evidence of attempts to respond to these difficulties over the past few decades. The case for change has commanded general support.
Considerable and, for the most part, successful—I wish to emphasise that—efforts have been made to try to help the courts in managing the trial process in such cases. The preparatory hearing regimes in the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 are working well. However, there continue to be a few exceptional cases—one must regard them as exceptional—that are so lengthy and/ or complex that they stubbornly resist the best efforts of all involved to reduce the burden on the jury without imperilling justice. The need to meet the imperative of manageability for juries means that these trials are currently being carved up in a way that simply cannot be said to serve the interests of justice. They are divided into separate trials, evidence is pared down and charges reduced. Secondary defendants who should notwithstanding be prosecuted are not brought to justice.
Even in the event of a conviction, losses to the public interest and to confidence in the criminal justice system arise from the fact that the jury has been asked to reach a verdict on an artificially truncated version of the facts. The totality of the offending is not exposed; judges are unable to sentence on the basis of the full criminality and the public at large are never told the whole story. So justice, not least justice for victims, is not done.
Serious fraud trials can last for months. They place an excessive and unreasonable burden on the members of the jury. They also make it difficult to ensure a representative jury. Jury service is an important civic duty but there must be proper limits to the imposition that it is right to make on jurors' lives. Clause 42 requires the judge to ensure that all the options that would allow jury trial have been thoroughly tested. The threshold for non-jury trial is a high one, and deliberately so. Where it is necessary in the interests of justice looked at in the round for a case to be conducted without a jury we would ask, what possible case can there be for doing anything else?
A number of comments have been made, first, in relation to whether we are creating a two-tier system of justice. We are not. I remind noble Lords of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke. I refer to his experience in New Zealand where this provision has been in existence for 20 years or so and has had no disadvantageous effect upon the availability of jury trial in normal cases. We believe that these provisions are appropriate.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 32, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 32A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Hunt of Wirral 32B Lord Hunt of Wirral rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 32 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 32A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to follow the example of the Minister in seeking to address the debate on the other amendments that deal with jury trials.
As probably several noble Lords did, I listened to the full debate on these Lords amendments in the other place yesterday. I was very concerned that the Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, did not follow the example of the noble Baroness. He was very critical of this place. First, he said that we had not had a sensible debate. I recall that in July we had a very wide-ranging debate. Hugely important issues were raised and a number of noble Lords clearly expressed deep feelings of anger at any attempt to fetter the right to jury trial. To regard that as not a very sensible debate was not helpful. Indeed, Mr Blunkett said that we had scored a pyrrhic victory. Noble Lords will know that in 279 BC the Greek leader, Pyrrhus, scored a great victory over the Romans. I suppose that the analogy that Mr Blunkett used concerned the great cost of that victory. However, I am afraid that he was badly advised. I consulted the website of The Oxford English Dictionary and of Webster's. Mr Blunkett could hardly have failed to notice—although this must be another bid by him to appeal to the Left wing of the Labour Party—or he should have noticed, that there was a press release some weeks ago by the editors of The Oxford English Dictionary stating that the phrase "pyrrhic victory" was to be removed from the dictionary because, rather like this Government, it had outlived its usefulness.
Did Mr Blunkett know that, according to John Smytheton, chief editor of The Oxford English Dictionary, the phrase, "pyrrhic victory" is to be replaced with "Bush victory" in the next edition of The Oxford English Dictionary? Perhaps the Home Secretary was not up to date on that. However, he was also very critical of the fact that we do not have a Speaker or Deputy Speaker and that we have no means of timetabling our debates. In fact, the debate in the other place took one hour 45 minutes, of which Mr Blunkett took over 30 minutes. I counted another 12 speakers who were trying to get in. That is the evil of timetabling. Mr Blunkett said:
"There is no procedure in the House of Lords for any sort of timetable or closure mechanism, nor any provision for the operation of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker system… Until we have such a system in the Lords, we cannot take anyone's word that that House will be in favour of anything that we propose".— [Official Report, Commons, 18/11/03; col. 652.]
I hope that Mr Blunkett will regret those words. Those are the words of a senior Cabinet Minister so at least we know what this Government would have in store for us. However, we shall carry on having our high quality debates without timetabling.
On 15th July your Lordships decided to remove entirely from the Bill what was then Part 7. Now the other place insists that those clauses should be restored. I hope I speak for the majority when I say that we remain opposed to the Government's proposals which would allow a defendant to elect trial by judge alone, and those which would allow judge-only trials in so-called complex cases. We believe that

1945
allowing defendants to elect non-jury trial would be divisive and would create an unacceptable two-tier system. Defendants charged with offences attracting serious public opprobrium would opt out of the jury system; others would engage in forum shopping, hoping for a particularly liberal judge. I have to tell the Government that they are wrong. Similarly, we cannot accept the Government's proposals to do away with jury trial in complex and lengthy cases. Juries are perfectly capable of understanding the key issues relevant to guilt or innocence in such cases. It is a simple matter for the jury to decide whether someone is dishonest. That is its task, and it fulfils it extremely well.
There are other avenues whereby fraud trials could be made less complex and lengthy. I have a press release issued on 30th July 2002 by the Law Commission. It had been asked by Mr Straw to look into ways in which the law on fraud could be made more readily comprehensible to juries. That is a very simple task, but one that the Law Commission took some considerable time—more than four years—to fulfil. It came forward with a draft fraud Bill, which would certainly simplify the law on fraud. I have asked the Home Office and the Library what has happened to the Law Commission's proposals, why there has been no comment from the Government on the proposals, and why on earth we are suddenly seeking to tamper with the jury system without having properly considered the fraud Bill. I hope that the Minister responds.
The Government propose to do away with juries in any case in which there are complex or lengthy issues of a,
"financial or commercial nature or which relate to property",
so many more cases will be affected than the Government have claimed. The proposal is not related simply to complex fraud trials, but could affect all sorts of cases, from drug dealing to health and safety prosecutions. I hope that the Minister will understand when I say that we cannot accept the Government's proposals on defendant election and complex and lengthy cases.
This House has come to recognise the force of the arguments made in relation to jury tampering. We on these Benches and the Opposition in another place have reflected long and hard on what was said in this House on 15th July, and on what was said outside Parliament, most notably by Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I hope that your Lordships will recall that I said on that occasion that,
"we have much sympathy with the police if indeed, as the Deputy Commissioner revealed in a letter to The Times today, this problem is growing. Let us look at the details and consider what it is best to do".—(Official Report, 15/7/03; col. 773.]
One way forward to attempt to tackle jury tampering was suggested by my honourable friends in another place in May. Intimidation of juries is an evil that has to be stopped, but so does intimidation of the judge, of witnesses and of parties. We all agree that that evil has to be stamped out.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said in our previous debate—I will not quote him in full— that he had been persuaded that there had to be a way forward. We have listened to the arguments and have been persuaded that, where a trial has had to be aborted because of jury tampering, it should be open to the judge to order that any retrial should be before a judge of the Crown Court alone, sitting without a jury. That was the proposal put forward by Mr Letwin in another place on 19th May, and the opposition amendments would preserve the right of everyone charged on indictment in the Crown Court to have a jury trial in the first instance.
We do not subscribe to the idea that it would be desirable to dispense with jury trial completely in some cases, which was the original proposal in the Bill. However, we accept that if someone has abused the right to a jury trial by seeking to pervert the jury's verdict, it should be open to the judge to prevent that happening a second time. There would, of course, be an appeal against the judge's decision under our proposals.
The essential principle is that justice must be done. For those who abuse the right to jury trial and seek to pervert the system in their favour, we have been persuaded of the case for change. Having said that, we remain opposed to what the Government seek to do. We remain committed to the fundamental principle of ensuring that every defendant in the Crown Court has the right to a jury trial in first instance. That remains our position, but we accept the force of the arguments made in relation to cases where jury tampering has taken place. However, so far the Government have not come forward with proposals that we could accept.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 32 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 32A, leave out "not".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)
3.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches support Amendment No. 32B. Everything that could be said on this topic has been said in the days in Committee and on Report. The fact that Mr Blunkett made the comments referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, demonstrates that he has as much understanding of this House and the way in which we consider matters as he has of the criminal justice system.
The noble Baroness seemed to think that it should be put on the debit side that the prosecution in a complex case simplify issues and pare them down. I do not regard that as something wrong in any way. It is very important that the public understands what a case is about. When we get to a situation in which there is a private conversation between lawyers in a criminal case—the prosecution, the defence and the judge—and when it is only the judge who can understand what is going on and members of the public cannot, it will be a bad day for the criminal justice system of this country.
I put that in the context that public confidence in the jury system remains as high as ever. The proposals are not put forward in a climate in which the public is

1947
calling for change in the area. The verdict of a jury, whether guilty or not guilty, commands respect and acceptance. The longer that that stays with us the better. I do not intend to weary your Lordships any further with the amendment. We will support it.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, Clause 43 gives the prosecution the possibility of asking for a judge-only trial, provided that certain conditions are satisfied relating to the burden that there would be on a jury, if it were a jury trial, and to the complexity of the facts. It has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that if there is any difficulty in the jury comprehending the details of a fraud indictment, the case should be simplified because juries certainly understand the difference between honesty and dishonesty. There are dangers in that, however, as my noble friend pointed out, if the details of the prosecution case are withheld from the jury. If it does not get, receive or hear evidence about the details, the full force and strength of a prosecution case may be diminished.
I shall dare to repeat what may have been mentioned in Committee. The Government's White Paper, Justice for All, stated in 2002 that,
"prosecutions often pare down cases to try and make them more manageable and comprehensible to a jury. This means the full criminality of such a fraud is not always exposed".
Perhaps I may raise a point that has not yet been raised today. Who actually constitutes the jury in these complex cases? Is it really randomly selected? In the Maxwell case, 700 jurors were called and 550 were excused. Juries in these complex cases are likely to be less representative of the general community than in the norm of criminal trials, and they are unlikely to be peers of the people sitting in the dock. I fear that the jurors called who are not excused may be least likely to have experience of accounting or business. People running their own businesses and people with significant positions in industry and the professions are most likely to be excused jury service.
I fear that not enough was said during earlier stages of the Bill about the length and difficulty of some fraud cases. The Maxwell case, to which I referred, began in May 1995 and lasted until January 1996. It resulted in an acquittal to defraud the Maxwell pensioners of £122 million. The jury took 12 days to reach its verdict. It had taken 131 trial days and the cost was reported as being about £20 million.
In November 2002, The Times reported the acquittals of certain businessmen, the chairman of a company and finance directors who had been charged with fraud—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that those accused of the Maxwell fraud are guilty and the jury got it wrong?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I would not have the impertinence to draw any such conclusion. I am talking about how lengthy such cases are and how
1948
difficult it is to find jurors, particularly those with experience of business, to sit for the number of days required in order to determine the matter.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that judges should have experience of accountancy and business?
Lord Borrie: My Lords, frequently they have and they can certainly understand more readily than many of us what is explained to them. I do not want to lengthen the debate, so perhaps I may put in parenthesis the fact that I would prefer a system whereby the judge sat with assessors who were particularly knowledgeable of finance and so forth. That suggestion is not before us in the Bill. There should be jury trials in every case or, alternatively, the possibility of requesting that it be a judge-only trial. That possibility, subject to conditions and to appeal as provided for in the Bill, deserves the support of Parliament.
In conclusion, it is worthwhile drawing attention to an article which appeared in the Financial Times two or three days after our debates in Committee by a former head of the Serious Fraud Office, Miss Rosalind Wright. She suggested what were the advantages, at any rate in some cases, of trial without a jury. She mentioned that the judge,
"could read the documents in advance of the trial and cut through the swathes of paper in the courtroom; he could ruthlessly limit cross-examination and speeches; he could give a reasoned judgment at the conclusion of the proceedings"—
juries, of course, never give reasoned judgments—
"which would assist both prosecution and defence in understanding how the verdict was arrived at",
and no doubt be of assistance as a precedent in later cases.
There is a strong case for allowing the Commons view to prevail—that there should be a possibility of asking for a trial by judge alone—and I hope that we will not persist in this House in continuing opposition to that.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I regret that I was abroad when the House last discussed juries. The House will be cheered that I will not repeat the arguments used on that occasion. The debate has been broadened by the Opposition into some observations which appertain to the next clause and it may be convenient if I deal briefly with both.
First, I am fundamentally opposed to tampering with the right to trial by jury—either at the instigation of the prosecution or the defence. Secondly, although I cannot go into the Lobby to support the Government, I accept with regret that at this juncture the views of the elected House must prevail.
As a practitioner in criminal law all my working life, save for the 13 years as a Minister and a senior Law Officer of the Crown, I believe that in the overwhelming number of cases the jury system in England and Wales

1949
works with young or old jurors, short or long trials, simple or complicated trials. That has been my experience most of my working life.
Since 1972, when the Criminal Law Revision Committee reported, there have been repeated attempts in one direction or the other to limit jury trials. In each case, one or other House of Parliament has resisted such attempts.
The Government have rightly watered down their original proposals in Clause 42. Their original proposals were unsustainable. There remains the only part of reform where I have a real sympathy for such trials which are really burdensome to jurors.
The longest criminal trial in which I was involved began in February and finished in September. All of us felt the burden. But is this enough for a change? I welcome Clause 42(6), respelling the duty of the judge to reduce complexity or length. A more active judicial role is to be welcomed. The Court of Appeal from time to time has dealt with the question of overburdening the indictments.
But before the House embarks on this unhappy part of the legislation, perhaps I may quote what was written a long time ago—more than two centuries—by Blackstone in his commentaries. He stated:
"The truth of every accusation … should afterwards be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours, indifferently chosen, and superior to all suspicion. So that the liberties of England cannot but subsist, so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate; not only from all open attacks (which none will be so hardy as to make)—
he did not reckon with Mr Blunkett—
"but also from the secret machinations, which may sap and undermine it; by introducing new and arbitrary methods of trials by justices of the peace, commissioners of the revenue, and courts of conscience. And however convenient these may appear at first (as doubtless all arbitrary powers, well executed, are the most convenient), yet let it be again remembered, that delays, and little inconveniences in the forms of justice, are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters; that these inroads upon this sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposite to the spirit of our constitution; and that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread, to the utter disuse of juries in questions of the most momentous concern.".
I commend those remarks. If we are to go down this road, I hope that Blackstone's Commentaries will be remembered when we next discuss it.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will have very successfully curdled the blood of the House by reciting some of the comments made by Mr Blunkett in another place about your Lordships' House. If Mr Blunkett considers it necessary that we have a Speaker in this House in order that the Government may get their way. I should have thought that he will have fairly conclusively decided for this House how it will feel about that. I am very pleased to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, is in his place to hear those views so that he may take them into account in his committee.
1950
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, have made a very powerful case for the right to a jury trial. But surely the amendment currently before the House— Amendment No. 32—concerns the question of the defendant's ability to abandon that right. Surely it is a corollary of every right that one is entitled not to exercise it. I have to confess that I find the noble Lord's case on that amendment far weaker than his case on the others, where the right is being taken away from the defendant rather than being voluntarily surrendered by the defendant. If the noble Lord is minded to test the opinion of the House, I wonder whether he will consider it more appropriate to test it on the later amendments, where the right is taken away, rather than on the defendant's right to surrender his right. At present, I cannot understand the objection to that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support what the noble Viscount has just suggested. In Committee, I mentioned an immensely complicated fraud case which lasted for five weeks. By the time the case had gone on for two or three weeks, the jury, which largely consisted of not very well educated people, did not have a clue what was going on. Therefore, I feel that a degree of flexibility in this matter is necessary. If the defendant wants a jury, he should have it. But if he feels that he is not obtaining justice with the aid of a jury, a jury should no longer be inflicted on the court.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I know that it is rather dangerous for someone who has not been directly involved in the judiciary to trespass on this debate. Nevertheless, I sometimes think that those closely involved do not see the wood for the trees.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was very critical of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in regard to a pyrrhic victory. I am not sure what point was being made, although he referred to the Oxford Dictionary. But I believe that the general understanding is that a pyrrhic victory does not have very much value.
I believe that if we want justice to prevail, our legislation must ensure that that happens. Having considered this matter, the Government found that some fraud cases are rather prolonged, generally organised crime is involved and no one supports the culprit. We want to preserve the protection of the victim. Consequently, the law enforcement associations in this country support what the Home Secretary is putting forward. I do not want us to enter into an academic judicial argument of principle when the practical application should ensure that justice prevails in this country. The British people should be supported by a system which ensures that the guilty are. in fact, convicted. I hope that this House will support what the Home Secretary is doing.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I want to make one or two short interventions on this matter. Reference has just been made to the right to surrender the right to a jury in complex cases. If that right is given, why should it not apply to all cases? That, indeed, was one proposal in the Bill. The answer was simply that if there is a right in all cases, when the jury sit in a jury case, in a number

1951
of cases they will say, "Why hasn't he chosen a judge alone? This surely means that he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes". Largely for that reason, the proposal was rejected and, I believe, rightly so. I believe that we should have a trial process which is appropriate throughout.
My second point is that the percentage of success in long fraud cases was quoted as being, I believe, in the region of 80 per cent. I stress that that figure was achieved without the procedure alterations which have been advised and to which the Government have paid no attention at all. There is no reason not to expect that the figure of 80 per cent will increase if the procedures are improved. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that the amendment is not appropriate and that we should stick to juries throughout.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that jury trial carries the perception of a better class of justice— certainly with the minorities. That perception will not be brought to an end. It is based in part on sheer prejudice but also in part on the fact that judges subconsciously have a bias pro prosecution. That is understandable. At least 90 per cent of prosecution cases have been thoroughly investigated and proceedings brought as a result. The judge becomes case-hardened and says to himself, consciously or subconsciously, "I have heard all this before". That is one reason for the perception. But the perception is there; it is very strong; and we ignore it at our peril.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have listened with great care to everything that noble Lords have said. I was a little surprised by the lack of temperance on the part of both the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Thomas of Gresford. Noble Lords will know that, on occasions too numerous to mention, I have commended your Lordships' House for the dedication and thoroughness with which it has addressed these issues. But perhaps I may say with the utmost gentleness that I do not consider the way that the issues relating to juries were dealt with necessarily have been your Lordships' finest moment.
This House has had a tradition of scrutinising Bills thoroughly and well. First, we debate them extensively in Committee. It is our custom to use the Committee stage for that purpose. We discuss Bills clause by clause, often examining the pros and cons of each and every comma and word in the clauses. However, we did not give Part 7 of this Bill our customary care. Your Lordships will know that we had one long, extended and very full debate, after which the whole of this part of the Bill was struck down. We thus deprived ourselves of our usual opportunity for detailed scrutiny. That is something which, speaking entirely for myself, I deeply regretted.
One of the joys of going through a Bill—a joy it is on occasion, although not always—is that we are able to debate together with great particularity how we should weigh one element of a Bill against another. After that, on Report, we usually craft something which we can then go on to divide upon where we disagree. Before we congratulate ourselves too much,
1952
it is right that we should have the humility to accept that in dealing with Part 7 we did not do that. Some noble Lords will say that thereby we did not do our duty, so I deeply regret the failure of this House to engage in detailed and constructive debate on these provisions.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister making a virtue of the fact that the Bill suffered from a lack of defenders?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No, my Lords. It did not suffer from a lack of defenders, but this part of the Bill suffered from a lack of scrutiny. We were entitled to undertake that scrutiny because we believe that it would have advantaged the House to be able to hear the detail.
I turn to the questions raised specifically on Amendment No. 32 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 32A. I agree that it is somewhat curious that those who support the right to jury trial—among others, the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Thomas of Gresford, did so—say that they wish to deny the defendant the right not to have a jury trial. That is an odd arrangement.
I appreciate that in my opening I conflated the two amendments. In due course I shall deal with Amendment No. 42 in its proper place by addressing our amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is right to point to the issues of complexity and length in trials. I respectfully agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked about the special ability that the judge has. The noble Lord knows that, if there is a particular need, it is usual for the Lord Chancellor or the list office to alight upon a judge who may have the type of experience, through practice or through sitting in a certain division—the Commercial Division judges are not unfamiliar with commercial and other frauds— that makes him or her more suited to dealing with certain trials. That is an advantage.
I turn to my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon. Without reservation I say to him that we too greatly value and respect the jury system. The noble and learned Lord will remember that each time there has been an encroachment on jury trials, there has been an outcry that that will mean the end of the jury. The noble and learned Lord will remember the tears that were shed for the loss of peremptory challenges. No longer would we be able to challenge jurors when choosing a panel. The noble Lord will remember the tears shed in relation to the abandonment of unanimity and the move to majority verdicts. That was supposed to signal the end of jury trials as we know them. Juries are still with us.
The arguments made in relation to this part of the Bill were also made, as I understand from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, in New Zealand. People in New Zealand thought that such measures would mean the end of the system as they knew it. But the provisions have rarely been used and they have

1953
been targeted on those cases that really need them. Further, the judge retains a discretion about whether the provisions should be used.
I am curious and somewhat taken aback by the hostility aimed at Clause 41, because it gives defendants a choice that they do not have at present about the way in which they are tried. We find it puzzling that noble Lords opposite are so vehement in their defence of a defendant's right to choose one context, but should oppose this reasonable right. We shall stand firm on the matter.
We also intend to stand firm on the other provisions in Part 7 which deal with those who seek to manipulate the system to evade justice. Clauses 43 and 45 provide an effective and a proportionate solution to the increasing problems of jury tampering and Clause 42, to which I have already spoken and to which I turn again briefly, does that too. New Zealand is not alone in benefiting from using these provisions. I am sure noble Lords are aware that they are also used in the United States, Canada and Australia. We do not seek to do anything that is terribly novel.
I have not dealt with the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. We are not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. We are being absolutely frank about what is happening. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity is right to say that we have to be realistic when considering how the provisions will be viewed and that members of the public who will be asked to participate in these trials will be very concerned about the extent of the duty that they will be invited to undertake. I am gratified to hear the acceptance by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that such fraud trials can be long, very difficult and complex. His experience is that on occasion jurors are not able to deal with them appropriately or at all.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised the issue of the Serious Fraud Office and its conviction rate. This matter is not about conviction rates. We do not seek to raise the conviction rates in this regard. These provisions attempt to address real problems in trying to manage certain fraud cases. The conviction rate reflects not the difficulty of rendering such cases manageable for jurors but the damage that is done to the public interest when it is not possible to try defendants on charges that truly represent the extent of their alleged offending. That was a matter underscored by my noble friend Lord Borrie.
Perhaps I can explain the purpose of the government's amendments.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if the Minister is saying that these provisions will not affect the conviction rate, that means that we are getting matters roughly right. If we are getting matters roughly right, why alter the situation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that the Serious Fraud Office has made it plain that there are cases that it chooses not to bring before the courts because of their complexity, length and difficulty. Already a sifting process is
1954
taking place. We wish to see all those cases that should properly be brought to court, brought to court. In speaking to the amendment earlier I said that the Government were concerned about cases in which there were secondary participants against whom proceedings were not taken in order to enable the case to go forward. That is not justice and we should be able to deal with the principal and the subsidiary aiders and abettors.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, has the Serious Fraud Office told the noble Baroness how many cases it has not brought to court because of complexity? She says that there have been such cases so I ask how many.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not have the numbers. I see the noble Lord shaking his head. I do not know whether he suggests that that is not a problem or a difficulty or whether he suggests that this matter is being fabricated.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the noble Baroness made an assertion that we are entitled to assume was evidentially based. I merely ask her to give the House that evidence.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am certainly willing to write to the noble Lord setting out those matters. These are Commons amendments.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that she is willing to write to me, which is extremely kind of her. Is she willing to write me with that information before the Bill returns to the House later today?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord knows the answer to that question: I shall use my best endeavours. I hope the House accepts that on each occasion I have given such an undertaking, that is precisely what I have done. On no occasion when a question has been asked of me have I not sought to comply with it in its entirety. I hope that the House will accept that I have treated all Members with the utmost courtesy and care.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am not suggesting for one moment that the noble Baroness has not treated the House with courtesy, but she made an assertion which is evidential. I do not ask her to write to me; I simply ask her to give the House the evidence.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that it is the speaker's choice to give way. My noble friend has given way on, I think, five occasions. The noble Lord has had an answer to his question. I sense that the mood of the House is that the matter should cease at that point.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I have absolutely no doubt whatever that my noble friend's statement

1955
can be substantiated. What is more important to this House on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is whether the noble Lord's view would change if the answer is confirmed.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government's amendments respond to concerns about the possibility that Clause 42, as currently drafted, risks widening the potential application of the clause to cases which are not akin to fraud. That matter has been raised on a number of occasions. The Government have therefore thought very carefully about how to craft Amendment No. 42. They accept that the danger of cases slipping through which are not akin to fraud is in fact negligible.
The reference to,
"of a financial or commercial nature or which relate to property",
is one element only of a deliberately high and cumulative test. None the less, we have listened and we have amended Clause 42 to restrict its application fairly and squarely to serious fraud trials, which is the main mischief to which the clause was directed.
Let me emphasise that in the light of the comments made in another place, these amendments in no way serve to fetter the discretion of a judge. That is certainly not the intention, nor, I respectfully suggest, is it the effect. The judge will continue to need to satisfy himself that the condition in subsection (4) is met regarding the length and/or complexity of the trial. He will also need to have regard to any step which could be taken to reduce the length and/or complexity of the trial. Your Lordships will find that set out in subsection (6).
I hope that in the light of these amendments the House will be able to reconsider its decision.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she undertake to send a copy of the moving and restrained prologue to her speech—in which she summarised how your Lordships deal with matters of this kind and reflected on any failure to do so—to the Home Secretary before he next talks about the advantages of the guillotine system?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can only reassure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is assiduous in his reading and absorption of the matters that go on in your Lordships' House. I am sure that he will have the advantage of looking at Hansard. I make it plain that we shall deal first with the amendments regarding Clause 41. In the next group I shall move the amendment on issues relating to fraud.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for the courtesy with which she has always listened to debate in the House. She has always given way. I intervened only when I thought she had finished. The House pays her every possible respect for the graciousness with which she approaches these debates; it does not mean that we always agree with her.
1956
I do not think that the House would want me to answer all the points made. However, I should like to deal with the point on Clause 41. There was an extensive debate in the other place on that clause. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and to my noble friend Lord Renton that I thought that the point was adequately dealt with in that debate. Perhaps I may quote the words of the Labour Member of Parliament, Vera Baird. She went into all the reasons why the opt-out should not be allowed. She then remarked that if her right honourable friend the Home Secretary was concerned about safeguarding the principle of jury trial,
"he cannot allow it to become optional. Once it becomes optional, the reasons why the option is exercised will bring the principle into disrepute. That is the slippery slope on which we are starting today with clause 41".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/03; col. 674.]
I hope he will accept that I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made a very persuasive series of comments on that issue.
I should like to spend time dealing with other points, but I think that we are willing to proceed to a decision. All I would say in conclusion is that I believe Mr Blunkett has under-estimated the reasons why we feel so strongly that these clauses should not form part of the Bill. They should in fact have been in another Bill—a mode of trial Bill. That has always been our case. We then could have had the proper research into the jury system that we should have before we start restricting the principle.
I close by quoting Lord Devlin, who said that trial by jury is,
"the lamp that shows freedom lives".
In this House that means a great deal. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 196; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Addington, L.

Buscombe, B.

Alderdice, L.

Byford, B.

Ampthill, L.

Caithness, E.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Arran, E.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Attlee, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Avebury, L.

Chadlington, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chalfont, L.

Biffen, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Blaker, L.

Cobbold, L.

Blatch, B.

Cockfield, L.

Bowness, L.

Colwyn, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Bridgeman, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bridges, L.

Crathorme

Brigstocke, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Cumberlege, B.

1957

Dahrendorf, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Montrose, D.

Denham, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Dholakia, L.[Teller]

Moser, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Naseby, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Newby, L.

Elles, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Noakes, B.

Elton, L.

Northesk, E.

Ezra, L.

Northover, B.

Falkland, V.

Norton of Louth, L.

Feldman, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Onslow, E.

Flather, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fookes, B.

Patten, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Peel, E.

Fowler, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Freeman, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Geraint, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Glentoran, L.

Plumb, L.

Goodhart, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Goschen, V.

Prior, L.

Greaves, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hamwee, B.

Razzall, L.

Hanham, B.

Reay, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rees, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Henley, L.

Rennard, L.

Higgins, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hogg, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rogan, L.

Home, E.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hooson, L.

Roper, L.

Howe, E.

Rotherwick, L

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Russell, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Jacobs, L.

Sandberg, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Jopling, L.

Sandwich, E.

Kimball, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Kingsland, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kirkham, L.

Selborne, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Selsdon, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Sharman, L.

Laird, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Sharpies, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Lindsay, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Stern, B.

Lucas, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Luke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Tebbit, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Thomas of Gresford, L.

L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McNally, L.

Tordoff, L.

Maddock, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Trumpington, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Marlesford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Vivian, L.

Methuen, L.

Waddington, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Wakeham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

1958

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Wilcox, B.

Walmsley,B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Warnock, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B

Alli, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Andrews, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Berkeley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bhatia, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Billingham, B.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jordan, L.

Borrie, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Bragg, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brookman, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L

Chorley, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Christopher, L.

Marsh, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mitchell, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Monson, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Nickson, L.

Crawley, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L

Davies of Coity, L.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Pitkeathley, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Desai, L.

Radice, L.

Dixon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dubs, L.

Renton, L.

Elder, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Sawyer, L.

Chancellor)

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Falkender, B.

Simon, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Filkin, L.

Stallard, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gale, B.

Strange, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen,B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gilbert, L.

Thornton, B.

Golding, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Turnberg, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Goudie, B.

Uddin, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Warner, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Gregson, L.

Weatherill, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Whitaker.B.

Harrison, L.

Whitty, L.

Haskel,L.

Wilkins,B.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
4.28 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
33 Leave out Clause 42
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
33A Clause 42, page 28, line 34, after "where" insert "(a)"
33B Page 28, line 35, at end insert "and
(b) notice has been given under section 51B of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (notices in serious or complex fraud cases) in respect of that offence or those offences."
33C Page 28, line 39, leave out "both of the following conditions are" and insert "the following condition is"
33D Page 28, line 42, leave out "The first" and insert "That"
33E Page 29, line 3, leave out subsection (5)
33F Page 29, line 9, leave out "both of those conditions are" and insert "that condition is"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33A to 33F to the words so restored to the Bill. I spoke to this group of amendments with the previous group; I commend the Commons amendments.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33A to 33F to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral 33G Lord Hunt of Wirral rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33A to 33F to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 33".
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 33 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 33A to 33F to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 33".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33G) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 197; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Addington, L.

Biffen, L.

Alderdice, L.

Blaker, L.

Ampthill, L.

Blatch, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Arran, E.

Boothroyd, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bowness, L.

Attlee, E.

Bradshaw, L.

Avebury, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Barker, B.

Bridges, L.

1960

Brigstocke, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Buscombe, B.

Luke, L.

Byford, B.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Maclennan of Rogart,L.

Carlile of Berriew,L.

McNally,L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Maddock, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Chadlington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Chalfont, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Methuen, L.

Cobbold, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Colwyn, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Crathome, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu,L.

Crickhowell, L.

Montrose, D.

Cumberlege, B.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Naseby, L.

Dholakia, L. [Teller]

Newby, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dundee, E.

Noakes, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Northesk, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northover, B.

Elles, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Ezra, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Falkland, V.

Patten, L.

Feldman, L.

Peel, E.

Ferrers, E.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fookes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean,L.

Phillips of Sudbury. L.

Fowler, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Freeman, L.

Plumb, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Geraint, L.

Prior, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rawlings, B.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L.

Greaves, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rees, L.

Hanham, B.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Rennard, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Henley, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Higgins, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Rogan, L.

Hogg, B.

Roper, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Home, E.

Russell, E.

Hooson, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Howe, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Sandberg, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sandwich, E.

Jacobs, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B.

Jopling, L.

Selborne, E.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Selsdon, L.

Kimball, L.

Sharman, L.

Kingsland, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Kirkham, L.

Sharpies, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Shaw of Northstead,L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Laird, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stern, B.

1961

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strange, B.

Vivian, L.

Strathclyde,L

Waddington, L.

Swinfen, L

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Tebbit, L

Wakeham, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Thomas of Gresford,B

Wallace of Sahaire, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Walmsley, B.

Thomson of Monifieth,L.

Warnock, B.

Tordoff, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Trefgame, L.

Wilcox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Harrison, L.

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Hayman, B.

Andrews, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hoyle, L.

Billingham, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Borrie, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bragg, L.

Islwyn, L.

Brett, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brookman, L.

Jones, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jordan, L.

Burlison, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Carter, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Chorley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Christopher, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

L.

Colville of Culross, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Crawley, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. (Teller)

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Moser, L.

Donoughue, L.

Nickson, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dubs, L.

Pendry, L.

Elder, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside,L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting,L.

Radice,L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Chancellor)

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Falkender,B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rooker,L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gale,B.

Simon,V.

Gibson of Market Rasen,B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gilbert, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Golding, B.

Stallard,L.

Goldsmith, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris;, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Gregson, L.

Turnberg, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Warner, L.

1962

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Whitty,L.

Wilkins,B.

Weathenill,L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Whitaker, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
4.42 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
34 Clause 43, Leave out Clause 43
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
34A Page 29, line 26, after second "is" insert "evidence of a"
34B Clause 43, page 29, line 37, at end insert—

"(7) The following are examples of cases where there may be evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place—

(a)a case where the trial is a retrial and the jury in the previous trial was discharged because jury tampering had taken place,

(b)a case where jury tampering has taken place in previous criminal proceedings involving the defendant or any of the defendants,

(c)a case where there has been intimidation, or attempted intimidation, of any person who is likely to be a witness in the trial."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B to the words so restored to the Bill.
I come now to Clause 43 which, together with Clause 45, is concerned with the serious and persistent problem of jury tampering. The background to these provisions is the increasingly sophisticated and determined attempts that are made in our courts to interfere with the course of justice by tampering with the jury. When the nature and extent of jury tampering threatens the fairness of the trial, the courts currently have no option other than to discharge the jury and terminate the trial, which clearly does not serve the interests of justice. Nor can we possibly expect members of the public who have given up their time to serve on a jury to undergo the stress and anxiety of actual intimidation, a genuine fear of intimidation or the misery of round-the-clock surveillance over a significant period of time.
Clauses 43 and 45 together provide a strong and effective deterrent to those who would seek to wreck trials and subvert due process by tampering with the jury. They send out a clear message that attempts to pervert the course of justice in that way will not be tolerated. Far from undermining the jury, the proposals will protect its integrity. I emphasise that the clauses are intended as a last resort. Jury protection measures will be appropriate and effective in most cases when there is a risk of tampering. I also remind the House that the test for jury exclusion in these

1963
circumstances is a high one, and deliberately so: we anticipate that only a handful of cases each year will meet it.
Police protection is available when the court considers that there is a substantial risk that the jury may be subject to intimidation. In the most serious cases, 24-hour police protection may be ordered, with officers accompanying jurors to their homes and other places outside the court. Over the past three years, that level of jury protection has been provided in approximately four to five trials per year. The cost to the Metropolitan Police over the past two years for full jury protection has been £9 million. That is equivalent to 26,627 police days a year diverted from mainstream policing in London, or an additional 130 officers on the beat.
Increasingly, however, organised and sophisticated criminals are able to intimidate jurors despite protective measures, including full police protection. Jurors' mail, telephone calls and bank accounts are, quite rightly, not vetted. Nor are members of their family protected. Current protection arrangements cannot prevent approaches by means of telephone calls, letters, bribery or attacks—or threatened attacks—upon family members. Clauses 43 and 45 are designed specifically to deal with situations that the existing measures cannot satisfactorily address.
Questions have been asked on a number of occasions, within and without this House, about the extent and seriousness of the problem of jury tampering. As far as seriousness is concerned, I have already referred to the four to five cases each year that require full jury protection. The Association of Chief Police Officers recently reported evidence of an increasing problem of jury tampering. Chris Fox, its president, wrote about this issue on 27th October describing,
"a clear picture of an ominous and growing problem",
which is, moreover, increasingly not confined to London and other big conurbations such as Liverpool, but in evidence throughout the country.
If serious jury tampering is allowed to continue and allowed to succeed unchecked, the outlook is grim. In a letter to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, Ian Blair, Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and John Burbeck, head of criminal justice at ACPO, outlined their fears of the possible consequences in the following way:
"There is a tier of criminals in this country who are prepared to go to any lengths to evade justice. It is a fact that jury intimidation exists as a consequence of those people. If the current system cannot cope with the threat, and if the system is not improved, there will be a group of violent, sophisticated and dangerous criminals who may truly become untouchable".
A few recent examples make the point all too vividly. In August 2002, at Liverpool Crown Court, the trial of six defendants for serious drug offences collapsed because of jury tampering. Two jurors were threatened and a third juror was offered £10,000 to return a verdict of not guilty. The trial was in its fifth week and is estimated to have cost in excess of £1 million. In autumn 2001 at Kingston Crown Court, jurors
1964
hearing a case had their cars sprayed with paint stripper. The jury was discharged and special protection was given to the retrial jury. During a trial in the west Midlands in July 1999, in which several witnesses were physically assaulted, three members of the jury were threatened on their way home from the court. The jury foreman was approached by a man who gestured that he was going to shoot him. Those are not fanciful cases; they are real, pressing and pernicious.
We have said, throughout the passage of the Bill, that we would welcome constructive suggestions for improving it. It is with great regret that I say that they have not been forthcoming in the way that we would have liked in relation to Part 7. None the less, the Government moved amendments to Clauses 43 and 45 when the Bill was debated yesterday in another place, in the hope of finding a way forward on these important provisions.
The Government's amendments to Clause 43 put beyond doubt the fact that there must be evidence of a real and present danger of jury tampering before the first condition for a trial to be conducted in the absence of a jury is met. Amendment No. 34B inserts a new subsection at the end of the clause that gives examples of the sort of evidence that may be involved. It states that they are:

"(a) a case where the trial is a retrial and the jury in the previous trial was discharged because jury tampering had taken place,

(b)a case where jury tampering has taken place in previous criminal proceedings involving the defendant or any of the defendants,

(c)a case where there has been intimidation, or attempted intimidation, of any person who is likely to be a witness in the trial".

I hope that the amendments make it abundantly plain, if it was not before, that there is no question of the police and/or prosecution simply whispering in the judge's ear, in order to secure a juryless trial. Firm and substantial evidence of risk will be needed for an application for juryless trial to succeed. Our amendments make that clear and, in doing so, answer the concerns expressed by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and those voiced in the other place by others who have spoken.
Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B, to Clause 45, also attempt to find a way forward. They take on board opposition amendments tabled in Committee and on Report in another place. They make it clear that jury tampering must be the primary cause of the jury discharge and that the judge, having discharged the jury, must make an order for the trial to continue without a jury only if he or she is,
"satisfied that jury tampering has taken place".
Yesterday, in another place, the Opposition tabled amendments to Clauses 43 and 45, with the aim of further limiting the already restricted circumstances in which a juryless trial could take place, where there is tampering or the risk of it. I must confess that I share the puzzlement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about those amendments. They are not entirely logical.

1965
The illogicality is apparent in the fact that they set a different test to be satisfied in respect of each clause. During yesterday's debate, Mr Dominic Grieve, the honourable Member for Beaconsfield, explained that that was because the test in respect of the risk of tampering should set a higher threshold than the test in Clause 45 for cases in which tampering has actually occurred. As the Government's amendments to Clause 43, I hope, make clear, evidence of jury tampering in a previous trial is, precisely, an example of the type of evidence that might be presented as evidence of a risk that jury tampering would take place. It also does not make sense to acknowledge the burden on the jury of police protection in one set of circumstances and disregard it in similar circumstances.
That condition addresses the question of whether we can reasonably expect members of the public to come forward and undergo the stress and anxiety of actual intimidation or a genuine fear of intimidation and the misery of round-the-clock surveillance over a lengthy period. Clearly, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition and others who sit opposite do not share our deep concern.
The amendments tabled by the Opposition in another place also ratchet up the interests of justice test in Clauses 43 and 45 to require there to be a "great" or "overwhelming" likelihood that jury tampering would take place notwithstanding any steps that might be taken to prevent it. I understand the concerns that underlie the amendments. It is our belief that the clauses already meet those concerns. If I can paraphrase what was said in the other place, I can assure Mr Grieve that they already require the court to make examinations in minute detail, before ordering that a trial be conducted or continued without a jury. In responding to that point, I invite the House to remember that Clause 43 draws on existing case law on jury protection applications, which requires the judge to order full police protection for the jury only where there is a real and present danger of jury tampering.
We cannot accept the Opposition's amendment to Clause 45, which would remove the judge's power to continue the trial alone, following discharge of the jury because of tampering. The amendment is based on concerns about the impartiality of the judge, who, having heard information that may be prejudicial to the defendant, goes on to sit as fact finder in the trial. However, I remind the House that judges routinely direct themselves to disregard prejudicial evidence. Having detailed knowledge of such information does not necessarily mean that the judge must automatically be considered prejudiced. Rather, the key question must be whether there are any ascertainable facts that would raise legitimate and objectively justified doubts about a judge's impartiality, and we are not convinced that in such cases, in general, there will be. I remind your Lordships that the judge will be able to do justice in such a situation, as he will have a discretion.
Of course, a judge who felt unable to take on a case because he or she feared that he or she would not be able to hear it with the requisite impartiality would not be obliged to do so. That established principle is already reflected in the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in expressing confidence in the ability of
1966
the judge to exercise discretion in that way and to discharge himself or herself, if he or she feels that that would be in the interests of justice.
Several questions were asked about the way in which prosecution applications under Clause 43 would be made in circumstances involving sensitive information. The Government are confident that existing public interest immunity procedures are fair and effective and do not in any way endanger the rights of defendants. We are also confident that they will work equally well when used in the course of an application under Clause 43.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
34C Lord Hunt of Wirral rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 34".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that Amendment No. 36C is consequential on Amendment No. 34C.
I want to make the point that, to some extent, we have already covered this subject in the opening debate when we responded to the Minister in covering a range of situations relating to non-jury trial. However, when the Minister read out that portion of her speech which did not seem to come from her, but rather from a written document—the point at which she remarked that she believed that those opposing this clause did not understand the depth of the Government's concern—I believe that she made a grave error. During these debates we have constantly declared war on any form of intimidation and we want to join with the Government in ensuring not only that the intimidation of a jury does not take place, but that the intimidation of a judge—some very serious cases have been reported recently—of parties or of witnesses also does not take place. At some stage we would welcome a dialogue with the Minister and her colleagues on seeking to increase the sentences for jury tampering, judge or witness tampering, or other intimidation of any of the parties. At the moment the penalties are not sufficiently severe. We declare war on intimidation of any kind.
All I wish to say in addition to my previous comments is that I thought that my honourable friend Mr Grieve went into considerable detail in explaining his amendment. However, it was not tabled yesterday, like the government amendments; it was tabled six months ago. When the Minister takes credit for having come forward with these amendments, it should be noted that the Government produced them only 36 hours ago, but we are talking about a debate that took place in this House on 15th July. Only yesterday morning did we first see the Government's proposed new wording.
Furthermore, there are defects. Members of all parties are nervous about allowing a judge who has just received evidence of jury tampering then to continue to sit on his own. When Mr Marshall-Andrews spoke yesterday from the Labour Back Benches to agree with the points that my honourable friend Mr Grieve was making, that was a most telling intervention. So we ask again: please may we have co-operation from the Government to arrive at a formula that would meet this very serious situation? In effect, I am saying: please may we have some constructive engagement instead of sudden, last-minute amendments which are defective—those defects were pointed out yesterday in the other place? We need to get this right. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 34 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 34A and 34B to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 34".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)
5 p.m.
Lord Morris of Aberavon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for her careful explanation of what is intended. As we know, real difficulties can arise in certain cases. Fortunately, as she explained, they are few in number, but the difficulties relate to very serious cases which involve substantial allegations. I have some experience of this, having been for some two-and-a-half years the Attorney-General with responsibility for Northern Ireland.
The purpose of my intervention is to say this: given the background of what we are dealing with, can my noble friend tell us whether she is satisfied that no difficulties would arise from the first sentence of Amendment No. 34B, in seeking to prove,
"where there may be evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering might take place"?
Is such evidence to be heard in open court, obviously on oath? Further, does she envisage any of the same problems arising from proving this particular requirement?
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, claimed that Amendment No. 36C is consequential on Amendment No. 34C. While I realise that I am deficient in legal expertise, that does not appear to be so; they are quite separate matters. Clause 45 stands alone and is not dependent on the passing of Clause 43.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise briefly to assist the noble Lord, Lord Monson. We took advice on this from the Clerk at the Table and consulted the Government. We have all received the same advice. That was the reason why my noble friend Lord Hunt referred to Amendment No. 36C being consequential on Amendment No. 34C.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, intimidation is something that must be attacked and Members on
1968
these Benches join with all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Nothing in this clause would do anything about intimidation. It provides that, if there has been intimidation, any subsequent trial would be held without a jury.
The Minister referred to the cost of protecting juries. No doubt there is a considerable cost, but members of a jury come from the community and they disappear back into the community at the end of their term of jury service, whatever that may be. Therefore they would need to be protected for only a short time. Judges involved in terrorist cases in this country are provided with 24-hour protection for seven days a week. The position is the same in Northern Ireland, where heavy protection is provided for judges all the time. One wonders about the cost of that.
I say that because in Northern Ireland a judge has been murdered, while in continental systems and in other parts of the world, judges are assassinated from time to time. When we are dealing with serious crime, we must provide full-time protection in those circumstances. So no saving in costs would be made as a result of these provisions. In fact, the costs incurred in protecting juries referred to by the Minister would be rather modest when compared with some of the costs of police protection being incurred today. That is no argument for abolishing the right to trial by jury. We are with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in opposition to the Government's plans.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, first, I should like to emphasise in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon that the test now applied to have a jury covered for 24 hours a day is very much the same: it is a "real and present danger". Taking the four or five cases that I have already mentioned, the judge must already be satisfied in relation to that test before he would authorise 24-hour protection. We do not think that there would be any difficulty about that. It is clear that the judge will have to assess the potential risk of tampering on the basis of the evidence before him. It would need to be clear and cogent evidence, whatever form it takes and whatever its nature.
Our amendment simply gives examples. We do not say that these are the totality of circumstances that the court must take into account. We have given them as an exemplar of the quality of evidence that we think would need to be presented before the court could be satisfied that providing protection would be a proper thing to do.
We can draw comfort from the fact that judges dealing with such cases have used the provision of 24-hour protection very sparingly. One of the reasons for that— one cited on an earlier occasion—is that if one looks at the conviction rate, it would appear that there is a slightly higher conviction rate for those juries under protection than otherwise. That may be due simply to the weight of the evidence, but there is a significant difference and it is something that we must consider.
I shall take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the costs incurred in providing protection for judges. I believe that I said

1969
earlier in my remarks that it is easier to protect one judge than it is to protect 12 jurors. The nature of the protection is different.
The robustness of our judges is also different. They take on an enormous responsibility on behalf of the public and discharge it with honour. I pay particular credit to the judges in Northern Ireland who have been discharging that duty in Diplock courts with real courage, dedication and fairness for many years. We do not doubt for a second that we have judges of the kind, nature and calibre necessary to discharge this duty, not only in terms of their own personal courage but also in terms of the way in which they will address matters in the interests of justice.
I can assure the noble Lord that this is not a cost-cutting exercise. We do not believe that we will save money, but neither do we shy away from addressing the issue. We believe that it is right to take this opportunity. A very senior judge indeed mentioned to me that he had spent the last three years of his practice conducting one trial. At the first trial, through some happenstance, inappropriate material managed to get in front of the jury in almost the twelfth month. The first jury was discharged. It was genuinely thought that there had been successful interference with the jury—tampering.
The second trial proceeded for almost a year when one day a juror ran from the jury box in a state of distress, declaring that he could go on no longer knowing that other members of the jury were in receipt of money and had been tampered with. That trial came to an end and the juror was subsequently prosecuted. The third trial again took a year.
The point that was made to me was that if those serial criminals had known that the consequence of seeking to tamper with the first jury was likely to be a trial by judge alone, they probably would not have done it in the first place. They may have considered that being tried by 12 good men and women true would be a better option for them. So the fact that there is a backstop of this nature may well act as a deterrent to those who would wrongly seek to undermine the interests of justice.
That was told to me by a very senior judge indeed who had, before that three-year experience, been of a view similar to the one expressed in this House on previous occasions. We are dealing with a very different world today than in the past—a world in which my noble and learned friend Lord Morris was privileged to serve.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, perhaps I may say one word, and say it very briefly. All this discussion about physical protection for the jury overlooks the bribery element.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the debate has now concluded and we should now proceed to a decision on the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I join with the Minister in paying tribute to our judiciary. Such
1970
support comes from all sides of the House. That is why we have tabled a whole series of amendments to the Bill which are designed to uphold the independence of the judiciary in which we have such confidence.
We have debated the issue. I hope that there will be constructive engagement. I believe that I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we want to stamp out jury intimidation—let us unite; let us have constructive engagement—but, as yet, the Government's new clauses, which appeared for the first time yesterday, have not got it right. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 187; Not-Contents, 135.

Division> No.3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Alderdice, L.

Flather, B.

Ampthill, L.

Fookes, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Arran, E.

Fowler, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Attlee, E.

Freeman, L.

Avebury, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Barker, B.

Geraint, L.

Biffen, L.

Glentoran, L.

Blaker, L.

Goodhart, L.

Blatch, B.

Goschen, V.

Boothroyd, B.

Greaves, L.

Bowness, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Hanham, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L

Harris of Richmond, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Buscombe, B.

Henley, L.

Byford, B.

Higgins, L.

Caithness, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hogg, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow,L.

Home, E.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Hooson, L.

Chadlington, L

Howe, E.

Chalfont, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.[Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Jopling, L.

Cumberlege,B.

Kennedy of The Shaws,B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Kimball,L.

Denham, L.

Kingsland, L.

Dholakia, L. [Teller]

Kirkham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Knight of Collingtree,B.

Dundee, E.

Laing of Dunphail,L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Elles, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Elton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Ezra, L.

Liverpool, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Livsey of Talgarth,L.

Feldman, L.

Lucas, L.

1971

Lyell, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Rennard, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Renton, L.

L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

McNally, L.

Rogan, L.

Maddock, B.

Roper, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Rothenwick, L.

Mar and Kellie,E.

Russell, E.

Marlesford, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Masham of Ilton,B.

Ryder of Wensum,L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Sandberg, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Seccombe, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Selbome, E.

Montrose, D.

Selsdon, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Sharman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Naseby,L.

Sharpies, B.

Newby,L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Noakes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northesk,E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Northover, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

O'Cathain,B.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Tebbit, L.

Parkinson, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Peel, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Tordoff, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Plumb, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Prashar, B.

Vivian, L.

Prior, L.

Waddington, L.

Rawlings, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Razzall,L.

Walmsley,B.

Reay, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Redesdale,L.

Wilcox,B.

Rees,L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Acton, L.

Cobbold, L.

Alli,L.

Cohen of Pimlico,B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Andrews, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Crawley, B.

Ashton of Upholland,B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Bach, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Berkeley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Desai, L.

Billingham, B.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Donoughue, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bragg, L.

Dubs, L.

Brett, L.

Elder, L.

Bridges, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Brookman, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Chancellor)

Burlison, L.

Falkender, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Carter, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Christopher, L.

Filkin, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Finlay of Llandaff,B.

1972

Gale, B.

Mishcon, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen,B.

Mitchell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Monson, L.

Golding,B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Moser, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Goudie, B.

Oxburgh, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pendry, L.

Greenway, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Grocott,L.[Teller]

Plant of Highfield, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Radice, L.

Harrison, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Haskel, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hayman,B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rooker, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Sawyer, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon, V.

Hoyle, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Stallard, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Islwyn, L.

Strange, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Jones, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Jordan, L.

Thornton, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Tumberg, L.

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Warner, L.

Lockwood, B.

Warnock, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall,B.

Whitty,L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Wilkins, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Marsh, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to. 5.25 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
35 Clause 44, Leave out Clause 44
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
35A Because it is necessary to make provision about the procedure for applications for trials to be conducted without a jury.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 35, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 35A. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 35 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 35A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 45, Leave out Clause 45
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
36A Page 31, line 5, leave out "(or partly because)"
36B Page 31, line 12, after "jury" insert "if he is satisfied that jury tampering has taken place"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B to the words so restored to the Bill. I have spoken to these amendments with Amendment No. 34.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
36C Lord Hunt of Wirral rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 36".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34C.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36A and 36B to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 36".—(Lord Hunt of Wirral.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 46, Leave out Clause 46
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
37A Page 32, line 7, at end insert—
"(8) The Secretary of State may make an order containing provision, in relation to proceedings before the Court of Appeal under this section, which corresponds to any provision, in relation to appeals or other proceedings before that court, which is contained in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c 19) (subject to any specified modifications)."
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 37 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37A to the words so restored to the Bill. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 37 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
Leave out Clause 47
The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
38A Clause 47, page 32, line 30, at end insert—

"(6) Nothing in this Part affects—

(a)the requirement under section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) that a question of fitness to be tried be determined by a jury, or

(b)the requirement under section 4A of that Act that any question, finding or verdict mentioned in that section be determined, made or returned by a jury."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38A to the words so restored to the Bill. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
39 Clause 48, Leave out Clause 48
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
39A Because it is necessary to make provision in relation to rules of court.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 39A. I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 34.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 39A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
40 Clause 49, Leave out Clause 49
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
40A Clause 49, page 34, line 14, at end insert—
"(9A) In section 46(8) for "Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19)" substitute "Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980 (c. 47)"."
40B Clause 49, page 34, line 21, at end insert—

"(11A) In section 47(6)—

(a) for "section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84)" substitute "Article 49 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986",

1975

(b)for "section 4A of that Act" substitute "Article 49A of that Order", and

(c)for "that section" substitute "that Article"."

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40A and 40B, to the words so restored to the Bill. I have spoken to the amendments under Amendment No. 34.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40A and 40B, to the words so restored to the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
100 Clause 78, page 52, line 22, leave out "and"
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
100A Because the restrictions already imposed on the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions are sufficient
101 Page 52, line 23, at end insert ", and
(c) he has sought leave from a judge of the Crown Court on an ex-parte application."
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
101A Because the restrictions already imposed on the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions are sufficient.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 100A and 101A.
One of the important safeguards provided by the Bill in respect of retrials for serious offences is that the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be needed to authorise certain steps being taken by the police to reinvestigate a person previously acquitted of a qualifying offence. As originally drafted, the Bill provided that the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be able to give his consent to reopen an investigation unless he considered that, firstly, there was new evidence, or would be new evidence, as a result of a reinvestigation; and, secondly, that a reinvestigation would be in the public interest.
The amendment would seek to add a further requirement that the DPP should seek the leave of a Crown Court judge before consenting to a reinvestigation. We consider the amendment to be unnecessary. The Director of Public Prosecutions is senior and experienced enough to take a decision on whether to allow the police, in reopening an investigation into an acquitted person, to take the steps set out in subsection (3). He is sufficiently independent of the police to review their request for a reinvestigation. The Government consider that having him take this decision
1976
provides the necessary safeguard to ensure that the acquitted person is not being harassed by the police. At the stage of reinvestigation, it is quite proper for the decision to reinvestigate to be taken by the prosecuting authorities rather than the courts.
Involving a Crown Court judge in proceedings at this stage would also make the process more cumbersome. There are many layers of safeguard already built in to the exercise of the powers listed in subsection (3). I do not believe that requiring the DPP to secure the leave of a Crown Court judge is necessary before a reinvestigation can get to the point of the exercise of these powers. The safeguards on reinvestigation need also to be seen in context. Before there can be an application for a retrial, the DPP's consent is required again. He must be satisfied at that stage that there is new and compelling evidence and that it is in the public interest for the application to be made. That application is then determined by the Court of Appeal. We believe that it is at that stage that a judicial decision in required. As such, I invite noble Lords not to insist on this amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 100A and 101A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
114 Before Clause 90, Insert the following new Clause—
"Evidence of bad character

(1)The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) ("the 1984 Act") is amended as follows.

(2)After section 82 of the 1984 Act (Part VIII— interpretation) insert—

PART VIII A EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER
82A Bad character
References in this Part to evidence of a person's bad character are references to evidence which shows that—

(a)he has committed an offence, or

(b)he has behaved, or is disposed to behave, in a way that, in the opinion of the court, would be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person.

82B Requirement of leave

(1) In criminal proceedings, evidence of a person's bad character is admissible only with leave of the court, unless the evidence—

(a)has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or

(b)is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence.

(2) This section does not apply in relation to an item of evidence if—

(a)all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible, or

(b)in the case of evidence of the defendant's bad character, the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it.

82C Non-defendant's bad character
In the case of evidence of the bad character of a person other than the defendant, the court is not to give leave under section 82B unless the evidence falls within section 82D or 82E.
82D Evidence with explanatory value
Evidence falls within this section if—

(a)without it, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case, and

(b)its value for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

82E Evidence going to a matter in issue

(1) Evidence falls within this section if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—

(a)is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and

(b)is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.

(2)In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of this section, the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—

(a)the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence relates,

(b)when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;

(c)where—

(i) the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct, and

(ii) it is suggested that the evidence has probative value by reason of similarity between that misconduct and other alleged misconduct,

the nature and extent of the similarities and the dissimilarities between each of the alleged instances of misconduct;

(d)where—

(i) the evidence is evidence of a person's misconduct,

(ii) it is suggested that that person is also responsible for the misconduct charged, and

(iii) the identity of the person responsible for the misconduct charged is disputed,

the extent to which the evidence shows or tends to show that the same person was responsible each time.

(3) In subsection (2)(d) "misconduct charged" means the misconduct constituting the offence with which the defendant is charged.

82F Defendant's bad character
In the case of evidence of the defendant's bad character, the court is not to give leave under section 82B, unless the evidence falls within section 82G, 82H, 82I, 82J or 82K.
82G Evidence with explanatory value

(1)Evidence falls within this section if the following three conditions are met.

(2)The first condition is that, without the evidence, the court or jury would find it impossible or difficult properly to understand other evidence in the case.

(3)The second condition is that the value of the evidence for understanding the case as a whole is substantial.

(4)The third condition is that the court is satisfied—

(a) that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or

1978

(b) that the value of the evidence for understanding the case as a whole is such that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible.

82H Evidence going to a matter in issue

(1)Evidence falls within this section if the following two conditions are met.

(2)The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—

(a)s a matter in issue in the proceedings, and

(b)is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.

(3)The second condition is that the court is satisfied—

(a)that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or

(b)that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—

(i) how much probative value it has in relation to the matter in issue,

(ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on that matter, and

(iii) how important that matter is in the context of the case as a whole.

(4)In determining whether the two conditions are met, the court must have regard to the factors listed in section 5(2) (and to any others it considers relevant).

(5)For the purposes of this section, whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful is not to be regarded as a matter in issue in the proceedings.

(6)Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.

82I Evidence going to credibility

(1)This section applies only where—

(a)the defendant makes an attack on a person's character, and

(b)the effect of the attack is to suggest, or to support a suggestion, that the person has a propensity to be untruthful.

(2)For the purposes of this section, a defendant makes an attack on a person's character where—

(a)he adduces evidence of the person's bad character, other than—

(i) evidence that has to do with the alleged facts of the offence with which the defendant is charged, or

(ii) evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of that offence,

(b)he asks questions in cross-examination that are intended to elicit evidence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), or

(c)evidence is given of an assertion made about the person by the defendant—

(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or

(ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it,

1979
and the assertion is such that, if it were made in evidence, the evidence containing the assertion would be evidence of the kind referred to in paragraph (a).

(3)Evidence falls within this section if the following three conditions are met.

(4)The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in showing that the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful.

(5)The second condition is that, without the evidence, the court or jury would get an inaccurate impression of the defendant's propensity to be untruthful in comparison with that of the other person.

(6)The third condition is that the court is satisfied—

(a)that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or

(b)that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—

(i) how much probative value it has in showing that the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful,

(ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on that matter, and

(iii) how important it is, in the context of the case as a whole, to prevent the impression mentioned in subsection (5).

(7) In determining whether the three conditions are met the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—

(a)the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the defendant's attack relates and of those to which the evidence in question (the responding evidence) relates;

(b)when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;

(c)how important is the defendant's propensity to be untruthful, and that of the other person, in the context of the prosecution case and of the defence case;

(d)in a case where this section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(b), whether or not the evidence intended to be elicited is actually given;

(e)how inaccurate the impression mentioned in subsection (5) would be;

(f) where the responding evidence is of a spent conviction, the fact that the conviction is spent;

(g) any risk that admitting the responding evidence would be confusing or misleading, or would unduly prolong the proceedings.

(8) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.

82J Evidence to correct false impression

(1)This section applies only where the defendant is responsible for the making of an express or implied assertion which is apt to give the court or jury a false or misleading impression about the defenda nt.

(2)Evidence falls within this section if the following two conditions are met.

(3)The first condition is that the evidence has substantial probative value in correcting the false or misleading impression.

(4)The second condition is that the court is satisfied—

(a)that, in all the circumstances of the case, the evidence carries no risk of prejudice to the defendant, or

(b)that, taking account of the risk of prejudice, the interests of justice nevertheless require the evidence to be admissible in view of—

1980

(i) how much probative value it has in correcting the false or misleading impression,

(ii) what other evidence has been, or can be, given to correct that impression, and

(iii) how important it is, in the context of the case as a whole, for that impression to be corrected.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a defendant is responsible for the making of an assertion if—

(a)the assertion is made by the defendant in the proceedings (whether or not in evidence given by him),

(b)the assertion was made by the defendant—

(i) on being questioned under caution, before charge, about the offence with which he is charged, or

(ii) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it,

and evidence of the assertion is given in the proceedings,

(c)the assertion is made by a witness called by the defendant,

(d)the assertion is made by any witness in cross- examination in response to a question asked by the defendant and intended, in the opinion of the court, to elicit it, or

(e)the assertion was made by any person out of court, and the defendant adduces evidence of it in the proceedings.

(6)Where it appears to the court that a defendant, by means of his conduct (other than the giving of evidence) in the proceedings, is seeking to give the court or jury an impression about himself that is false or misleading, the court may if it appears just to do so treat the defendant as being responsible for the making of an assertion which is apt to give that impression.

(7)In subsection (6) "conduct" includes appearance or dress.

(8)In determining whether the two conditions are met, the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—

(a)the nature of the impression given by the assertion referred to in subsection (1), and how false or misleading that impression is;

(b)by whom and in what circumstances the assertion is or was made;

(c)the nature and number of the events, or other things, to which the evidence in question (the correcting evidence) relates;

(d)when those events or things are alleged to have happened or existed;

(e)where the correcting evidence is of a spent conviction, the fact that the conviction is spent;

(f) any risk that admitting the correcting evidence would be confusing or misleading, or would unduly prolong the proceedings.

(9) Where in proceedings before a magistrates' court—

(a)the defendant is responsible for the making of an assertion which is apt to give the court a certain impression about the defendant,

(b)the prosecution allege that the impression is false or misleading, and

(c)in reliance on this section the prosecution propose to apply for leave under section 82B to adduce or elicit evidence to correct the impression,

1981
the court must first rule (without being given any details about the evidence) whether, however false or misleading the impression may be, it is unimportant in the context of the case as a whole for it to be corrected; and if the court makes a ruling to that effect, no evidence can fall within this section in relation to the assertion in question.

(10) Only prosecution evidence can fall within this section.

82K Evidence going to an issue between co-defendants

(1)Evidence falls within this section if it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which—

(a)is a matter in issue between the defendant and a co- defendant, and

(b)is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.

(2)For the purposes of this section, evidence is not to be treated as having the probative value mentioned in subsection (1) by virtue of its relevance to the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful unless the nature or conduct of his defence is such as to undermine the co-defendant's defence.

(3)In assessing the probative value of evidence for the purposes of this section, the court must have regard to the factors listed in section 82B(2) (and to any others it considers relevant).

(4)Only evidence—

(a)which is to be (or has been) adduced by the co- defendant, or

(b)which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross-examination by the

co-defendant, can fall within this section.

82L Trying more than one offence together

(1)In section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 (c. 90) (orders for separate trial etc) insert after subsection (2)—

"(2A) Where—

(a)a person is charged with more than one offence in the same indictment,

(b)the prosecution propose to adduce evidence which is admissible in relation to one of the offences but which, in relation to another, is evidence of the person's bad character and is inadmissible, and

(c)the person applies before trial for an order that the offences mentioned in paragraph (b) above be tried separately,

the court shall grant the application unless satisfied that trying the offences together would not prevent the defendant having a fair trial.

(2B) The reference in subsection (2A) above to evidence of the person's bad character shall be read in accordance with section 82A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60)."

(2)In subsection (3) of that section, after 'before trial" insert "(in a case not falling within subsection (2A) above)".

(3)Where in proceedings before a magistrates' court—

(a)it is proposed that the defendant be tried for two or more offences together,

(b)the prosecution propose to adduce evidence which is admissible in relation to one of the offences but which, in relation to another, is evidence of the person's bad character and is inadmissible, and

(c)the defendant objects before trial to the offences mentioned in paragraph (b) being tried together,

the court may order those offences to be tried together only if satisfied that doing so would not prevent the defendant having a fair trial.

82M Stopping the case where evidence contaminated

(1) If on a defendant's trial on indictment for an offence—

(a) evidence of his bad character has been admitted with leave under section 82B, and

1982

(b) the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that—

(i) the evidence is contaminated, and

(ii) the contamination is such that, considering the importance of the evidence to the case against the defendant, his conviction of the offence would be unsafe,

the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury.

(2)Where—

(a)a jury is directed under subsection (1) to acquit a defendant of an offence, and

(b)the circumstances are such that, apart from this subsection, the defendant could if acquitted of that offence be found guilty of another offence, the defendant may not be found guilty of that other offence if the court is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (l)(b) in respect of it.

(3) If-

(a)a jury is required to determine under section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c. 84) whether a person charged on an indictment with an offence did the act or made the omission charged,

(b)evidence of the person's bad character has been admitted with leave under section 82B, and

(c)the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that—

(i) the evidence is contaminated, and

(ii) the contamination is such that, considering the importance of the evidence to the case against the person, a finding that he did the act or made the omission would be unsafe,

the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a rehearing, discharge the jury.

(4)This section does not prejudice any other power a court may have to direct a jury to acquit a person of an offence or to discharge a jury.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a person's evidence is contaminated where—

(a)as a result of an agreement or understanding between the person and one or more others, or

(b)as a result of the person being aware of anything alleged by one or more others who are, or could be, witnesses in the proceedings, the evidence is false or misleading in any respect, or is different from what it would otherwise have been.

82N Assumption of truth in assessment of probative value

(1)Subject to subsection (2), a reference in this Act to the probative value of evidence is a reference to its probative value on the assumption that it is true.

(2)In assessing the probative value of an item of evidence for ny purpose of this Act, a court need not assume that the evidence s true if it appears, on the basis of any material before the court including any evidence it decides to hear on the matter), that no ourt or jury could reasonably find it to be true.

82O Court's duty to give reasons for rulings

(1) Where the court makes a relevant ruling—

(a)must state in open court (but in the absence of the jury, if there is one) its reasons for the ruling;

(b)if it is a magistrates' court, it must cause the ruling and the reasons for it to be entered in the register of the court's proceedings.

1983

(2) In this section "relevant ruling" means—

(a)a ruling on whether an item of evidence is admissible only with leave under section 82B;

(b)a decision whether to give leave under that section;

(c)a ruling under section 82M.

82P Rules of court

(1)Rules of court may make such provision as appears to the appropriate authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act; and the appropriate authority is the authority entitled to make the rules.

(2)The rules may require a party who—

(a)proposes to adduce evidence of a defendant's bad character that is admissible only with leave under section 82B, or

(b)proposes to cross-examine a witness with a view to eliciting such evidence,

to serve on the defendant such notice, and such particulars of or relating to the evidence, as may be prescribed.

(3)The rules may provide that the court or the defendant may, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, dispense with a requirement imposed by virtue of subsection (2).

(4)If a party fails to comply with a requirement that has been imposed in relation to an item of evidence by virtue of subsection (2) (and not dispensed with by virtue of subsection (3)) the court may take the failure into account—

(a)in deciding whether to grant leave under section 82B; and

(b)where leave is given, in considering the exercise of its powers with respect to costs.

(5) The rules may—

(a)limit the application of any provision of the rules to prescribed circumstances;

(b)subject any provision of the rules to prescribed exceptions; and

(c)make different provision for different cases or circumstances.

(6)Nothing in this section prejudices the generality of any enactment conferring power to make rules of court; and no particular provision of this section prejudices any general
provision of it.

(7)In this section—

"prescribed" means prescribed by rules of court;

"rules of court" means—

(a)Crown Court Rules;

(b)Criminal Appeal Rules; and

(c)rules under section 144 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43).

82Q Interpretation

(1) In this Chapter—

"bad character" is to be read in accordance with section 82A;

"criminal proceedings" means criminal proceedings in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply;

"defendant" in relation to criminal proceedings, means a person charged with an offence in those proceedings; and "co-defendant", in relation to a defendant, means a person charged with an offence in the same proceedings;

"misconduct" means—

(a)the commission of an offence, or

(b)behaviour of a kind that, in the opinion of the court, might be viewed with disapproval by a reasonable person;

1984

"prejudice", in relation to an item of evidence and a defendant, is to be read in accordance with subsection (2);

"probative value" is to be read in accordance with section 82N;

"prosecution evidence" means evidence which is to be (or has been) adduced by the prosecution, or which a witness is to be invited to give (or has given) in cross-examination by the prosecution.

(2)For the purposes of this Act, evidence carries a risk of prejudice to a defendant where—

(a)there is a risk that the court or jury would attach undue weight to the evidence, or

(b)the nature of the matters with which the evidence deals is such as to give rise to a risk that the court or jury would find the defendant guilty without being satisfied that he was.

(3)Where a defendant is charged with two or more offences in the same criminal proceedings, this Act has effect as if each offence were charged in separate proceedings; and references to the offence with which the defendant is charged are to be read accordingly.

82R Minor and consequential amendments

(1)In section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18) (witness's conviction for offence may be proved if not admitted)—

(a)for "A witness may be" substitute "If, upon a witness being lawfully";

(b)omit "and upon being so questioned, if.

(2)In section 1(2) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (c. 36) (restriction of privilege against self-incrimination where defendant gives evidence) at the beginning insert "Subject to section 6 of the Criminal Evidence Act 2001 (inadmissibility of evidence of defendant's bad character)".

(3)In section 16(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (c. 37) (offences committed by person under 14 disregarded for purposes of evidence relating to previous convictions) for the words from "notwithstanding" to the end substitute "even though the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (c. 16) would not prevent the question from being asked".

82S Repeals

(1)The common law rules governing the admissibility of evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings are abolished.

(2)The rules referred to in subsection (1) include any rule under which, as an exception to the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence, evidence of a person's reputation is admissible for the purpose of proving his character, but only so far as the rule relates to evidence of bad character.

(3)The following cease to have effect—

(a)section 1(3) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 (c.36) (which makes provision as to the questions that a defendant may be asked about his bad character in cross-examination);

(b)section 27(3) of the Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) (admission of evidence of previous convictions for theft etc to prove that defendant knew goods to be stolen).""

The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
114A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 114, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 114A.
We now come to the part of the Bill dealing with the admissibility of evidence of bad character. There is a wide consensus in support of reform, both across the Floor of this House and throughout the criminal

1985
justice system and public. This part: of the Bill is intended to provide a new statutory framework for admissibility. Amendments adopted when the Bill was considered on Report in this House would, however, replace the scheme proposed by the Government with, almost exactly, the draft Bill drawn up by the Law Commission that accompanied its 2001 report.
As I said at that time, there is much in the Law Commission scheme with which we agree, and much of the Law Commission's work and recommendations can be seen in the Government's proposals. However, we also consider that it is right to go further in certain respects. In particular, the Law Commission considered that a generally exclusionary regime should apply, that the rules should be based on excluding this sort of evidence and restricting its admission to circumstances where a number of conditions had been met.
However, we do not believe that that goes far enough in rebalancing the system to ensure that the rules promote the admission of relevant evidence, subject to considerations of fairness. Without that sort of rebalancing, courts and juries will continue to have withheld from them important evidence that will give them the full and proper picture of a case. In our view, therefore, a different approach is required—one of inclusion, which makes it clear that relevant evidence is admissible.
It will, of course, be for the prosecution to demonstrate in the course of proceedings how the evidence relates to the case. However, on the question of admissibility, we believe that it should be clear that relevant evidence is admissible, subject to the defendant applying for its exclusion. We therefore stand behind the inclusionary approach adopted by the Government in our original proposals. We have, however, always said that we would listen to constructive suggestions for change, to ensure that our proposals are cast in the best possible form. I indicated on Report a number of specific areas where we would look at our proposals to see whether improvements could be made.
We have done so, and noble Lords will see on the Marshalled List a number of proposals to modify the Government's scheme as originally introduced. They address a number of key concerns raised in this House and in another place. I shall set out their effect. Three of them are amendments proposed in another place, which I shall deal with first. The first proposed amendment relates to the definition of evidence of bad character. The definition that the Government originally proposed was that recommended by the Law Commission. However, concern was expressed that it was too vague and enabled evidence that was too remote to be admitted—although it will now find its place in the amendment.
It is important to bear in mind that the Bill will set out the future rules and conditions for admitting that sort of evidence. A wide definition is, therefore, important, otherwise potentially prejudicial evidence will fall outside it and thus outside the rules and safeguards in the Bill. However, we recognise that it is
1986
important to be as clear and precise as possible. We have therefore redrafted the definition to tighten the wording as far as possible, while maintaining a comprehensive ambit.
The revised wording will define evidence of a person's "bad character" as evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part. "Misconduct" is further defined as the commission of an offence, or other reprehensible behaviour. Our intention is to ensure that a wide range of potentially prejudicial evidence is caught by the definition, so that the rules and safeguards in this part of the Bill apply. However, the wording offers a tighter formulation for doing so.
The second proposal is to ensure that the defendant has clear notice of the prosecution's intention to rely on evidence of his bad character. That reflects a concern that a more inclusionary approach would lead to the admission of evidence where it was not appropriate or safe for it to be heard.
I make it clear that that is not our intention. We believe that the system needs to be rebalanced to ensure that relevant evidence is admitted unless good reason is shown to exclude it. However, we recognise that there must be a clear opportunity for a defendant to apply to exclude the evidence and for that issue to be decided by the court. That will be facilitated by having a formal requirement of notice. That is achieved by amending the clause dealing with rules of court to make it clear that rules must make provision for the prosecution to give notice.
Thirdly, there is a proposal in relation to the admissibility of juvenile convictions in adult proceedings—an issue which I know greatly exercised the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, among many others. At present, no mention may be made of these convictions. We think that that approach is too restrictive. Our proposals will lift that absolute prohibition, making such evidence admissible subject to the general scheme of the Bill.
Concern has been expressed that that goes too far, that a person's record at that age will not have the relevance of later offending and that particular considerations apply in the context of juvenile offending. We have sympathy that admission here should take place on a more restricted basis and therefore propose that these convictions should be admissible only where the interests of justice specifically require it. We intend this test to exclude a sporadic record for minor offences, while ensuring that continual or persistent offending or convictions for very serious offences are capable of admission.
The Government also propose a fourth amendment which I shall move in this House today relating to the presumption that a conviction for the same or a similar offence should be admitted. We are proposing here a different approach and have now linked it to the category of relevant evidence—Clause 93(1)(e)—to make it absolutely clear that we do not intend that presumption to operate to admit irrelevant convictions. It may be helpful if I explain how the presumption will operate.

1987
Where propensity to commit an offence is a matter in issue in the case, the presumption will be that convictions for the same or a similar offence may be admitted to establish that propensity. Clause 96(1)(a) sets out where a propensity of this kind will be a matter in issue. This is intended to cover all circumstances where this evidence will assist the courts but not where the propensity makes it no more likely that the defendant committed the offence. Where that is so, convictions for the same or a similar offence will, in principle, be admissible. However, that does not mean that such convictions will inevitably be admitted. Subsection (3) makes it clear that the presumption does not apply if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction, or for any other reason, that it would be unjust. Furthermore, the defendant will be able to apply for the evidence to be excluded on the basis that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
In summary, a person's record for committing the same or similar offences will be admissible, to show propensity, provided that, first, the defendant's propensity to commit the offence charged is relevant to the issues in the case; and, secondly, the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.
The rules on evidence of bad character are in pressing need of reform. We must ensure that they are restated in a clear and comprehensive form. The Government's proposals have drawn on the existing jurisprudence and the excellent work of the Law Commission. We have responded to the key concerns expressed and believe that our proposals, modified as suggested, represented the clearest and most satisfactory way forward. For that reason, I move that this House does not insist on its amendments, as set out on the Marshalled List, accepts the amendments to the words restored and accepts the amendments in lieu. We have tried in crafting these new amendments to bring even greater clarity to that which we had before so that our intent is the more plain.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 114, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 114A.— {Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland 114B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 114 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 114A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall also be speaking to Lords Amendments Nos. 115 to 125 and 127 to 131. These are the consequential amendments in response to the Commons vote to insist on their original text. Before I begin, I should like, if I may, to ask a short question of the noble Baroness. I hope that she will be prepared to answer it. I refer to Clause 105(3)(b) of the Bill as it first reached your Lordships' House, right at the top of page 68. It states:
"Nothing in this Chapter affects the exclusion of evidence … on grounds other than the fact that it is evidence of a person's bad character".
Is it the noble Baroness's understanding that that provision has the effect of preserving the protection of Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for the bad character chapter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness.
The Government are constantly reminding us of the immense value of the Law Commission, which they themselves established in 1965, and of the high quality of its work. Our Amendment No. 114, except in one minor respect, mirrors precisely the Law Commission's draft Bill. In April 1997, my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Home Secretary, invited the Law Commission to examine the law of bad character with a view to formulating a comprehensive statutory scheme. After four and a half years' work which, as I said on Report, involved historical analysis, international comparisons and extensive consultation, it produced its proposal.
The Law Commission devoted special attention to the two issues in respect of which we find ourselves at odds with the Government—the issues of the inclusionary presumption and the issue of propensity. The conclusion that the Law Commission reached was based on extensive research and characterised by mature reflection, as anyone reading its report would conclude. If the Government wish to depart from that report and the draft Bill, therefore, they need, in my submission, to demonstrate why the Law Commission report is either flawed or in other respects inferior to their own draft.
In another place yesterday afternoon the honourable Member, Mr Heath, spoke as follows:
"If we share"—
by "we" the honourable Member meant the Government—
"the same objective, the Law Commission has provided us with an objective way of achieving it. In that case, why on earth are Ministers holding out for their own interpretation of the best way forward? They can adduce no particular evidence of superiority for that approach, which poses clear dangers as identified by the Law Commission in its evidence".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/03; col. 715.]
I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said in her speech. I notice that on the inclusionary presumption there has, in effect, been no movement by the Government. So I turn now to the second issue which is of concern to us, which is the issue of propensity. Here the Government have made one concession; that is, to delete Clause 93(1)(d) from the original Bill. Your Lordships will recall that Clause 93(1)(d) reads as follows:
"In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant's bad character is admissible if, but only if…
(d) it is evidence of the defendant's conviction for an offence of the same description, or of the same category, as the one with which he is charged".
I have to confess that I find it quite extraordinary that the Government ever contemplated including that clause. Clause 93(1)(d) allows evidence of previous convictions to be put in merely because they exist. There is no requirement for relevance whatever.

1989
In another place yesterday the honourable Member, Vera Baird, asked rhetorically,
"What, therefore, is the purpose of paragraph (d)"?
She answers herself by saying:
"It can only be to include [such convictions] even though they are irrelevant and do not prove anything" —[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/03; col. 717.]
On the equally unacceptable relationship between Clause 93(1)(e) and Clause 96(1)(a), despite painstaking discussions with the noble Baroness, who has been the very acme of courtesy and who has made every effort to assist, we have made, I fear, no progress at all.
Clause 93(1)(e) states:
"In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant's bad character is admissible if, but only if…
(e) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution".
Clause 96 is headed by the expression,
"Matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution".
Clause 96(1)(a) states:
"For the purposes of section 93(l)(e) the matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution include—
(a) the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence".
First, whatever objectives these provisions seek to achieve, they clearly do not achieve them. If propensity is an issue in the case, following Clause 96(1)(a), all Clause 93(1)(e) is saying is that propensity evidence is relevant to propensity evidence. That is obviously true but it gets us no closer to knowing whether propensity evidence is relevant or not.
What should your Lordships make of the qualifying word "important" in Clause 93(1)(e)? If the only evidence against the accused is propensity evidence it will certainly be important, but it would be an outrage if an accused could be convicted on propensity evidence alone.
Finally, what about the expression,
"except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence"?
The law so far is that propensity evidence is always irrelevant precisely because it makes it no more likely than not that the accused is guilty of the offence. The only circumstances in which past conduct may be led by the prosecution is where it is evidence directly relevant to the issues in the case; that is: to say, similar fact evidence.
Is this an attempt by the Government to preserve the similar fact rule in Clause 96(1)(a), or not? We have sought assurances to these questions both across the Dispatch Box and in private. But despite the noble Baroness's best efforts, to which I again pay tribute, our endeavours have been to no avail. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 114B.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 114, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 114A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.)
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I too pay tribute to the very hard work that the noble Baroness
1990
has done in connection with this part of the Bill. The removal of paragraph (d) is a step very much in the right direction, which we welcome. However, the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has just made about the relationship between Clause 93(1)(e) and Clause 96 are absolutely valid in our opinion.
I have looked at Clause 96(1)(a) and (b) for some time and considered what they meant. The words,
"except where his having such a propensity makes it no more likely that he is guilty of the offence",
have troubled me in the middle of the night wondering what on earth they are supposed to mean. I have come to the conclusion that whoever drafted the Bill originally had in mind, through Clause 96(1)(a), putting into statutory form the accepted and well known doctrine of similar fact evidence.
With that in mind, I have attempted today to redraft this section—I have given notice to the Minister of the way in which I did so—in order to make absolutely clear the purpose of that clause. My redraft reads as follows:
"(1) For the purposes of Section 93(1)(e) the matters in issue between the defendant and the prosecution include:—
(a) the question whether the defendant has a propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged, where such a propensity is capable of persuading a reasonable jury of the defendant's guilt on some ground other than his bad character".
That encompasses the concept of similar fact evidence because similar fact evidence is not introduced simply to introduce evidence of bad character that will tend to make the defendant look worse in the eyes of the jury; it is there in order to deal with specific issues. I have tried to set those out. I continue by suggesting,
"his propensity may be so capable, where it may assist a jury in determining: whether a crime has been committed;… the identity of the offender;… whether the acts of the defendant were designed or accidental;… whether the defendant was acting under a mistake of fact; … the truth or falsity of the defendant's allegations that witnesses are mistaken or lying".
If the noble Baroness will examine the words with those advising her, she will see that it is absolutely clear that Clause 96(1)(a) refers to similar-fact evidence that assists a jury in determining those issues. I hope that we can have some response to that, or that we can have some discussions about it at a later stage.
Paragraph (b) as drafted is about,
"the question whether the defendant has a propensity to be untruthful, except where it is not suggested that the defendant's case is untruthful in any respect".
What does that mean? In virtually every trial, the issue is whether the defendant is telling the truth or not. On the face of it, the paragraph suggests that it would be possible for the prosecution to introduce evidence of propensity simply by challenging the defendant when he gives his evidence by saying, "You're lying, aren't you?". "No, I am not," he might reply. The prosecution might then say, "Is that what you say? Then let's look at the list of convictions against you".
It is not permitted in any circumstances in our current trials for the prosecution to raise an issue in cross-examination of a defendant whereby he may cast

1991
aspersions against another witness or the police and then say, "Aha! You have now thrown away your shield and we are going to introduce evidence of propensity". I cannot believe that those who drafted the Bill and the Minister intend to make it possible for the prosecution to introduce convictions as part of its case simply because it says that the defendant's case is untruthful.
With that in mind, I have tried to redraft paragraph (b) as follows. The matter in issue is,
"the question whether the defendant has a propensity to tell lies where such a propensity is capable of persuading a reasonable jury of the defendant's guilt on some ground other than that he has told lies in the course of the investigation and trial of the case before them".
Defendants have very often told lies in their interviews with the police, and they may very well lie when they give evidence. However, surely a defendant's propensity to tell lies could come into play only when the prosecution sought to establish something other than that he had simply told lies and that his case was untrue.
I am sure that I have said enough for noble Lords to appreciate that we are talking about an extremely difficult and technical part of the law, and that it would be far better to fall back on the Law Commission's Bill, which is incorporated by the original amendment and is the result of very considerable research and reflection by that body. Its provisions were in the Bill until the Commons removed them, and in our view they should prevail unless we can come to some very satisfactory understanding with the Government before the Bill is finally put to rest.
6 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, it may be appropriate at this point for me to speak to my Amendment No. 126B, which is in the group. Noble Lords will recall that, right from the beginning of the passage of the Bill through this House, a cross-party group of Peers interested in youth justice has sought to remove from the Bill the measure that takes away the complete ban on using bad character evidence of convictions committed by the defendant when he or she was a child. Indeed, when I tested the opinion of the House, noble Lords agreed with that.
Since then, however, the other place has agreed to an amendment that states that such evidence,
"is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the interests of justice so require".
We do not agree with that amendment. The interests of justice can never be served by using in court evidence of offences committed when the defendant was a child, of immature judgment and at an early stage of his or her development, given that at least seven years will have passed since those offences took place.
Our reasons for feeling that have been rehearsed at great length at early stages of the Bill, so I shall not weary your Lordships with those again at length. I shall simply list them very briefly to remind the House
1992
of them. First, there has been inadequate consultation on the effects of the matter. Secondly, there has been no call from expert groups or the public for the complete ban on such evidence about childhood offences. Thirdly, it cannot be relevant to bring such evidence forward in the light of the developmental changes that take place between a child's being 14 and 21, the latter age being when such evidence could be put before the court if the measures in the Bill were passed.
As I think I pointed out at an earlier stage, the introduction of such a measure is also inconsistent in the light of other actions and statements that the Government have made. Our law, which makes children criminals at 10, is out of step with most other civilised and developed countries, and we must not make it worse by allowing such a measure to get through the House. Most children who commit crimes are disadvantaged in some way, and should be given a second chance.
While we are considering the Green Paper recently brought forward by the Government, Every Child Matters, which makes many good suggestions, we should bear in mind the need for a youth justice system that is entirely separate from that of adults. All the youth justice and children's organisations are calling for that. Those are the reasons why I will in due course move Amendment No. 126B.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, as I understand it, the purpose of the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness to insert the additional provisions at the end of Clause 96 is to clarify the meaning of that clause. I regret to have to say that, although they are obviously there with the best intentions, they do not get away from the fundamental defects in the clause that have been pointed out and developed by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas. I am afraid that I shall be voting with them on the matter.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that I am very sorry indeed to have given him sleepless nights. I had hoped that I had delivered the antidote capable of providing a little balm to his troubled spirit in relation to the matter.
I have responded to the substance of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. He posed a number of questions. If I may respectfully say so, that is why, when I opened the debate, I went through with care the way in which we think that the clause will operate. There are three real points. The first is that the Government remain of the view that all relevant evidence should be admissible and capable of going before the jury. However, there should be safeguards which would prevent that relevant evidence going forward if the defendant can establish that it was not relevant; or that it was more prejudicial than probative; or that there was some other cause using the provisions which we have now added. Those safeguards would cause the evidence to be excluded on the basis that the judge would exercise his discretion that it was unjust so to do.

1993
We believe that the new safeguards that we have in place cure all the ills about which noble Lords opposite have complained. It is the most powerful antidote that we can provide and we believe that the solution suffices. However, I listened with great care to what both noble Lords said and I do not know whether after our discussions there may be further or other explanations I may be able to make from the Dispatch Box which may put these issues beyond doubt. I believe that they are beyond doubt already, but in your Lordships' House I have come to recognise that my assessment and the clarity and detail which your Lordships sometimes require do not always coincide. I believe that the Government have clone enough on these issues and I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her courteous response. The difficulty I have with what she has just said, with the best of intentions, is that the difference between her observations about what the text says and the text itself is sufficiently large for me to think it appropriate to test the opinion of the House.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 114B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 190; Not-Contents, 112.

Division No.4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Addington, L.

Craigavon, V.

Alderdice, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Arran, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Attlee, E.

Dholakia, L. [Teller]

Avebury, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Barker, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Biffen, L.

Dundee, E.

Blaker, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Blatch,B.

Eden of Winton,L.

Bledisloe,V.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Bowness, L.

Elton, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Falkland, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Feldman, L.

Bridges, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Flather, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fookes, B.

Byford,B.

Fowler, L.

Caithness, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Freeman, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Freyberg, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Geraint, L.

Chadlington, L.

Gilbert, L.

Chalfont, L.

Glentoran, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Goodhart, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Goschen, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Colwyn, L.

Greaves, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Greenway, L.

1994

Hamwee, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Hanham, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Onslow, E.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Parkinson, L.

Henley, L.

Peel, E.

Higgins, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hogg, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Home, E.

Plumb, L.

Hooson, L.

Prashar, B.

Howe, E.

Rawlings, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Razzall, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Redesdale, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Rees, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Rennard, L.

Jacobs, L.

Renton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Jopling, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Kimball, L.

Rogan, L.

Kingsland, L.

Roper, L.

Kirkham, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Russell, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Ryder of Wensum,L.

Lindsay, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Sandberg, L.

Listowel, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Liverpool, E.

Sandwich, E.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lyell, L.

Selborne, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Selsdon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sharman, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

McNally, L.

Sharpies, B.

Maddock, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mancroft, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mar and Kellie,E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Methuen, L.

Swinfen, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Taverne, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Monson, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Montrose, D.

Tordoff, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Naseby, L.

Ullswater, V.

Neill of Bladen,L.

Vivian, L.

Newby, L.

Waddington, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Noakes, B.

Walmsley, B.

Northbrook, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Northesk,E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Northover, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Brett, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Andrews, B.

Brookman, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Burlison, L.

Bach, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L.

Billingham, B.

Chandos, V.

Blackstone, B.

Chorley, L.

Borrie, L.

Christopher, L.

Bragg, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

1995

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Jones, L.

Cohen of Pimlico,B.

Judd,L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Crawley, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Davies of Coity.L.

Lockwood,B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dubs, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Elder, L.

Marsh, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord

Mitchell, L.

Chancellor)

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Falkender,B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton,B.

Pendry, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Pitkeathely, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gale B

Radice,L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Golding, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rooker, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goudie, B.

Sawyer, L.

Gould of Potternewton B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Harrison, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayman, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton B

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turnberg, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hoyle, L.

Warner, L.

Hughes of Woodside,L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Whitaker, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Whitty, L.

Islwyn, L.

Wilkins, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
6.22 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
115 Leave out Clause 90
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
115A Page 60, line 37, leave out from beginning to "evidence" in line 2 on page 61 and insert—
"References in this Chapter to evidence of a person's "bad character" are to evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on his part, other than"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 115 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115A to the words so restored to the Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 115 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Kingsland 115B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 115 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115A to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 115".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 115 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 115A to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 115".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
116 Leave out Clause 91
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
116A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 116 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 116A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 116 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 116A.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Kingsland 116B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 116 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 116A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.1 beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 116 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 116A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
117 Leave out Clause 92
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
117A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 117 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 117A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 117 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 117A.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Kingsland 117B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 117 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered U7A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 117 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 117A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
118 Leave out Clause 93
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
118A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords,, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 118 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 118A, but do propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
118C Page 62, leave out lines 16 to 18
118D Page 62, line 26, leave out "(d),"
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 118 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 118A but do propose Amendments Nos. 118C and 118D to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
118E Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 118.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, leave out from "House to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 118.—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
119 Leave out Clause 94
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
119A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 119 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 119A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 119 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 119A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
119B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 119 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 119A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 119 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 119A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.) On Question, amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
120 Leave out Clause 95
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
120A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 120 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 120A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 120 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 120A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
121 Leave out Clause 96
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
121A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 121 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121 A, but do propose Amendment No. 121C to the words so restored to the Bill, and do propose Amendments Nos. 121D to 121F as amendments consequential on Amendment No. 121C:
121C Page 63, line 19, at end insert—

"(1A) Where subsection (l)(a) applies, a defendant's propensity to commit offences of the kind with which he is charged may (without prejudice to any other way of doing so) be established by evidence that he has been convicted of—

(a) an offence of the same description as the one with which he is charged, or

(b) an offence of the same category as the one with which he is charged.

1999

(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply in the case of a particular defendant if the court is satisfied, by reason of the length of time since the conviction or for any other reason, that it would be unjust for it to apply in his case.

(1C) For the purposes of subsection (1 A)—

(a) two offences are of the same description as each other if the statement of the offence in a written charge or indictment would, in each case, be in the same terms;

(b) two offences are of the same category as each other if they belong to the same category of offences prescribed for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State.

(ID) A category prescribed by an order under subsection (lC)(b) must consist of offences of the same type."

121D Page 171, line 30, leave out "95" and insert "96"
121E Page 217, line 8, leave out "95" and insert "96"
121F Page 217, line 9, leave out "(1)" and insert "(1C)"
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 121 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 121 A, but do propose Amendment No. 121C to the words so restored to the Bill, and do propose Amendments Nos. 121D to 121F as amendments consequential on Amendment No. 121C.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
121G Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 121".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 121".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
122 Leave out Clause 97
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
122A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 122 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 122A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 122 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 122A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
122B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 122 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 122A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 122 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 122A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
123 Leave out Clause 98
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
123A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 123 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 123 A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 123 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 123A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
123B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 123 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 123A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 123 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 123A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
124 Leave out Clause 99
The Commons disagree to this amendment hut propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
124A Page 64, line 40, leave out from "a" to end of line 41 and insert "reprehensible way"
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 124 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124A to the words so restored to the Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 124 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
124B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 124 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124A to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 124".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 124 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 124A to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 124".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
125 Leave out Clause 100
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
125A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 125A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 125A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
125B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 125A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 125 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 125A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
6.30 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
126 Leave out Clause 101
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
126A Page 65, line 47, at end insert—

"(2) In proceedings for an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant when aged 21 or over, evidence of his conviction for an offence when under the age of 14 is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the interests of justice so require.

(3) Subsection (2) applies in addition to section 93."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 126 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 126A to the words so restored to the Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 126 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 126A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
126B Baroness Walmsley rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 126 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 126A to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 126".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 126 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 126A to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 126".— (Baroness Walmsley.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
127 Leave out Clause 102
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
127A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 127 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 127 A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 127 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 127A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
127B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 127 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 127A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 127 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 127A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
128 Leave out Clause 103
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
128A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 128 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 128 A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 128 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 128A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
128B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 128 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 128A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 128 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 128A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
129 Leave out Clause 104
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
129A Page 66, line 28, leave out "require a defendant" and insert ", and, where the party in question is the prosecution, must, contain provision requiring a party"
129B Page 66, line 29, leave out "co-defendant's bad character under section 93(1)(f)" and insert "defendant's bad character"
129C Page 66, line 33, leave out "co-defendant" and insert "defendant"
129D Page 66, line 35, leave out "co-defendant" and insert "defendant"
129E Page 66, line 39, leave out "defendant" and insert "party"
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 129 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129A to 129E to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
129F Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 129 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129A to 129E to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 129".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 129 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 129A to 129E to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 129".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
130 Leave out Clause 105
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
130A Page 67, line 26, leave out from "means" to end of line 29 and insert "the commission of an offence or other reprehensible behaviour"
130B Page 67, line 42, after "Chapter" insert "(except section 93(3)"
130C Page 67, line 45, at end insert—
"(a) under the rule in section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18) against a party impeaching the credit of his own witness by general evidence of bad character,"
130D Page 67, line 47, after "(c. 23)" insert "(restriction on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history)"
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130D to the words so restored to the Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130D to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
130E Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 130A to 130D to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 130".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. BOA to 130D to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 130".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
131 Leave out Clause 106
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
131A Because they would result in a less satisfactory scheme for dealing with evidence of bad character.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 131 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 131 A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 131 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 131 A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
131B Lord Kingsland rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 131 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 131 A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 114.I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 131 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 131 A, leave out "not".—(Lord Kingsland.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
132 Leave out Clause 107
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
132A Page 68, line 15, leave out from "that" to second "the" in line 16 and insert "it is in"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 132 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132A to the words so restored to the Bill.
The issue of hearsay evidence has been the subject of constructive discussion in the past few weeks, so I shall deal directly with the government amendment to Clause 107(l)(d), which has been agreed in the Commons as I believe that that will address concerns about the extent to which the courts should have a discretion to admit reliable statements.
The Government remain firmly of the view that this discretion is an important aspect of the scheme. Certainly it was considered necessary by the Law Commission. But we have listened very carefully to the concerns that have been expressed that subsection (l)(d) was insufficiently focused. The proposed amendment would tighten the language used in the discretion to ensure that this evidence can be given only where it is in the interests of justice to do so. That would allow out of court cogent and reliable statements to be used, where the hearsay rule is obscuring or shielding the truth.
Clause 107 represents a key part of the new coherent statutory scheme. It provides a clear context for the operation of the other provisions in this part of the Bill. We have responded to concerns about the exercise of discretion to ensure that it is operated only in appropriate circumstances. I beg to move.
Moved, that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 132 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 132A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, motion agreed to.

LORDSAMENDMENT 138
138 Page 89, line 3, at end insert—
"(8) This section shall not come into effect before the national roll-out of the "custody plus order" under Sections 174 and 175."
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
138A Because it may be desirable to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates' courts before the provisions about sentences of less than 12 months can be brought into force
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment
2006
No. 138 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 138A. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 139, 167, 173 and 235. Those provisions deal with the sentencing issue.
As originally drafted, the Bill did not impose any restrictions on the timing of the increase in magistrates' sentencing powers. This allowed for a flexible approach to implementation. Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 would take away that flexibility by preventing the increase of magistrates' sentencing powers from coming into effect in advance of the custody plus provisions. The effect of that would be that the anticipated benefits of the increased magistrates' sentencing powers in terms of enabling them to retain more cases, thus saving time and money as well as benefiting victims and witnesses, could not be realised prior to the implementation of custody plus which we are aiming for as soon as possible.
Turning to Lords Amendment No. 167, as originally drafted the Bill provided for the indeterminate sentence of public protection to be passed if the offender was convicted of a trigger offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years or more and the court was of the opinion that there was a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences.
As we have stated in both Houses, the purpose of the test is to establish whether an offender is dangerous and in making this judgment the court must focus primarily upon the degree of the risk of harm that any future offending may pose. We do not think that the alternative test proposed by your Lordships diverts the attention of the court away from the central consideration—the harm that the offender may pose to the public. Both tests of course require a risk of reoffending to be present, but we think that the original test incorporates it in a way that better meets the interests of public safety.
On Amendment No. 173, as originally drafted the Bill provided for the automatic release of non-dangerous offenders serving sentences of 12 months or more at the half-way point of their sentence. However, your Lordships decided that where this sentence was of four years or more, automatic release could not occur before the offender had served two-thirds of their sentence in prison. Following the introduction of the new sentences for dangerous offenders, there is no longer any public protection justification for retaining the differential release provisions that currently exist for custodial sentences of over and under four years. Amendment No. 173 would also undermine all the benefits that would accrue from the new simplified structure of custodial sentence of 12 months or more for non-dangerous offenders, such as making the sentencing framework more transparent, increasing public confidence, assisting post-release planning and providing longer supervision periods to reduce re-offending.

2007
Finally, Amendment No. 235 places a duty upon chief officers of each probation area to establish consultation arrangements with local magistrates' courts committees and local communities. We believe that that simply is not necessary. Although the Government agree with the sentiment of this amendment and acknowledge the importance of encouraging joint working, they do not believe that such a statutory duty is necessary in the light of arrangements that are already in place and those that are planned.
The National Probation Directorate has recently agreed with the Magistrates' Association to establish a new national consultative group which will help to give magistrates and other sentencers a clear and strong voice in the development of policy and practice. Discussions are currently taking place with the Magistrates' Association and others about the details, including the terms of reference and wider membership of the group. These are expected to be resolved by the end of the year.
Among the first issues to be addressed when the new group meets will be how these national arrangements might be reflected at a more local level and the continuing development of local and locally agreed communication strategies to complement those at a national level. For these reasons, I beg to move that the House do not insist on the amendment.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment Nos. 138 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 138 A.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
139 Clause 147, page 89, line 10, at end insert—
"(5) This section shall not come into effect before the national roll-out of the "custody plus order" under sections 174 and 175."
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason—
139A Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 138 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment Nos. 139 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 139A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 139 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 139A.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
167 Clause 216, page 127, line 7, leave out from "a" to end of line 9 and insert "substantial risk of his committing further specified offences involving a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public"
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
167A Because the test originally proposed is preferable.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 167 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 167A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 167 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 167A.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
173 Clause 235, page 136, line 39, at end insert "(where that sentence is less than four years), or two-thirds of his sentence (in any other case)"
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
173A Because it is appropriate for prisoners serving sentences of four years or more to be released on licence at the half-way point in cases where the provisions for dangerous offenders do not apply.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 173 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 173 A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 173 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 173A.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
203 Clause 254, page 147, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) This section does not apply if the offender was under 18 when he committed the offence."
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments in lieu thereof—
203A Page 266, line 11, leave out "In a case not falling" and insert "If the offender was aged 18 or over when he committed the offence and the case does not fall"
203B Page 266, line 12, at end insert—
"6A If the offender was aged under 18 when he committed the offence, the appropriate starting point, in determining the minimum term, is 12 years."
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 203 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 203A and 203B in lieu thereof.
This group of amendments refers to issues regarding juveniles. To allay the concerns which have been expressed about juvenile tariffs we propose to reintroduce juveniles into the system, but we will specifically set in the statute a lower starting point for them, to recognise the special needs of the age group. The juvenile starting point will be 12 years, which reflects recent guidance given by the Lord Chief Justice.

2009
As I said previously, the starting point for tariffs under the schedule are not a minimum sentence. Age is still specified as a mitigating factor within these principles and courts will have the discretion to reduce from the starting point to arrive at sentences appropriate to the youth or maturity of younger juvenile offenders.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whom I see is in his place, has been particularly concerned about this matter and has asked whether the Government expect the starting point of 12 years to be applied as it is currently. I refer to the Lord Chief Justice's direction that courts should as a rule of thumb reduce the starting point by one year for each year that the juvenile is below the age of majority.
Of course it would be inappropriate for me to limit the discretion of the courts by expecting such a mechanistic determination. The statute maintains the age of the offender as a mitigating factor which the courts may take into account above and beyond the fact that there is already a lower starting point for juveniles. That will enable the courts to move from the starting point as appropriate to set a tariff that is just in all the circumstances.
We should not forget that juvenile cases are individual. A 14 year-old may be immature, or a 17 year-old mature, so wide flexibility is vital. My right honourable friend made the point that the year-on-year reduction could be regarded as too inflexible in corresponding with the Lord Chief Justice on the practice direction of which we speak.
We hope though that the latitude for the exercise of discretion that we have here in outline will be more than sufficient for the judges who deal with these very complex and difficult cases to exercise appropriate discretion in differentiating between children of differing ages, backgrounds and circumstances particularly referable to the nature of the offence. With that, I hope that noble Lords will not insist on their Amendments Nos. 203 and 431, but do agree Amendments Nos. 230A and 203B in lieu of Amendment No. 203.I beg to move.
Moved, that this House do not insist on its Amendment No. 203 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 203A and 203B in lieu thereof.— (Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I rise briefly on this important matter. I thank the noble Baroness for giving such a full and careful explanation of the reasons why the Government felt that they could not go further than the arrangement they have achieved by their amendments in lieu today.
I make it clear that we had always understood that there would be discretion in sentencing. Our amendments in no way impinged upon mandatory life sentences. Certainly, I welcome the fact that the Government have thought again on these matters. Noble Lords who voted to remove this provision are somewhat disappointed in a sense that we have gone from 15 to 12. That disappointment must be tempered as the noble Baroness explained, by the fact that the Government have lighted upon the Lord Chief
2010
Justice's guideline. I remarked to him this week that on that basis I certainly would not seek to resist the Government in their amendments in lieu. Therefore, I did not table a Motion today.
However, prior to today's debate, I had contact with the Children's Society. It wishes to make it clear that it is disappointed but perfectly understands that it would not be appropriate to press the matter now. We are all aware that there may be a proper time to debate the matter further with the Minister and on the Floor of the House when we reach a review of the youth justice system.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
235 After Clause 283, Insert the following new Clause—
"Duty of probation officers to consult with magistrates
It shall be the duty of the chief officer of each probation area—

(a) to establish consultation arrangements with local magistrates' courts committees and local communities,

(b) to assist the probation service in the performance of its duties of reducing offending, and

to supervise offenders in the community."

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
235A Because it is unnecessary to impose the duty referred to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 235 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 235A.
I have spoken to the amendment with Amendment No. 138.
Moved, that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 235 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 235A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
431 Schedule 26, page 316, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2)
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
431A Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 203 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 431 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 431 A.
I have spoken to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 138 and 203.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 431 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 431 A.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
6.47 p.m.
A message was brought from the Commons, That they agree to certain amendments made by your Lordships without amendment; they agree to certain other amendments with amendments to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships; they disagree to certain other amendments but have made amendments to the words so restored to the Bill to which they desire the agreement of your Lordships; and they disagree to the remaining amendments for which they assign reasons.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, consideration of the Commons message will be taken as agreed at 9.45 p.m. Therefore, I beg to move that the House be adjourned during pleasure until 9.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.48 until 9.45 p.m.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO
CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS
DISAGREEMENT TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO WORDS SO
RESTORED TO THE BILL, AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS.
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 94 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, Leave out Clause 1
The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following reason—
1A Because it is necessary to provide for the constitution of NHS foundation trusts.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
I do not intend to go over the whole case for NHS foundation trusts, other than to reiterate two key points. First, foundation trusts are totally consistent with the founding values of the NHS. They are an integral part of it, and there is absolutely no evidence that they will damage local health economies. Secondly, the governance arrangements involve patients, the public and staff in their local hospitals in a way that has never been achieved before. The
2012
argument that nobody supports foundation trusts does not stand up. When people know the advantages, they come forward and want foundation trust status.
As I said in Committee, 25 NHS trusts are consulting on proposals to apply for NHS foundation trust status from next April and a further 30 or so have applied to be considered for coming on-stream in autumn 2004. If all those applications were successful, some 25 per cent of the population in England would have access to NHS foundation trusts by the end of 2004. By their irresponsible actions, the two Opposition Benches have sought to wreck the Bill and thwart those local people from securing the local freedoms that they want.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Warner: Noble Lords should hear the rest of it. I acknowledge that there was scope for improving the original Bill. That is why the Government have proposed or accepted more than 200 amendments, 90 of them relating to NHS foundation trusts. That is clear evidence that we have listened and responded to concerns.
This House has discharged its scrutiny and review functions. It has asked the other place to think again, and it has done so. It has rejected clearly this House's removal of Clause 1 and Schedule 1, by 303 votes to 286. In that vote, 80 per cent of Labour MPs voted in favour of foundation trusts—with 19 extra converts since the previous vote on the issue. With two votes, at least, by the Commons on the issue, it is the clear will of the Commons, the elected House, to have Clause 1 and Schedule 1 as amended restored to the Bill. I do not think that it is for this House to resist restoration.
Even at this late stage of the proceedings, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has shown how much he has listened to the concerns expressed that we need to be in a position to learn from the experience of the first NHS foundation trusts before the rest of the NHS applies for that status. That is why he made it clear earlier in the other place that he was prepared to review how we proceed in the light of our experience and to learn the lessons from the early NHS foundation trusts that start up in 2004.
As he said then, there will be an opportunity to do that in the 12-month period before the end of the first wave of foundation trusts in autumn 2004 and autumn 2005. That is why my right honourable friend told the other place that he would ask the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection—which will, of course, be accountable to Parliament, not him, under the Bill—to insist on that review. During the period of that review, the Secretary of State would not pass any new applications for a new NHS foundation trust to the independent regulator.
The Benches opposite have been calling for an independent review; and here is my right honourable friend offering it—an independent review at that. It will be able to consider the governance issues by which they are still troubled; it will be able to consider the

2013
relationship between NHS foundation trusts and others in the local health economy. It will be in the hands of CHAI. The report goes to Parliament, which will of course be able to debate it. What more do noble Lords have to quibble over? I urge the House to agree with the Commons reinstatement of Clause 1 and Schedule 1 as amended.
Before I finish, I should make absolutely clear that no matter how how many times this Bill goes back to the Commons, it will come back with Clause 1 and Schedule 1 reinstated. If that means that this House's action means that the Bill is lost, that will be a consequence of this particular House's; action. I want to make absolutely clear that that is the Government's position; it will be in the public arena shortly. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Warner.)
IB Earl Howe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered Amendment 1 A, leave out "not".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, today's vote in the House of Commons means that this House must once again make a decision about Part 1. It is an important decision for the health service as a whole and for its patients, and I have thought hard about what it is best for us to do. First, we must recognise that, having been asked by your Lordships to think again on foundation trusts, the elected House has reached a decision and has approved the Government's policy for a second time.
However slim the Government's majority in the other place—it was extremely slim—we should not lightly dismiss that result. Our second task is to consider the issue. Nothing has changed since the House debated it on Report the week before last. The Government have made no substantive concessions to address the two main concerns voiced by noble Lords about foundation trusts—the dangers posed for the wider NHS by the creation of an elite tier of hospitals and the threat to effective and good governance of foundation trusts stemming from the Bill's confused and cumbersome governance provisions.
Nothing has changed on those two fronts—and my mind has certainly not changed. What has changed is the majority in the other place. I do not see how this House can fail to give weight to the fact that a Government with an overall majority of 164 was reduced to a majority of a mere 17 in the vote earlier this evening. That was not simply a majority of only 17; that was a majority achieved only by virtue of the votes of 44 Scottish Labour Members whose constituents have no direct interest in the matter at issue, and whose own health service, being devolved, is one over which the Westminster Parliament has no say.
Those Members of course have a perfect legal right to troop through the Lobby in support of the Government, but the outcome of the vote and its significance for this House is, I suggest, devalued
2014
because of the part that they played in it. There is a real sense in which we can say that the House of Commons has not spoken on behalf of the man and woman in the street. I do not know how many noble Lords heard the comments of Mr Frank Field, who said that if the House of Commons had been given a free vote this afternoon, the Government would have lost by at least 50.
Whether we agree with that precise number or not is irrelevant. The point is that the Government did not succeed in winning today's vote by persuasion or on the strength of the argument. They won it by twisting the arms of their own supporters and flying a Minister back from Australia. In contrast, it is sometimes said that this House—the unelected House—is better able to reflect the public mind than the other place. I happen to think that we can say that with confidence on the issue of foundation trusts. It is not only Members of the House of Lords who are opposed to the Government, but the BMA, the unions and, indeed, the vast bulk of the general public.
Yesterday, NOP published a poll in which only 4 per cent of respondents said that their top priority was to have their local hospital run by a foundation trust. In contrast, 83 per cent favoured a well run local hospital with shorter waiting times and 84 per cent of people wanted public money aimed at improving all NHS hospitals. Only 7 per cent believed that more money should be given to the hospitals that are currently doing well.
The Government will no doubt wave those results away, but they reflect the anxieties and opinions of real people. That public feeling and the views of those working in the health service were very powerful reasons why this House was justified in returning Clause 1 and Schedule 1 to the Commons two weeks ago. The provisions in the Bill on public consultation have been strengthened, I am glad to say. However, it is a matter of great concern that those patients and members of the public who are served by the first wave of applicant trusts will have been given no say whatever in the decision to apply for foundation status. If we had wanted proof of the Government's stated desire to involve local people in decision making on health, it would have been found in a genuine consultation exercise on the question, "Foundation status—yes or no?" That was one question that was never asked.
On an earlier occasion, I said that I was genuinely sorry to find myself opposing devolution in the NHS, and I am. However, when the detail of that devolution policy poses such dangers for the health service, I am in no doubt that opposition is necessary. I do not ask the Government to take the proposals away and never bring them back. I ask only that they take them away, refashion them in a manner that addresses the genuine concerns expressed in this House by noble Lords and by Members of another place and bring back their revised ideas in the next Session of Parliament.
To noble Lords who asked why we should resist these proposals the second time, I say this: 1 do not want to find that, in two or three years' time, the

2015
people in my village who are sent for treatment at a local hospital discover that that hospital is less well equipped than the foundation hospital 40 miles away, because it has been unable to invest on the scale that it needs to do because the foundation trust enjoyed easier, privileged access to capital funding. Nor do I wish to find that the foundation hospital serving my 82 year-old father-in-law has decided to skew resources away from services for the elderly, from dedicated stroke units and chronic pain management because its board of governors is working to an agenda dictated by a local and vocal minority of members.
By definition, it is the dispossessed and socially excluded who will lose out in that model of governance. I want no part of such an ill thought out system. This House is well within its rights to reject Clause 1 for a second time. I believe that it has a duty to do so for the sake of the NHS and all those who use it. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A, leave out "not".—(Earl Howe.)
10 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 1b,and I shall speak to Amendment No. 161CC.
Many of us heard a powerful debate in the other place, whether we were present in the Gallery or saw it on television. It was impressive to see many Labour MPs take a principled stand on the issue. The fact that, despite the concessions, the Government achieved half the majority that they had on an earlier occasion demonstrated that the Government's arguments are becoming thinner by the hour. The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, today was characteristic of that: it was short, to the point and entirely devoid of reasoned argument.
I heard the Secretary of State on the radio this morning and also in the House. His understanding of history seemed to be completely flawed, and I felt like sending him a reading list. He should brush up on the history of the NHS: William Beveridge was a Liberal and one of the architects of the NHS. Instead of that, we heard that we were tearing down the NHS and that those of us on these Benches were partly responsible, along with all sorts of other villains and miscreants. That is a very partial view of history.
My honourable friend Paul Burstow made it clear during the debate today that Liberal Democrats had no argument with devolution in the NHS. We too wish to see NHS hospitals freed from micro-management and inappropriate targets. However, foundation trusts, in their present form, are not the instrument for that. They were not in the Government's manifesto at the previous election, and they were not in the NHS Plan. There was no consultation on the new system, yet Ministers have been cooking up the proposals and inviting applications since the beginning of last year.
2016
The method of selection, via the star rating system, is arbitrary, with the Secretary of State making the final decision.
Local consultation has also been flawed. Whole London boroughs have been excluded from consultation and from the governance arrangements proposed for applicant foundation hospitals. Much of the consultation has assumed the form of a fait accompli. The coverage of foundation trusts will be partial and potentially competitive, yet foundation trusts can and may have a profound effect on the balance of the local health economy and the services that local people need. It is hardly surprising that cancer networks, for example, are fearful of the future. The powers of the regulator are not spelt out and take insufficient heed of that fact.
As I said on Report, the key issue, ultimately, is whether there will be any resulting benefit for patients. The well respected Health Select Committee rightly asked whether such competition between hospitals would benefit patients. The poll referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, demonstrated the ignorance of the public about foundation trusts. Those who know what foundation trusts mean are against them. The doctors, nurses and other staff in the NHS are deeply sceptical about the proposals.
As my honourable friend said, in so far as foundation trusts secure freedom to act, it is hard to see how that freedom will not disadvantage the hospitals that are left behind. The rules for borrowing are a key example. Foundation trusts will have an advantage over other NHS trusts; they will have easier access to capital. The Treasury has ensured that there will be a zero-sum game, as we have pointed out relentlessly through the passage of the Bill. The NHS capital pot is fixed in size. If foundation trusts can dip into that pot more easily, it will be at the expense of the rest of the NHS.
My honourable friend also pointed out the short-term nature of the requirement for foundation trusts to adhere to Agenda for Change. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent foundation trusts, over time, varying their pay and conditions, in order to be better placed to expand. Foundation trusts will soon be able to compete on pay and conditions, at the expense of patients treated anywhere else in the NHS. So much for the assurances that the Minister gave about the duty of co-operation with other parts of the NHS that foundation trusts will have.
Our amendment deals, in particular, with the governance arrangements set out in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 amounts to the ramshackle and expensive construction of sham democracy, with self-selected members, powerless governing bodies and massively expensive servicing requirements. My honourable friend who, most unusually, reads Hansard for this House, noted that the most powerful speeches in regard to foundation hospitals and governance were those of the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Harris.
Finally, as Members on these Benches pointed out on Report, foundation trusts start at the wrong point. It is in commissioning where we need to give local

2017
control: to those who commission healthcare and who need to be responsive to local needs. The commissioners—the primary care trusts—should be democratically accountable. That is what Members on these Benches in both Houses have argued for. It remains a mystery why the Government did not accept that from the outset. Instead, new governance arrangements simply re-emphasise the dominance of acute hospitals at the expense of primary care, preventive health strategies designed to improve public health and reduce health inequalities, along with the integration of health and social care.
The Government have retreated to a great extent on this Bill. Now we have last-minute concessions that amend the Bill so that it will affect a shrinking number of applicants, now down to some.50 or so. The Government should make this retreal complete and drop Part 1. If the Bill as a whole is lost, then let us be quite clear: this has been an accident waiting to happen right from the outset—as a result of the Government's own actions, which are entirely self-inflicted. The Government should accept the verdict of this House and of NHS staff.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that the House will support my noble friend and reject the Motion proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We have debated the issue of foundation trusts through the many stages of this Bill. Although noble Lords have expressed some concerns and issues have been raised at each stage, the fact is that this House has asked the other place to think again, the other place has done so and, by a majority of 17 votes, it has decided to support the implementation of the policy to introduce foundation trusts.
Surely the role of this House, as a revising Chamber, has now been fulfilled. It has asked the House of Commons to think again, which it has done. We could argue about the size of the majority, but a majority is a majority and, for me, a majority vote of 17 is sufficient for the decision to have been made.
The role of this House is to question, to challenge and to revise. Were any objective commentator to look at the process of this Bill, he would conclude that the Government have listened. My noble friend has accepted a number of amendments proposed by myself and other noble Lords. In fact, a considerable number of amendments have been voted on and accepted by the Government.
Today, the Government have accepted a suggestion that the first wave of foundation trusts should go forward and then should be subject to review by an independent body before other NHS trusts are allowed to become foundation trusts. What could be fairer than that in terms of listening to, thinking about and accepting the views and concerns of noble Lords in this House? The Government have said that they will review the position. They will ask an independent body to look at what progress has been made before any further NHS trusts can become foundation trusts. Is not that the purpose of this House? Noble Lords have asked the Government to look again at their proposals and the Government have done so. They have
2018
modified their plans to accommodate a review of how the first tranche of foundation trusts goes forward before others are allowed to follow. On what possible basis can this House now say that it will reject the views of the elected Chamber?
What is the purpose of the creation of foundation trusts? Surely it is this: it is to ensure that, over the next few years, the NHS is governed and run in the most effective way possible. After the way in which the NHS has so far been run—through micro-management, central diktat and a central accountability to Parliament which inhibits and gets in the way of innovation and local implementation of national policies—does anyone suggest that we ought not to move on to a more devolved system of administration? That is what foundation trusts will do. Surely we should put our trust in local people to elect their fellow citizens to take part in the governance of the NHS in the future. That is what foundation trusts will do.
The Government have listened. They have revised their proposals and, ultimately, the other place has decided, through a democratic vote, the way in which it wishes to go. For the sake of the NHS, surely we should now allow these measures to go through.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, at this late stage of the Bill I hesitate to return to the core issue, but I should like to do so. The devolved administrations of Wales and Scotland do not wish to head towards foundation trust status and yet people in central administration in those bodies are extremely close to the populations they serve. That is not in any way to swipe at Parliament as it stands, but it is worth noting.
It is also worth noting that the BMA wrote to MPs prior to the vote today and reiterated its arguments. It has been following closely the debates in this House and there is concern in the profession that this marks a return to the internal market of the early 1990s and that the establishment of foundation trusts will prove divisive and exacerbate the inequalities in the NHS— and no one denies that there are inequalities in the NHS.
The encouragement of competition could fly in the face of the fantastically good work that has been done with the establishment of collaborative clinical networks, particularly the cancer networks, that have been driving up improvements in clinical care.
Not all hospitals are of an equally high standard and we should aim to level up standards of care. There is a real concern that those in the first wave will have an advantage. What will happen if foundation trusts concentrate on the areas of service provision that are profitable and easy to manage, as seen within the private sector? Prior to coming into the Chamber today, I phoned a consultant in ITU to check that I had my facts right. Patients eligible for NHS treatment but treated in private hospitals are indeed transferred to NHS ITUs when resources are not available in the private sector. That is because the NHS as it stands is able to provide comprehensive care for the very sickest people in our population. But it is not profitable care

2019
and I cannot see how a foundation trust will want to indulge in the most unprofitable parts of care provision, particularly with the targets set as they are at present.
The primary care trusts' commissioning powers could potentially be undercut by these new providers within the hinterland of their governing body. I listened to the debate in another place and the Minister did indeed refer to a review after the first year. But, of the questions that were posed, two were not answered. First, what happens if these foundation trusts are failing? Will they revert to the NHS as they were before? The second question that was not answered was whether the review would address the impact of a foundation trust on the total health economy of the population being served. Unless a review addresses that, we will simply be putting blinkers on those conducting it regarding the way in which a total health economy could be affected by these changes.
It has been said that there is no evidence that foundation trusts will damage local health economies, but is there any evidence that they will improve care and the local health economies? I have pleaded on many occasions for evidence-based management in the NHS, and I make that plea again. We are looking at an idea driven by any political mantra that one might choose. I speak as a Cross-Bencher and not a party member, but I work in the NHS and I find myself in a bizarre position because of that. I see the burgeoning pressures on the service as it is now, the imbalance between capacity and demand. How do we put the patients' needs back at the heart of all aspects of healthcare?
Currently, the priority seems subtly and inexorably to have shifted from the patient to the paperwork and the management response to targets. I am not sure whether evidence as such—scientifically evaluated evidence—is really driving this debate or whether it is political ideas and headlines.
Perhaps the whole NHS needs a very simple message, and it may be completely obvious. First, every healthcare professional at every level should make sure that the patient is comfortable in body, mind and spirit, however that needs to be done. Secondly, they should ensure that the relatives are calm and understand what is happening. Thirdly— and this should be done only after the first two tasks have been completed—they should fill out the paperwork and see whether the management targets have been met. Perhaps we could prioritise patients again by going over to a mantra of "123", rather like "ABC" for resuscitation. I am not convinced that management changes at the top will achieve that.
The way in which the patient is made comfortable must be evidence-based. Similarly, management changes must be evidence-based. I ask the House to look at whether there really is evidence that these management changes will bring about the outcomes that are hoped for in the Bill.
I do not want to comment on the way in which votes have been cast in one way or another. It feels uncomfortable to be speaking with a time limit of the
2020
end of this Session of Parliament. I sincerely believe that if we had had more time to look through these proposals, more might have been achieved.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whose views on these matters the House respects greatly. He rested his case on the need for greater devolution in respect of hospitals. I think he would accept that these Benches need no lessons on the virtues of devolution. It is an article of faith for us that government has been far too centrally administered by this and previous Administrations, and that the more devolution we have, broadly speaking, the better for this country. The issue, however, as was well stated by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, is whether the means and extent of devolution which these proposals would entail might be discriminatory and unequal in their impact.
If we are to have devolution—and, in principle, these Benches are wholly in favour of it—let us have devolution for all. Let us avoid some of the discriminatory effects that will flow from the Government's proposals and the bureaucratic and governmental flaws that we believe are part of the proposed system.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howe has already eloquently set out the views of these Benches on why we continue to believe that the foundation hospital proposals are misguided in this Bill and why they are harmful to the NHS overall. We are quite used to the Minister not listening to the views of these Benches—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Earl has the right to sum up on his amendment and wind up the debate, and this is a further contribution from the Opposition Front Bench.
Baroness Noakes: Yes, my Lords, it is indeed—it is a further contribution from the Front Bench. We believe that these matters to be so important that we should outline why we believe that the Bill should be sent back to another place.
I was about to say that we expect the Minister not to take account of those on these Benches. However, I am surprised that the well expressed views of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—who represents the views of so many in the clinical professions involved in the NHS—have not been listened to. We believe there to be very serious flaws in the concept of foundation trusts, and it is because of that that we oppose the Bill and believe that it should be sent back to another place and considered again.
I shall cover some areas that we believe to be particularly important, to show why we believe the concept to be so flawed. Noble Lords opposite may not want to listen, but we believe it to be important that the other place hears why we do not believe that the Bill should pass and that we believe that it has flaws that should be addressed.

2021
I should like to address first the issue of how the finances will work. When the idea of foundation trusts was first launched, it was supposed to give flexibility to NHS trusts, to give them more access, to finance. In practice, those freedoms have not been available. NHS trusts seriously wanted those freedoms because they are shackled by the double whammy of Department of Health bureaucracy and the financial constraints of the Treasury. They had no real freedoms, and they were desperate for freedoms so that they could start to borrow to develop their own delivery of healthcare for their local areas.
The idea of foundation trusts sounded almost too good to be true—and of course it was too good to be true, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer invented the zero-sum games to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred. The zero-sum game means that for every pound that NHS foundation trusts borrow, the money available to the rest of the NHS will be reduced. The Chancellor will in effect be pulling the strings of the NHS in all ways, including all foundation trusts.
We believed that foundation trusts would be able to access new sources of finance in the commercial sector, but that, too, is an illusion. We learned only yesterday about the fact that they will be fully borrowed, with virtually no capacity to borrow extra from the private sector.
There is a sketchy borrowing code in the Bill, and borrowing limits that seem not to have any meaning whatever. Others have already touched on governance structures, which are deeply flawed, and do not make clear the respective roles of the board of governors and board of directors.
There are other issues in the Bill that are simply not worked out properly. The Minister constantly told us about flexibility, but flexibility really means that the Government do not know the answers. For those reasons—that they have not delivered on financial freedoms, that the government structures are weak and ill thought-out, and because there is so much detail lacking—we believe that the Bill should be sent back to the other place.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I was not intending to speak again but, having listened to some of the contributions from the Benches opposite, I cannot resist it.
The debate is taking place as though we had not spent nine days considering the Bill, and as though there had not been 200 amendments that the Government have moved or accepted, 90 of which were on foundation trusts. Those on the Opposition Front Bench seem to operate on the basis that they can rake up all the things that they have discussed over those nine days. They have not moved amendments on them; if they are so keen to get the Bill right, why have they not moved amendments on those matters and carried them through the House? We have actually
2022
accepted a lot of the things that they have moved, and they have withdrawn their amendments, but they continue to talk about those things as though the Government had not listened. They simply have not had the nerve to move those amendments and to put them to a vote if that is what they wanted to do.
We have had the same old story from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the zero-sum game. The Benches opposite simply do not accept the billion pounds more that have been put into the NHS in both capital and revenue. There was a zero-sum game under the administration of the Benches opposite, when people did have to queue for money. However, we are talking about a hugely enlarged pot. It has always been the case that, ultimately, both under their administration and under this Government, the pot is finite. However, this is a much bigger pot in which everyone in the NHS is sharing.
We had the dreary old story of the Scottish MPs. As I understand our constitution, all MPs in the House of Commons are equal. Perhaps the Conservative Front Bench is a bit short of Scottish MPs and that is part of its problem. We also had the same old story from the Liberal Democrats about the first foundation trust applicants being chosen on the basis of star ratings. That is simply not true. If noble Lords go back to Hansard they will see that I have said that that is not true. The Secretary of State will judge those applications on a much wider basis.
I could go on, but the brute fact is that the House of Commons has voted to reinstate Clause 1 and Schedule 1. The Benches opposite do not like it because there was a clear majority. They did their best to ensure that that majority was not sufficient. However, it is a clear majority. It is the will of the House of Commons that Clause 1 and Schedule 1 should be restored to the Bill. I urge noble Lords to let the will of the Commons prevail in this area, to reject Amendment No. 1B and not to insist on Amendment No. 1.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I want to be fair to the Government this evening. The Minister conveyed the Secretary of State's offer to conduct a review of the Government's arrangements after a period of time; that offer is certainly not to be dismissed and I do not dismiss it. I understand the offer to me that the review would precede the approval of further applications for foundation status. If that is right, then I think we ought to recognise the downside of the offer. It will serve to entrench the two-tier system for even longer than will currently be the case. If only the Government had taken the trouble to listen to people before embarking on this policy, if only they had taken their time to get the detail of it right, we would not be having this debate this evening.
Nothing the Minister has said persuades me that this House is wrong in opposing once again these deeply flawed proposals. That is why I now ask the House to accept my amendment.
10.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No.5

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Higgins, L.

Alderdice, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hogg, B.

Arran, E.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Home, E.

Attlee,E.

Howe,E.

Avebury, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Howell of Guildford, L.

Bell, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Biffen, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Blatch, B.

Jacobs, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Jenkin of Roding,L.

Bridgeman, V.

Jopling, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Buscombe, B.

Kingsland, L.

Byford, B.

Kirkham, L.

Caithness, E.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Laird, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Chadlington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Chester, Bp.

Liverpool, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Courtown, E.

Lyell, L.

Crathorne, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Crickhowell, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Cumberlege, B.

L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Denham, L.

Maclennan of Rogart,L.

Dholakia, L.

McNally, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Maddock, B.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Ezra, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Falkland, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Methuen, L.

Flather, B.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Fookes, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean,L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Fowler, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Freeman, L.

Montrose, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Naseby, L.

Goodhart, L.

Newby, L.

Goschen, V.

Noakes, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Northbourne, L.

Greaves, L.

Northbrook, L.

Greenway, L.

Northesk, E.

Hamwee, B.

Northover, B.

Hanham, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Onslow, E.

Henley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Peel, E.

2024

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Sharman, L.

Plumb, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Prashar, B.

Sharples, B.

Prior, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Rawlings, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Razzall, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Reay, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Redesdale, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Rees, L.

Strange, B.

Rennard, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rogan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Roper, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rotherwick, L.

Waddington, L.

Russell, E.

Wakeham, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ryder of Wensum,L.

Walmsley, B.

Sandwich, E.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wilcox, B.

Selborne, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Selsdon, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hayman, B.

Alli, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Andrews, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hoyle, L.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Billingham. B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Birt, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bragg, L.

Jones, L.

Brett, L.

Judd,L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brookman, L.

Kilclooney, L.

Burlison, L.

Layard, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Crawley, B.

Mallalieu. B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Mitchell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Desai, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Dubs, L.

Pendry. L.

Elder, L.

Pitkeathley. B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

[Teller]

Radice, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Filkin, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Gale, B.

Rooker, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gilbert, L.

Sawyer, L.

Golding, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Sewel, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Greengross, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grenfell, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Thornton, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harrison, L.

Turnberg, L.

Haskel, L.

Warner, L.

2025

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Wilkins, B.

Whitaker, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.39 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 3, Leave out Clause 3 and insert the following new Clause—
"General duty of the regulator
The regulator must exercise its functions in a manner that—

(a) is consistent with the performance by the Secretary of State of the duties under sections 1, 3 and 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (c. 49) (duty as to health service and services generally and as to university clinical teaching and research), and

(b) has regard to the impact of an NHS foundation trust on the local health economy."

The Commons disagree to this Amendment but propose the following Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill—
4A Page 2, line 3, leave out "his" and insert "its"
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to the words so restored to the Bill.
I want to make a speech of a couple of sentences and read out the vote on the amendment in the Commons. Three hundred and forty-six Members of the other place voted to restore the changes, with 242 against. If that is not the will of the Commons being very clearly expressed, I do not know what is.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Warner.)
4B Lord Clement-Jones had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 4 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4A to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 4".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the only reason for my rising is so that the Minister does not win the moral argument. The vote may have been as it was in the Commons after all the excitement of votes on Clause 1 and Schedule 1. However, there remains a concern about the impact of foundation trusts on the local health economy and that is precisely why the Government achieved the low majority in the other place. It is also why this House remains concerned and why the previous vote went the way that it did. However, in these circumstances, I shall not move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 4B not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"Appeals
The Secretary of State may provide in regulations that decisions of the regulator are to be subject to specified appeal or review mechanisms."
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
5A Because it is not necessary to have special mechanisms for appeals against or reviews of the regulator's decisions.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist in its Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A. I have spoken to these amendments already. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist in its Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
26 Clause 12, page 5, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) In making the code the regulator shall ensure that the economic effect of all commitments to make payments over periods exceeding one year is taken into account."
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
26A Because the provision is not necessary for a borrowing code.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 5.I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 26, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 26A.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
28 Clause 15, page 7, line 27, leave out subsections (2) and (3)
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
28A Because the regulator should be required to place restrictions on private health care.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to moved that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 28 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 28A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 28 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 28A.—(Lord Warner.)
28B Earl Howe had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 28 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Amendment No. 28A, leave out "not".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, although I have tabled Amendment No. 28B, I do not intend to move it.
[Amendment No. 28B not moved.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
29 Clause 15, page 7, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) Every NHS foundation trust shall publish a statement of its total income and expenditure relating to the goods and services referred to in subsection (4) in each financial year."
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
29A Because it is unnecessary.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 29A. Again, for the interest of the House, perhaps I may record that the vote in the Commons was 349 for this change and 217 against. So the will of the Commons has been very clearly expressed.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 29A.—(Lord Warner.)
29B Lord Clement-Jones had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Amendment No. 29A, leave out "not".
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I believe that the Government well understand the need for this particular provision. However, in the circumstances, I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 29B not moved.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
56 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,

(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."

The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendment—
56A Line 12, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under this section may create offences punishable on summary conviction with a maximum fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale"
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56A to Lords Amendment No. 56.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 56A to Lords Amendment No. 56.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
57 Clause 35, page 14, line 18, leave out from "form" to end of line 19 and insert "of the particulars of his qualification to vote as a member of the constituency for which the election is being held"
The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendment—
57A Line 2, after "constituency", insert "or class within a constituency"
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57A to Lords Amendment No. 57.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57A to Lords Amendment No. 57.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
59 Page 14, line 22, leave out "relevant constituency" and insert "constituency for which the election is being held"
The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendment—
59A Line 1, after "constituency", insert "or class within a constituency"
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59A to Lords Amendment No. 59.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59A to Lords Amendment No. 59.—(Lord Warner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
161 Leave out Schedule 1
The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—
161A Page 108, line 11, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 109 and insert—
"Eligibility for membership

3

(1) The persons who may become or continue as members of a public benefit corporation are—

(a) individuals who live in any area specified in the constitution as the area for a public constituency,

2029

(b)individuals employed by the corporation under a contract of employment and, if the constitution so provides, individuals who exercise functions for the purposes of the corporation otherwise than under a contract of employment with the corporation,

(c)if the constitution so provides, individuals who have attended any of the corporation's hospitals as either a patient or the carer of a patient within a period specified in the constitution.

(2)The constitution may specify one or more areas as areas for public constituencies, each of which must be an electoral area for the purposes of local government elections in England and Wales or an area consisting of two or more such electoral areas.

(3)A person may become or continue as a member of the corporation by virtue of sub-paragraph (l)(b) only if—

(a)he is employed by the corporation under a contract of employment which has no fixed term or has a fixed term of at least 12 months, or

(b)he has been continuously employed by the corporation for at least 12 months or, where he exercises functions for the purposes of the corporation as mentioned in that sub- paragraph, he has done so continuously for such a period.

Chapter 1 of Part 14 of the Employment Rights Act 1996(c. 18) applies for the purpose of determining whether an individual has been continuously employed by the corporation, or has continuously exercised functions for the purposes of the corporation, as it applies for the purposes of that Act.

(4)The constitution may divide those who come within sub- paragraph (1)(b) into two or more descriptions of individuals.

(5)An individual providing care in pursuance of a contract (including a contract of employment), or as a volunteer for a voluntary organisation, does not come within sub-paragraph (l)(c).

A voluntary organisation is a body, other than a public or local authority, the activities of which are not carried on for profit.

(6)The constitution may divide those who come within sub- paragraph (1)(c) into three or more descriptions of individuals, one of which is to comprise the carers of patients.

(7)The constitution may make further provision as to the circumstances in which a person may not become or continue as a member.

Constituencies

4

(1) Members of a public benefit corporation are referred to as follows.

(2)Those who live in an area specified in the constitution as an area for any public constituency are referred to collectively as a public constituency.

(3)Those who come within paragraph 3(1)(b) are referred to collectively as the staff constituency and, if the power in paragraph 3(4) is exercised, each description of members is referred to as a class within that constituency.

(4)Those who come, within paragraph 3(l)(c) are referred to collectively as the patients' constituency and, if the power in paragraph 3(6) is exercised, each description of members is referred to as a class within that constituency.

(5)A person who is a member of a constituency, or of a class within a constituency, may not while that membership continues be a member of any other constituency or class.

(6)A person who comes within paragraph 3(1)(b) may not become or continue as a member of any constituency other than the staff constituency.

5 The constitution is to require a minimum number of members of each constituency or, where there are classes within the constituency, of each class.

Becoming a member

5A

(1) An individual who is eligible to become a member of a public benefit corporation may do so on an application made to the corporation.

2030

(2) The constitution may provide for any individual who is—

(a) ligible to become a member of the staff constituency, and

(b) invited by the corporation to become a member of that constituency (and, where there are classes within the constituency, as a member of the appropriate class), to become a member of the corporation as a member of that constituency (and class) without an application being made, unless he informs the corporation that he does not wish to do so.

(3) The constitution may provide for any individual who is—

(a)eligible to become a member of the patients' constituency (otherwise than as the carer of a patient), and

(b) invited by the corporation to become a member of a specified constituency (and where there are classes within the constituency, a member of the specified class), to become a member of the corporation as a member of that constituency (and class) without an application being made, unless he informs the corporation that he does not wish to do so.

(4) The constituency and, where applicable, class to be specified—

(a)if he is eligible to be a member of any public constituency,
is that constituency,

(b)otherwise, is the patients' constituency and, where applicable, the class of which he is eligible to become a member"

161B Page 109, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—
"(4) Members of a constituency or, where there are classes within it, members of each class may elect any of their number to be a member of the board"
161C Page 109, leave out line 32 and insert "members of the corporation other than those who come within paragraph 3(1)(b)"
161D Page 109, line 33, at end insert "(or, where there are classes within it, by each class)"
161E Page 109, line 39, leave out "the area specified under paragraph 3(1)(a)" and insert "an area specified in the constitution as the area for a public constituency"
161F Page 110, line 1, leave out from beginning to "may'' in line 2 and insert "An elected member of the board of governors"
I61G Page 110, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert— "( ) But such a member ceases to hold office if he ceases to be a member of the corporation"
161H Page 110, line 27, after second "executive", insert "(and accounting officer)"
1611 Page 110, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) One of the executive directors is to be a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist (within the meaning of the Dentists Act 1984 (c. 24)); and another is to be a registered nurse or a registered midwife"
161J Page 110, line 33, leave out "the public constituency" and insert "a public constituency or the patients' constituency"
161K Page 110, line 43, leave out "the chief executive" and insert "a committee consisting of the chairman, the chief executive and the other non-executive directors"
161L Page 111, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
"( ) The appointment of a chief executive requires the approval of the board of governors"
161M Page 111, line 8, at end insert "but the constitution may make provision for those matters to be decided pending the establishment of such a committee.
Initial directors of former NHS trusts

17A

(1) This paragraph applies, where the application for authorisation is made under section 4, to the exercise of the powers mentioned in paragraph 16 to appoint the initial non-executive directors and the initial chief executive.

(2)The power to appoint the initial chairman of the corporation is to be exercised by appointing the chairman of the NHS trust, if he wishes to be appointed.

(3)The power to appoint the other initial non-executive directors of the corporation is to be exercised, so far as possible, by appointing any of the non-executive directors of the NHS trust (other than the chairman) who wish to be appointed.

(4)A person appointed in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) or (3) is to be appointed for the unexpired period of his term of office as chairman or (as the case may be) non-executive director of the NHS trust; but if, on any such appointment, that period is less than 12 months, he is to be appointed for 12 months.

(5)The power to appoint the initial chief executive of the corporation is to be exercised by appointing the chief officer of the NHS trust, if he wishes to be appointed.

(6)Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 15(3) do not apply to the appointment of any initial non-executive director in pursuance of this paragraph; and paragraph 16(4) does not apply
to the appointment of the initial chief executive of the corporation in pursuance of sub-paragraph (5)"

161N Page 111, line 12, at end insert "and, where there are classes within it, the class to which he belongs"
1610 Page 111, line 13, at end insert— "( ) a register of interests of the members of the board of governors"
161P Page 111, line 18, at end insert "members of the board of governors and of
161Q Page 111, line 20, leave out from beginning to "available" and insert "A public benefit corporation is to make the following documents"
161R Page 111, leave out line 25
161S Page 111, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) The corporation is also to make the registers mentioned in paragraph 18 available for inspection by members of the public, except in circumstances prescribed by regulations; and, so far as the registers are required to be available—

(a)they are to be available free of charge at all reasonable times,

(b)a person who requests it is to be provided with a copy of or extract from them"

161T Page 111, line 33, leave out "the copy or extract" and insert "a copy or extract under this paragraph"
161U Page 111, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) An officer of the Audit Commission may be the auditor if he is appointed by the board with the agreement of the Commission"
161V Page 112, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
"( ) Where an officer of the Audit Commission is appointed as auditor, the Commission is to charge the public benefit corporation such fees for his services as will cover the full cost of providing them.
( ) The corporation is to establish a committee of non-executive directors as an audit committee to perform such monitoring, reviewing and other functions as are appropriate.
( ) In this paragraph "the Audit Commission" means the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales"
161W Page 112, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) If trustees are appointed under section 22, the Comptroller and Auditor General may also examine—

(a) the accounts kept by the trustees,

2032

(b) records relating to them, and

(c) report of an auditor on them"

61X Page 112, leave out line 31 and insert—
"( ) The constitution is to provide for the functions of the corporation under this paragraph to be delegated to the accounting officer"
161Y Page 112, line 38, leave out "and the registrar of companies"
161Z Page 112, line 41, leave out "its public constituency" and insert "any public constituency and (if there is one) of the patients' constituency"
161AA Page 113, line 2, leave out "him" and insert "it"
161BB Page 113, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
"( ) The document containing the information is to be prepared by the directors.
( ) In preparing the document the directors must have regard to the views of the board of governors"
Lord Warner: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 161 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161A to 161BB to the words so restored to the Bill. Briefly, I wish to remind the House what I said earlier. The will of the Commons has been expressed in this area. Sensible amendments to this schedule have been discussed and inserted into the schedule, and many people in this House have agreed to those amendments in our debates.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 161 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161A to 161BB to the words so restored to the Bill.—(Lord Warner.)
161CC Lord Clement-Jones rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 161 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161A to 161BB to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 161".
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 161 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 161A to 161 BB to the words so restored to the Bill, leave out from "House" to end and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 161".
10.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 161CC) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 169; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No.6

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Avebury, L.

Alderdice, L.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bell, L.

Arran, E.

Biffen, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Blatch, B.

Attlee, E.

Bowness, L.

2033

Bradshaw, L.

Lucas, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Luke, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Buscombe, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Byford, B.

L.

Caithness, E.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McNally, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Maddock, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chadlington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Marlesford, L.

Chester, Bp.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Colwyn, L.

Methuen, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Courtown, E.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Craigavon, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crathorne, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Montrose, D.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Naseby, L.

Denham, L.

Newby, L.

Dholakia, L.

Noakes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dundee, E.

Northbrook, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Northesk, E.

Elton, L.

Northover, B.

Ezra, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Falkland, V.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Onslow, E.

Flather, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fookes, B.

Parkinson, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Peel, E.

Fowler, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Freeman, L.

Plumb, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Prior, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rawlings, B.

Goodhart, L.

Razzall, L.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Redesdale, L.

Greaves, L.

Rees, L.

Greenway, L.

Rennard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Renton, L.

Hanham, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Roper, L.

Henley, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Russell, E.

Higgins, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Ryder of Wensurn, L.

Hogg, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Home, E.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Howe, E.

Selborne, E.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Selsdon, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Sharman. L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Sharples, B.

Jacobs, L.

Shutt of Greetland,L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jopling, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kimball, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

King of Bridgwater,L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kingsland, L.

Strange, B.

Kirkham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Laird, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Ullswater, V.

Liverpool, Bp.

Waddington, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wakeham, L.

2034

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Wilcox, B.

Walmsley,B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Alli, L.

Hoyle, L.

Andrews, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Billingham, B.

Jones, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Bragg, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brookman,L.

Lockwood.B.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos,V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clark of Windermere,L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Elder, L.

Radice, L

Evans of Parkside, L.

Randall of St.Budeaux, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rooker, L

[Teller]

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L

Sawyer, L.

Filkin, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gale, B.

Sewel, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Simon V

Gilbert, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Golding, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Goudie, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Greengross, B.

Turnberg, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Warner, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harrison, L.

Whitaker, B.

Haskel, L.

Whitty, L.

Hayman, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly. Motion, as amended, agreed to.
10.57 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 11.15 p.m. to receive the Commons message on the Criminal Justice Bill. A Business Statement will then be made.
Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure until 11.15 p.m.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is wise that the House should rise until 11.15 in order to receive the

2035
message from the Commons on the Criminal Justice Bill. At that time it would be wise for the House to give time to reflect on the amendments that have been made to the Criminal Justice Bill and are in dispute between the two Houses. I shall therefore seek at 11.15 to move the adjournment of the House for today, so that we might resume discussion of the Criminal Justice Bill and any other outstanding business on the morrow.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we are making considerable progress on the Criminal Justice Bill. We intend to make progress on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill too. It would be unprecedented for the House to adjourn at this stage when the other place is waiting upon our deliberations. Accordingly, I value very greatly the offer made by the Opposition Chief Whip that we should enter into discussions during the adjournment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 10.59 to 11.15 p.m.]

Adjournment
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is with some regret that I report to the House that the Commons message is slightly delayed. Accordingly, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 11.45 p.m. to receive the Commons message on the Criminal Justice Bill.
Moved, That the House do adjourn until 11.45 p.m.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley Lord Cope of Berkeley rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, leave out from "House" to end and insert, "do now adjourn".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if we wait for that message until 11.45 p.m. it means that we shall not be able to start discussion of the Criminal Justice Bill until one o'clock or, probably, later. By the time that we have completed discussion of it and it has gone back it will obviously be three o'clock—or something like that—in the morning. That is particularly late— especially by the standards of the House of Commons these days. We should of course think about the wellbeing of our colleagues at the other end of the Corridor, as well as our own.
More seriously, as far as I can detect, the various parties seem to have moved close to one another on the Bill on the various outstanding issues. We should, as a House, attempt to facilitate the ability of the Government, Opposition and other parties to come to an agreement about the future and settle it on a Bill about which there has been much controversy.
I therefore think that it is much better if we adjourn the House today at this point and resume our discussion in the morning. The message is now due between now and 11.45, but it can perfectly well be received if the House is not sitting—it does not require the House to be sitting for the Clerks to do their
2036
necessary work on it—so that when we return tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock for Questions, we could then proceed to discuss it in a proper manner.
Meanwhile, the parties will have had a better opportunity to discuss and reach agreement on the outstanding issues. If not, they could, in my view, be settled quickly by votes tomorrow and the Bill would proceed, or not, by virtue of the decisions of both Houses. So I think that it is better if the House adjourns until tomorrow—in the interests of the Commons, good government and arriving at sensible legislation; which we all want. I am not sure whether I need to move an amendment that we should adjourn now for the evening, as opposed to adjourning until 11.45 p.m.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, leave out from "House" to end and insert, "do now adjourn".— (Lord Cope of Berkeley.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I very much hope that the House will not now adjourn. Everything has a precedent and I hope that the current situation has occurred during the past 100 years or so. I have not been here for all that time, but I am somewhat puzzled that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, with his troops here and with his troops in the other place who all predicted tonight going well into the night and into the morning, should find what I can only believe is a political reason for choosing not to proceed as we have before. The puzzle is that Members on the Opposition Benches and these Benches were told, not only that it would be a very late night, but that the sitting would run well into the morning, so we are here to do our business. We know the score and the arithmetic of what would happen: the wholly unelected House, the House of Lords, would be dictating to the elected House. We do not intend that that should last much longer, but it is the current situation.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I very much hope that that was taken as a threat, as it is the reality. It is a nonsense that the elected House, in trying to do its business, should find that its will is thwarted time and again by a wholly unelected House. I am here to transact the business that the House was told would be dealt with. I see no reason why we should not proceed along the lines that the Government Deputy Chief Whip has suggested.
Lord Rope: My Lords, it would not be useful to prolong the debate, but, in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I must make two points. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I have made it clear to the Government Chief Whip throughout the week that it would not be sensible to continue serious business of this House after midnight tonight. We have secured on the Order Paper provision for the House to meet tomorrow, as has the House of Commons. Given that we will have no further business until 1 a.m., it would be appropriate for us to adjourn now.

2037
The late Leader of the House Lord Williams of Mostyn repeatedly said how foolish it was for this House to carry out business after midnight. At such a time, when we are trying to resolve very difficult political issues, we will get better and more sensible answers if we have time to sleep, to discuss and come back tomorrow with sensible decisions. I hope, therefore, that we can proceed to a vote on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
Lord Carter: My Lords, we should be clear what we are doing. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, knows well, it is a longstanding convention that the Government adjourn the House. In my five years as Chief Whip, there has been one exception: during the debate on House of Lords reform, which was a special case. That is certainly not the case tonight. During l0 years on the Opposition Front Bench, I cannot remember trying to adjourn the House against the wishes of the Government. Clearly, the Opposition will win tonight, as they have their troops and the Liberal Democrats. But we are pushing our conventions to the limit. It is a clear convention that it is the Government who adjourn the House; they should not be forced to do so by the Opposition.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the debate is so important that I wish that the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, the Chief Whip, were present. Unfortunately, he cannot be here, as he is at Buckingham Palace, at the command of Her Majesty. I wish that he were here, and I might even say that I wish that I were there at this moment During this short debate, I have had the supreme advantage of hearing contributions from two former Chief Whips on this side of the House, who have spoken with great authority and sense.
It would be unprecedented if the House adjourned at this stage. We sometimes devalue the issues that occur at this time of the year between this House and the other place by referring to the process as "ping-pong", as if it were a game. By analogy, ping-pong requires two players, and one player at the other end continues to play. Are we, as the unelected House, taking our bat and going home, when the House that represents the people of this country is waiting on our deliberations and decisions?
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for drawing attention to the sitting hours of the House of Commons. However, I wish that he had drawn attention to their elected base rather than the conditions under which they work, because it is their elected position that counts at this time. We are the revising body. They are the body required to pass legislation on which they have a mandate. Therefore, let me put it to the House again: if we adjourn, we will be carrying out an unprecedented act. We will have ended ping-pong unilaterally for the first time. It is an unprecedented situation. If the House can act unilaterally in this way, it will cause great concern outside this House and set a most unfortunate
2038
precedent for the way in which this House considers its important role of revising legislation. I suggest that we reject the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard drew attention to the absence of the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, but I made absolutely no complaint about the absence of the Government Chief Whip. On the contrary, if the state banquet were not proceeding, perhaps the Leader of my party would be standing at this Dispatch Box rather than myself because he is at the same function. I make no complaint about that, but it draws attention to the difficulties of conducting negotiations on this legislation.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, did not take me at my word when I said earlier that my desire was to facilitate negotiations between the various parties to try to get the best legislation. I do not think that we would achieve that by dragging things on between the Houses until two, three or four o'clock in the morning. As the Deputy Chief Whip said, we sometimes devalue this process by calling it ping-pong. However, it is a very serious process and it concerns serious issues. The issues on the Criminal Justice Bill are, after all, to do with liberties, such as a fair trial and so forth. Those issues deserve consideration and I hope that we can make more progress before we finally decide the matter.
I do not think that it is such a great thing to postpone further deliberations until tomorrow. As the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said, all sides have always envisaged that. Business was predicated on the basis that we might sit tomorrow and that we might have business to deal with tomorrow. That is a sensible time to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have listened to the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Graham, who said that this situation is unprecedented. I also heard it said that only the Government have the opportunity to adjourn. Do the Opposition have the constitutional right to move an adjournment in the circumstances?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we have the absolute right under the rules of the House to move the adjournment. We do not decide the adjournment. The Government do not decide the adjournment. The House decides the adjournment. That is how things work every day. Of course, on most days I am glad to say that we succeed in reaching agreement through the usual channels and I am grateful for the co-operation. Occasionally however, that is not possible. This situation is not unprecedented as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested, and it is certainly within the rules. The House will decide as it ordinarily does. I am sorry that it has not been possible to reach agreement between the usual channels on these matters, but when great issues are at stake and we are in a difficult situation—which is not an everyday situation as far as your Lordships are concerned—the House must decide what to do.
11.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 148; Not-Contents, 99.

Division N0.7

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jacobs, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Arran, E.

Kilclooney, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kimball, L.

Attlee,E.

King of Bridgwater,L.

Avebury, L.

Kingsland, L.

Barker, B.

Kirkham, L.

Bell,L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Blatch, B.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Bowness, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Byford, B.

Luke, L.

Caithness, E.

Lyell,L.

Campbell of Alloway,L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

Carlisle of Bucklow,L.

L.

Chadlington, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

McNally, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Maddock,B.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Crathome, L.

Marlesford, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Methuen, L.

Denham, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Dholakia,L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dundee, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Montrose, D.

Eden of Winton, L.

Naseby, L.

Elton, L.

Newby, L.

Ezra, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Falkland, V.

Noakes, B.

Ferrers, E.

Northbourne, L.

Flather, B.

Northbrook, L.

Fookes, B.

Northesk, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Northover, B.

Fowler, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Freeman, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Glentoran, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goodhart, L.

Peel, E.

Goschen, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Greaves, L.

Plumb, L.

Hamwee, B.

Prior, L.

Hanham, B.

Rawlings, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Razzall, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Reay, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Henley, L.

Rees, L.

Higgins, L.

Rennard, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

Renton, L.

Hogg, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Home, E.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Howe, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Russell, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hurd of Westwell,L.

Sanderson of Bowden,L.

2040

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Seccombe, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Selsdon,L.

Tordoff,L.

Sharman,L.

Trefgame,L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Waddington,L.

Sharples, B.

Wakeham, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Walmsley, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Wilcox, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Alli, L.

Hoyle, L.

Andrews, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bach, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Jones, L.

Billingham, B.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brett, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Listowel, E.

Brookman, L.

Liverpool, E.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Davies of Oldham,L.[Teller]

Massey of Darwen,B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde,B.

Mitchell, L.

Desai, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Dixon, L.

Onslow, E.

Dubs, L.

Pendry, L.

Elder, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting,L.

Radice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

[Teller]

Rooker, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Filkin, L.

Sawyer, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gale, B.

Sewel, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Simon, V.

Gilbert, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Golding, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goudie, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thornton, B.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Harrison, L.

Warner, L.

Haskel, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hayman, B.

Whitaker, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Whitty, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before midnight.

  Starred Questions and Statements: Back-Bench Contributions
  Starred Questions and Statements: Back-Bench Contributions
  Religiously Aggravated Offences
  Religiously Aggravated Offences
  Overseas Students: Visa Extension Charges
  Overseas Students: Visa Extension Charges
  Education, Family Care and Crime Prevention: Administrative Areas
  Education, Family Care and Crime Prevention: Administrative Areas
  Prisons: Child-centred Visits
  Prisons: Child-centred Visits
  HM Inspector of Prisons
  HM Inspector of Prisons
  Women's Security: Licensed Premises in London
  Women's Security: Licensed Premises in London
  Coroner Arrangements
  Coroner Arrangements
  Burial Law
  Burial Law
  EU Anti-trafficking Measures
  EU Anti-trafficking Measures
  Mr Joe Scholes: Death in Custody
  Mr Joe Scholes: Death in Custody
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Detainees
  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001: Detainees
  Asylum Seekers' Children
  Asylum Seekers' Children
  EU Internal Boundaries
  EU Internal Boundaries
  Police Funding 2004–05
  Police Funding 2004–05
  Iraq: Radiometric Survey of South
  Iraq: Radiometric Survey of South
  Small Arms
  Small Arms
  MoD Police: Operational Report 2002–03
  MoD Police: Operational Report 2002–03
  Medical Supply Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Medical Supply Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Employment Service Estate
  Employment Service Estate
  Disabled People: Unemployment
  Disabled People: Unemployment
  Mobile Telephone Numbers: Comprehensive Directory
  Mobile Telephone Numbers: Comprehensive Directory
  Credit Cards: Annual Percentage Rates of Interest
  Credit Cards: Annual Percentage Rates of Interest
  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  London Stock Exchange: OFT Investigation on Increase in Issuer Fees
  London Stock Exchange: OFT Investigation on Increase in Issuer Fees
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Market Sensitive Statistical Information
  Market Sensitive Statistical Information
  Licensing Decisions: Representations by Interested Parties
  Licensing Decisions: Representations by Interested Parties
  Gambling
  Gambling
  Hazardous Waste
  Hazardous Waste
  Shipbreaking
  Shipbreaking
  Watercourse Dredgings
  Watercourse Dredgings
  Wetlands
  Wetlands
  Waste: Pulverised Fuel Ash and Blast Furnace Slag
  Waste: Pulverised Fuel Ash and Blast Furnace Slag
  Hazardous Waste Criteria and Regulations
  Hazardous Waste Criteria and Regulations
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Holidays
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Holidays
  Civil Service: Staffing
  Civil Service: Staffing
  B6403: Colsterworth Junction Improvement
  B6403: Colsterworth Junction Improvement
  Northern Ireland: Listed Buildings
  Northern Ireland: Listed Buildings
  Northern Ireland: Advice to Ministers
  Northern Ireland: Advice to Ministers
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  Independent Monitoring Commission
  Independent Monitoring Commission
  Strangford Lough: Prawn Fishing
  Strangford Lough: Prawn Fishing
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Smoking Policy
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Smoking Policy
  Northern Ireland Bureau, Washington
  Northern Ireland Bureau, Washington
  Ulster Scots Culture
  Ulster Scots Culture
  Northern Ireland: Religious Discrimination
  Northern Ireland: Religious Discrimination
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  Cross-Border Implementation Bodies: Provision of Cars for Chief Executives
  Northern Ireland: Prisoners
  Northern Ireland: Prisoners
  Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure
  Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure
  HIV and AIDS: Developing Countries and Generic Drugs
  HIV and AIDS: Developing Countries and Generic Drugs
  Russia: DfID Support for Harm Reduction Programmes
  Russia: DfID Support for Harm Reduction Programmes
  Central and South America: Street Children
  Central and South America: Street Children
  "Middle Income" Countries
  "Middle Income" Countries
  House of Lords: Representation of Political Parties
  House of Lords: Representation of Political Parties
  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  Supreme Court
  Supreme Court
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Nutrition
  Nutrition
  Patient and Public Involvement Forums
  Patient and Public Involvement Forums
  NHS Prescriptions
  NHS Prescriptions
  General Practitioner Incomes: Rate for Young Patients
  General Practitioner Incomes: Rate for Young Patients
  National Poisons Information Service: Clinical Advice
  National Poisons Information Service: Clinical Advice